arXiv Computation and Language

Not All Criteria Matter: Importance-Aware Criteria Weighting for Rubric-Based LLM Evaluation

arXiv AI
3d ago

Rubric Judgments Lack Uncertainty: Conformal Weighting for LLM Evaluation

Rubric-based evaluation of large language models (LLMs) often assigns binary judgments to multiple criteria, but the certainty of these judgments varies widely. Existing aggregation methods treat all criteria as equally certain, potentially misleading reinforcement learning signals. The authors propose Uncertainty-aware Rubric Weighting (URW), a training-free framework that uses conformal calibration to quantify and weight criterion-level uncertainty, improving preference accuracy and downstream RL alignment.

By Licheng Pan, Haocheng Yang, Haoxuan Li, Yuzhou Chen, Yichen Sun, Yuan Lu, Xiaoxi Li, Hao Wang, Zhixuan Chu, Kui Ren
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 2

Many Voices, One Reward: Multi-Role Rubric Generation for LLM Judging and Reward Modeling

Reliable reward and preference signals are critical for evaluating and optimizing large language models on open-ended tasks. Rubric-based judges offer a transparent way to decompose such judgments into explicit evaluation criteria, but existing annotation-free rubric generators typically rely on a single generic evaluator.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
5d ago

Do Factuality Methods Make LLMs More Factual? Reproducibility and Fair Comparison

The paper reproduces five factuality alignment methods for large language models—three on‑policy RL approaches (PPO, GRPO, Dr.GRPO) and two offline preference optimization methods (DPO, KTO)—using a common benchmark and evaluation metrics. None of the methods consistently outperforms the base model, and the rewards appear to favor format, length, or brevity rather than factuality or relevance. The study also highlights problems with current evaluation practices, noting that metrics and benchmarks often fail to measure prompt relevance and rely on fragile LLM judges and retrieval for verification.

arXiv AI
Sep 30

PADM\'E: Preference Alignment Data Synthesis for Meta-Evaluation of LM Agent Evaluators

PADM'E is a method for synthesizing preference‑aligned data to meta‑evaluate language‑model (LM) evaluators of agentic behaviors. It reframes meta‑evaluation as a preference judgment problem, generating criterion‑based data with small LMs and no human involvement. In a prototype, PADM'E produced 1,000 samples across four domains and three criteria, and human validation showed agreement with human judgment rising from 73% to 85% compared to a naive baseline.

By Cheng Chang, Yining Mao, Peng Qi
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 31

Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

arXiv:2604. 07343v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values.

By Qiyao Ma, Dechen Gao, Rui Cai, Boqi Zhao, Hanchu Zhou, Junshan Zhang, Zhe Zhao