arXiv:2605. 25240v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs.
By Russell Yang, Ruishi Chen, Pierce Kelaita, Riya Ranjan, Sibo Ma, Charles Dickens, Matthew Guillod, Megan Ma, Julian Nyarko
arXiv:2608. 04374v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can produce fluent financial analysis, but fluency alone does not establish whether a report is suitable for institutional delivery.
By Yinghao Tang, Tan Zhenwei, Yiyao Wang, Wanli Gu, Xiaolu Zhang, Jun Zhou, Wei Chen
FinAutoRubric is a system that lets experts define reusable evaluation guidance for financial research agents, which the agents then use to automatically generate, review, and validate task‑specific rubrics. The approach replaces costly fixed rubrics with query‑specific ones that incorporate expert standards and can be updated as new information becomes available. On three expert‑authored finance benchmarks, the automatically generated rubrics closely match human scoring and are preferred by in‑house analysts in blind reviews.
By Hoyoung Lee, Suyeol Yun, Jack Haverty, Yunju Cho, Meesong Kim, Daekyung Park, Sumin Kim, Jihoon Kwon, Jasmine Jia Geng, Andrew Chin, Yin Luo, Edward Tong, Yu Yu, Zach Golkhou, Minkyu Kim, Igor Halperin, Young Cha, Alejandro Lopez-Lira, Chanyeol Choi, Yongjae Lee
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
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.
By Anshul Bagaria, Sowmya S Sundaram, Gokul S Krishnan, Balaraman Ravindran
The paper proposes using large language models (LLMs) to identify disagreements among models as a way to focus expert effort on revising codebooks for large‑scale text annotation. Three expert feedback methods are evaluated: editing LLM‑generated revisions (Codebook Verifying), answering questions about disagreements (Question Answering), and labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on tutoring‑session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling achieves the highest LLM‑labeling accuracy (64.9%) compared to the expert‑revised codebook (57.8%), with Question Answering also outperforming the baseline (60.5%).
By Zeyu He, Zhuqian Zhou, Kirk Vanacore, Rene F. Kizilcec, Ting-Hao 'Kenneth' Huang