The paper introduces DECO, a diagnostic tool that factorises content into independent criteria for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on content moderation tasks. Using DECO and pairwise evaluation across four datasets and four LLMs, the authors find that high benchmark scores can mask significant failures at the criterion level, especially when decisions hinge on specific content aspects rather than overall harmfulness. The study underscores that aggregated label performance does not guarantee reliable criterion-conditioned evaluation, calling for new methods that explicitly assess this behavior.
arXiv:2609.10410v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The growing complexity of content moderation policies presents a critical challenge for their consistent operationalization. While foundation models po...
By Ayan Majumdar, Shounak Paul, Pushpdeep Singh, Ines Abdelaziz, Sayeh Jarollahi, Seungeon Lee, Krishna P. Gummadi, Ingmar Weber, Abhisek Dash
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
By Bertil Braun, Martin Forell
arXiv:2608. 15600v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The widespread circulation of abusive online content has increased the need for reliable moderation of Chinese social-media text.
By Mingyu Yuan, Shengtao Wen, Lingbing Guo, Zhen Bi, Xiang Chen
arXiv:2608.21775v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, yet they remain vulnerable to generating harmful content. From adver...
By Afshin Orojlooyjadid, Hitesh Patel
arXiv:2606. 15396v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Malicious content generated from large language models (LLMs) could pose severe safety risks and ethical concerns.
By Wenbo Yu, Bohua Wang, Hao Fang, Kuofeng Gao, Jingru Zeng, Xiaochen Yang, Tianyi Zhang, Xiaoxiao Ma, Jiawei Kong, Hao Wu, Bin Chen, Shu-Tao Xia, Min Zhang
arXiv:2605.24981v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotati...
By Yavuz Durmazkeser, Patrik Okanovic, Andreas Kirsch, Torsten Hoefler, Nezihe Merve G\"urel
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
By Ej Zhou, Lucas Resck, Zheng Hui, Anna Korhonen
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
By Mingyuan Xu, Xinzi Tan, Jiawei Wu, Doudou Zhou
arXiv:2607. 28801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples.
By Philipp D. Siedler, Jordan Sassoon
PADM'E is a method for synthesizing preference‑aligned data to meta‑evaluate language‑model (LM) evaluators of agentic behaviors. It reframes meta‑evaluation as a preference judgment problem, generating criterion‑based data with small LMs and no human involvement. In a prototype, PADM'E produced 1,000 samples across four domains and three criteria, and human validation showed agreement with human judgment rising from 73% to 85% compared to a naive baseline.
By Cheng Chang, Yining Mao, Peng Qi
The paper introduces SEAV, a verification‑centric framework for evaluating jailbreak attempts against large language models. SEAV decomposes responses into ordered steps and checks both validity and correctness using LLM‑as‑a‑judge and retrieval‑grounded verification. The method reduces false positives by 14.9 percentage points on a strategic‑dishonesty diagnostic and reclassifies 22.1–51.0% of previously successful jailbreaks as invalid across multiple benchmarks.
By Qilong Wu, Sahil Wadhwa, Pranab Mohanty, Giri Iyengar, Varun Chandrasekaran