arXiv:2606. 15029v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation.
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.
arXiv:2609.00494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based factuality judges provide scalable evaluation signals, but their metrics are often systematically biased relative to human judgments. We stud...
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.
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.
arXiv:2603. 10400v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Designing service systems requires selecting among alternative configurations -- choosing the best chatbot variant, the optimal routing policy, or the most effective quality control procedure.
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
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.
arXiv:2511. 21140v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators.
arXiv:2410. 13341v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High quality annotations are increasingly a bottleneck in the explosively growing machine learning ecosystem.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.