arXiv:2410. 13341v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High quality annotations are increasingly a bottleneck in the explosively growing machine learning ecosystem.
arXiv:2605. 23595v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid advancement of machine learning has led to an unprecedented expansion of model ecosystems, making it increasingly difficult to assess the reliability of newly released models on unseen and unlabeled data.
The paper introduces JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark that systematically quantifies judgment biases in large language model (LLM)-based judges across four dimensions and 12 bias types. It evaluates both generative and discriminative judges, revealing significant bias patterns that undermine reliability. The authors propose bias-aware training—reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges—to reduce these biases while maintaining evaluation performance.
arXiv:2606. 11196v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Decentralized LLM inference networks need lightweight, reference-free quality evaluation for Proof of Quality (PoQ).
arXiv:2601. 22588v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design.
arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
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.
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...
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: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. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
The paper introduces NAPHA, a lightweight post‑hoc alignment method that improves large language model (LLM) predictions of human judgment distributions (HJD) by matching LLM output distributions to HJD through entropy‑based class assignment and specialized alignment models. Experiments on five datasets show that while LLMs perform near human‑level on hard‑label tasks, they struggle with soft‑label predictions, and NAPHA consistently enhances soft‑label accuracy, especially on high‑entropy instances. The study also demonstrates that better entropy class prediction can further boost NAPHA’s effectiveness.