arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
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.
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate output quality, but guaranteeing agreement with human judgments is difficult. The paper introduces a Localize-Then-Decide framework that first uses conformal prediction to narrow down a shortlist likely to contain the human-preferred response, then applies a calibrated confidence rule to select a single response or abstain. Experiments show this two-stage approach consistently yields higher guarantee success rates and greater coverage than single-stage baselines across various candidate sizes and datasets.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv:2511. 21140v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators.
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
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%.