Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.
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...
By Khaoula Chehbouni, Melina Medjdoub, Florian Carichon, Golnoosh Farnadi, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
The paper introduces UPHELD, a large benchmark of human-to-human dialogues written by professional script writers, featuring realistic turn densities and over 36,000 per-turn human annotations. It evaluates existing automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge methods, finding them unreliable against expert human judgment. Using UPHELD, the authors develop a Mixture-of-Judges framework that improves correlation with human assessments by about 30%.
By Ilija Subasic, Andrew Rabinovich, Zhao Chen
TherapyGym is a framework designed to evaluate and improve therapy chatbots on two key clinical dimensions: fidelity to evidence-based practice and safety. It uses the Cognitive Therapy Rating Scale (CTRS) to automatically score adherence to CBT techniques across multi‑turn sessions, and a multi‑label annotation scheme to assess therapy‑specific risks such as failure to address harm or abuse. The framework also introduces THERAPYJUDGEBENCH, a validation set of 116 dialogues with 1,270 expert ratings, and serves as a training harness where CTRS and safety rewards guide reinforcement learning with diverse patient simulations, leading to significant improvements in expert‑rated performance.
By Fangrui Huang, Souhad Chbeir, Arpandeep Khatua, Sheng Wang, Sijun Tan, Kenan Ye, Lily Bailey, Merryn Daniel, Ryan Louie, Sanmi Koyejo, Ehsan Adeli
arXiv:2608. 06329v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Task-oriented conversational agents are evaluated using curated or automatically generated benchmarks, yet benchmark quality is rarely assessed.
By Noam Koren, Roy Bar-Haim, Abigail Goldsteen
arXiv:2607. 12085v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality.
By Niranjan Kumar M, Balaji Nagarajan, Karthik Nair, Faysal Satter, Nithin Surendran