arXiv:2606. 28050v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own output? We find that the ability is largely present before any targeted training: prompted few-shot, a base model already predicts an external judge's multi-attribute quality scores on open-ended responses well above chance across three benchmarks.
arXiv:2606.05122v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own ou...
The paper introduces CreaEval, an automated creativity evaluator designed for complex multi-step tasks (CGPST). It separates the evaluation process into two phases: a memory‑augmented analysis that transforms responses into structured evidence, and an evidence‑based judging step that scores without seeing raw outputs. Experiments show CreaEval outperforms existing baselines by an average of 22.74% across CGPST and two simpler creativity tasks.
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. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores.
The paper examines LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to assess AI-generated text, questioning the assumption that judgments are derived from reasoning over responses and rubrics. It finds that classifiers trained solely on rubric text can predict judge outputs, indicating that rubrics contain recoverable evaluative signals independent of the responses. Counterfactual experiments show judges often fail to adjust decisions when either the response or rubric criterion is reversed, raising doubts about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation.
S3Gym is an interactive benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their ability to self-improve through self-testing, self-judging, and self-improvement. It separates permissive exploration from strict held-out evaluation across seven text-based games with executable environment verifiers. Experiments show that self-improvement varies by task, with different experience incorporation pathways (direct history, summary memory, or parameter training) yielding mixed results and highlighting the need for agents to transform feedback into executable, transferable policies.