arXiv Computation and Language
LLJ Cards: Best practices for the Use of LLMs as Judges
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 4
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge: Concerning Rubric Artifacts in LLM-based Automated Text Generation Evaluation
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.
arXiv AI
Sep 7
Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods
The paper introduces behavioral correctness assumptions as a new framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods in natural language generation. It defines a taxonomy of correctness-preserving and correctness-altering assumptions and operationalizes them through controlled response transformations to specify expected scoring behaviors. The authors evaluate a range of lexical, character-level, semantic, LLM-based, and hybrid evaluators, analyzing their behavior across multiple dimensions and finding that no evaluator satisfies all assumptions, revealing distinct behavioral trade-offs not evident from aggregate scores.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31
Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Long-Form Output Evaluation
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.
arXiv AI
Jun 26
Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement
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.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28
Evaluating Language Models in Realistic Conversational Contexts
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%.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16
Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization
The paper introduces JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark that systematically quantifies judgment biases in large language model (LLM)-based judges across four dimensions and 12 bias types. It evaluates both generative and discriminative judges, revealing significant bias patterns that undermine reliability. The authors propose bias-aware training—reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges—to reduce these biases while maintaining evaluation performance.