arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
By Khaoula Chehbouni, Melina Medjdoub, Florian Carichon, Golnoosh Farnadi, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
arXiv:2607. 12085v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality.
By Niranjan Kumar M, Balaji Nagarajan, Karthik Nair, Faysal Satter, Nithin Surendran
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
By Abbas Raza Ali, Muhammad Ajmal Siddiqui, Moona Zahid
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
By Yihan Hong, Huaiyuan Yao, Bolin Shen, Wanpeng Xu, Hua Wei, Yushun Dong
The paper introduces a human‑in‑the‑loop framework for AI‑assisted scoring of short written responses in a large‑scale national assessment. Using data from two recent test editions with about 5,000 student responses each, the authors validate that AI‑generated scores align moderately to highly with human raters across multiple rubric dimensions. The framework includes a correction workflow that flags cases needing human review, thereby reducing manual workload while maintaining assessment quality.
By Mar\'ia Eugenia Curi, Germ\'an Capdehourat, Isabel Amigo, Magdalena Romano, Rosana Serra, Adri\'an Silveira, Andr\'es Peri
The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.
By Anupam Purwar, Shashank Singh, Kritika Srivastava