arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
By Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad
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.
By Zhuochun Li, Yong Zhang, Ming Li, Yuelyu Ji, Yiming Zeng, Ning Cheng, Yun Zhu, Yanmeng Wang, Shaojun Wang, Jing Xiao, Daqing He
CriticGen introduces a generation‑aware evaluation framework that generates sample‑specific evaluation dimensions and scoring criteria across categories such as subjective, objective, and self‑derived constraints. These dynamic rubrics produce a score, reason, executable refinement suggestion, and a refined answer, enabling models to diagnose and target flaws in their responses. Experiments show significant gains in rubric quality, score correlation, and actionable feedback, with 73.17% of answers improved and a 93.28% non‑degradation rate.
By Huifang Du, Zecheng Zuo, Sen Wang, Chenghao Fan, Haofen Wang, Yehui Yang
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu
arXiv:2507. 15100v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Natural Language Inference (NLI) determines whether a premise entails, contradicts, or is neutral with respect to a hypothesis.
By Chathuri Jayaweera, Brianna Yanqui, Bonnie J. Dorr
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