arXiv AI
Rank Reversal in Multilingual LLM Judges: A Label-Free Double-Centering Calibrator
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 3
CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 21
When Can You Debias an LLM Judge? Identifiability Limits, a Test, and Designs for Top-k Ranking
arXiv:2607. 02104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise.
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago
Lower-Resource, Higher Scores: Language Bias in LLM Evaluators
arXiv:2607.14480v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM evaluators (trained reward models and prompted LLM-as-a-Judge) are routinely validated via pairwise accuracy. In a multilingual setting, this o...
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 15
From Uncertain Judgments to Calibrated Rankings: Conformal Elo Estimation for LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 9
MTEB-BR: A Text Embedding Benchmark for Brazilian Portuguese
arXiv:2607. 04581v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Text embeddings for Portuguese have no dedicated benchmark: evaluation rests on translated corpora such as English MS MARCO or on thin multilingual coverage, with native tasks scattered and unconsolidated.
arXiv AI
Jun 15
The Coin Flip Judge? Reliability and Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
arXiv:2606. 13685v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized.