arXiv:2606. 11196v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Decentralized LLM inference networks need lightweight, reference-free quality evaluation for Proof of Quality (PoQ).
arXiv:2410. 13341v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High quality annotations are increasingly a bottleneck in the explosively growing machine learning ecosystem.
arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.
arXiv:2608.30731v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Assessing claim check-worthiness is an essential first step in automated fact-checking pipelines. This work is motivated by a real deployment challen...
arXiv:2607. 19678v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer.
arXiv:2609.16487v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present a framework for evaluating data-science agents on live, continuously updated data using executable ground truth and format-agnostic factoid...
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
The paper introduces a risk‑controlled framework for using large language models (LLMs) as judges in tasks without reference answers. By calibrating uncertainty thresholds on a held‑out set, the method ensures that the false discovery rate of accepted verdicts stays below a user‑specified level α with high probability, using finite‑sample Clopper–Pearson intervals. When the parametric judge lacks confidence, the instance is routed to a retrieval‑augmented mode with a second calibrated threshold, preserving the error guarantee while achieving higher coverage than single‑mode baselines.
The paper introduces LLM‑PeerReview, an unsupervised ensemble method that selects the best response from multiple LLM-generated candidates by scoring each answer with several LLMs, aggregating those scores via averaging or a graphical model, and choosing the highest-scoring response. The approach is peer‑review inspired, transparent, and interpretable, and it outperforms the Smoothie‑Global model by 6.9%–7.3% across factual recall QA, math reasoning, and instruction‑following tasks. The authors also provide a curated benchmark suite of 12 ensemble methods evaluated on four datasets and three task families to aid reproducibility.
The paper examines LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to assess AI-generated text, questioning the assumption that judgments are derived from reasoning over responses and rubrics. It finds that classifiers trained solely on rubric text can predict judge outputs, indicating that rubrics contain recoverable evaluative signals independent of the responses. Counterfactual experiments show judges often fail to adjust decisions when either the response or rubric criterion is reversed, raising doubts about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation.
JudgeStealer is a query‑efficient framework that extracts the judging capabilities of large language models across pointwise scoring, pairwise comparison, and listwise ranking protocols. It leverages cross‑protocol agreement to convert pointwise scores into higher‑order supervision, dynamically selects informative inputs, and applies score smoothing and multi‑protocol review to preserve ordinal structure and avoid catastrophic forgetting. Experiments show it outperforms existing baselines, achieving up to 73.3% accuracy on pointwise, 87.0% on pairwise, and 71.6% on listwise evaluation, while remaining robust against common extraction defenses.
arXiv:2608. 02975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in MQM-based translation quality (TQ) evaluation, and recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) promise even greater improvements.