arXiv:2608. 14684v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM judges increasingly evaluate responses against fine-grained rubric checklists.
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:2606. 09165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety judges are increasingly deployed to evaluate model outputs against evolving criteria, yet recent meta-evaluation work shows they remain brittle under prompt and rubric variation, with false negative-rate swings of up to 0.
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...
arXiv:2604. 06996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs.
LLM-as-judge is essential for evaluating open-ended text and steering post-training, yet improving the judge itself typically relies on expensive annotations, reward models, or distillation from stron...
arXiv:2608.29856v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used as scalable evaluators for open-ended tasks. However, many LLM judges derive query-specific criteria during...
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.