The paper investigates two strategies for improving large language model (LLM) evaluation: specialized judge weights and rule‑based deferral policies. Experiments on nearly 100,000 rubric‑conditioned samples show that correct rubrics boost accuracy, while incorrect ones hurt it, and that splitting training data into criterion‑specific experts can severely degrade performance unless the experts are warm‑started from a unified model. The authors demonstrate that lightweight deferral cascades can match or exceed the accuracy of larger standalone judges at a fraction of the compute cost, and they provide practical design rules for building efficient, reliable LLM evaluators.
By Ye Chen, Weining Zhang
arXiv:2609. 18960v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quality-aware synthetic-data selection rests on a proxy: examples that an LLM judge rates as good should also help a downstream model learn.
By Son Ha Xuan, Phat T. Tran-Truong, Xuan-Bach Le
The paper introduces First-Order In-Context Shapley, an inference‑only method that evaluates data utility for large language model alignment by computing the first‑order term of an in‑context cooperative game over semantic k‑NN neighborhoods in O(k) forward passes. It projects log‑likelihood shifts onto a directed influence graph, yielding three signals—Exemplifying Advantage, Exemplified Advantage, and One‑of‑a‑Kind Score—to identify high‑utility demonstrations and rare prompts. The approach reduces compute by 19× compared to Monte‑Carlo Shapley, filters 1–5% of records, and improves error detection and reward accuracy in DPO training and benchmark auditing.
whyItMatters":"By enabling scalable, inference‑only data auditing, the method addresses label noise and safety inversions that hinder post‑training alignment of large language models, leading to measurable improvements in model reliability and reward accuracy."
By Yunting Song, Matthew Watson, Moustafa Farid Alzantot, Peter Grabowski, Jun Qin
arXiv:2410.02343v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) routinely fail to output the correct option in multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) while encoding the answer int...
By Eduard Tulchinskii, Kristian Kuznetsov, Laida Kushnareva, Anastasia Voznyuk, Andrei Andriiainen, Irina Piontkovskaya, Evgeny Burnaev, Serguei Barannikov
arXiv:2602.02219v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examin...
By Yuzheng Xu, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno, Yoshitaka Ushiku
The paper introduces TrustSwap, a counterfactual test that swaps or removes source reliability labels while keeping evidence text constant, to evaluate how retrieval‑augmented fact‑checking models respond across verdict, confidence, and search decisions. Experiments on untrained and RL‑trained models show that confidence and search largely follow labels, yet label changes can flip a significant portion of verdicts, especially in larger models. The authors propose trust‑swap augmentation (TSA) to mitigate this shortcut, demonstrating reduced verdict flip rates and maintained accuracy in several settings, though its effectiveness diminishes at larger model scales.
By Jianchang Su, Yiwei Yang, Wei Zhang