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 the "Prompt Lottery" phenomenon, where paraphrastic rephrasings of judge prompts in LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaJ) lead to inconsistent judgments and can even reverse model rankings. A large-scale study across various tasks, judge families, and model backbones demonstrates that these prompt variations significantly alter evaluation outcomes. A user study shows that LLMaJ judges are 6–9 times more sensitive to prompt rephrasings than humans, and that aggregating multiple prompts improves robustness by focusing on consistent judgments.
By Ilija Subasic, Brett Levert, Andrew Rabinovich, Sajjad Pakdamansavoji, Zhao Chen
arXiv:2604. 09497v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Accurate evaluation is central to the large language model (LLM) ecosystem, guiding model selection and downstream adoption across diverse use cases.
By Hippolyte Gisserot-Boukhlef, Nicolas Boizard, Emmanuel Malherbe, C\'eline Hudelot, Pierre Colombo
Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response. The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings.
arXiv:2609.21231v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Reference-based metrics for Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) such as M$^2$ and ERRANT assume that the reference set enumerates all valid edits, and t...
By Ruotian Wu, Bill E. Johnson, Gene Saunders, Osama Hamzeh, Ankit Vadehra, Pascal Poupart
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