arXiv:2508. 11847v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We propose a method for evaluating the robustness of widely used LLM ranking systems -- variants of a Bradley--Terry model -- to dropping a worst-case very small fraction of preference data.
arXiv:2601. 21816v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) from human preference data is crucial for obtaining LLM leaderboards.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.
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.
arXiv:2609.38860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Learning from human preferences is central to large language model (LLM) alignment, but human preference annotation is costly. Active preference lear...
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.
arXiv:2608.29257v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a standard format for evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet the popularity of answer options can confound e...
arXiv:2602. 02898v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language model benchmarks are pervasive and computationally-efficient proxies for real-world performance.
arXiv:2606. 05308v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: With PRECISE, we extended Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics by combining a small human-labeled set with a large LLM-judged set.
The paper introduces DIAL, a framework that uses large language models (LLMs) as judges while mitigating position bias and aligning their judgments with human preferences. DIAL separates judge‑specific position effects, learns shared structure in debiased LLM preferences, and adaptively calibrates this structure toward human targets using limited human comparisons. Experiments on simulations and three human‑preference benchmarks show that DIAL remains robust to unbalanced response order, achieves strong human‑aligned rankings with few labels, and adapts when LLM information is imperfect, supported by a real‑data study of over 410K judgments from 21 LLM judges.
The paper investigates the issue of self‑bias when large language models (LLMs) generate and evaluate their own benchmarks. Using machine translation as a testbed, it shows that LLMs as both test‑set creators and evaluators produce model‑specific, homogeneous outputs that inflate their own scores, even when diversity controls are applied. The bias is strong enough that each model ranks itself first, overriding peer consensus, and the phenomenon also appears in open‑ended generation tasks.
arXiv:2604. 06996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs.
arXiv:2606. 12881v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present an approach to fine-tuning large language models using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), a reinforcement learning technique.