Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own output? We find that the ability is largely present before any targeted training: prompted few-shot, a base model already predicts an external judge's multi-attribute quality scores on open-ended responses well above chance across three benchmarks.
arXiv:2606. 28050v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation.
arXiv:2604. 06996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs.
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
arXiv:2607. 20083v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training with evaluator feedback on policy-induced samples serves as a major mechanism for improving large language models.
arXiv:2608. 10209v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Feedback signals used to train Large Language Models (LLMs) are the primary driver of their behavior and our main lever for instilling alignment with human values and objectives.
arXiv:2606. 18327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models (LMs) that faithfully describe their own behavior can more easily be audited, understood, and trusted by users.
arXiv:2604. 22891v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on.
arXiv:2606. 00251v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The ability to recognize one's own limitations and decide whether to solve a problem or delegate is fundamental for reliable intelligent systems.
arXiv:2608. 07531v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence.
Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores.
arXiv:2607. 05541v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning is commonly used to train large language models using environmental feedback.
Reward models (RMs) provide critical feedback signals for LLM post-training, notably in reinforced fine-tuning (RFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) pipelines. However, current reward evaluation relies on heterogeneous criteria such as rule-based verifiers, ground-truth references, procedural checklists, and complex rubrics, where a unified mechanism to integrate all types of evidence remains unexplored.