Daily Papers

Rerankers decide which documents users and LLMs see, yet their standard metric, nDCG, relies on human relevance labels that are costly, sparse, noisy, and discretely graded. As rerankers approach each other in quality, nDCG on these labels therefore increasingly fails to separate them. LLM judges could supply dense labels. Relative judgments within one query tell even close candidates apart, yet their scores share no scale across queries. Absolute grades share one scale but are too coarse to distinguish documents of similar relevance. We propose Rubric-Calibrated Preferences (RCP), which combine both kinds of judgment. A listwise Bradley-Terry tournament orders each query's documents, and a rubric of yes/no criteria of increasing stringency provides an absolute standard. Item Response Theory (IRT), which scores test-takers based on their answers to common questions, then uses the shared criteria to put all queries' tournament scores on one scale. RCP's retrieval metric, RCP-nDCG, replaces nDCG's discrete labels with the resulting calibrated relevance probabilities. Against blind grades from 46 external annotators, calibration raises the correlation between a query's mean score and its mean human grade from 0.538 to 0.795. The probabilities rank a useful document above a non-useful one with probability 0.910 (AUC, chance 0.5), versus 0.651 for the benchmark labels. When the annotators' grades prefer one of two rerankers and exactly one metric agrees, that metric is RCP-nDCG in 72.4% of 185 comparisons (chance about 53%). On TREC-DL, RCP-nDCG sides with NIST assessors' grades on every reranker pair that these grades separate significantly. RCP-nDCG also resolves many of nDCG's ties and separates 1.9 times as many reranker pairs on NanoBEIR. Rubric calibration thus turns relative LLM judgments into dense relevance labels that are comparable across queries and agree with human judgment.

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit self-preference bias when serving as judges, meaning they tend to favor their own responses over those generated by other models. Existing methods typically measure this bias by calculating the difference between the scores a judge model assigns to its own responses and those it assigns to responses from other models. However, this approach conflates self-preference bias with response quality, as higher-quality responses from the judge model may also lead to positive score differences, even in the absence of bias. To address this issue, we introduce gold judgments as proxies for the actual quality of responses and propose the DBG score, which measures self-preference bias as the difference between the scores assigned by the judge model to its own responses and the corresponding gold judgments. Since gold judgments reflect true response quality, the DBG score mitigates the confounding effect of response quality on bias measurement. Using the DBG score, we conduct comprehensive experiments to assess self-preference bias across LLMs of varying versions, sizes, and reasoning abilities. Additionally, we investigate two factors that influence and help alleviate self-preference bias: response text style and the post-training data of judge models. Finally, we explore potential underlying mechanisms of self-preference bias from an attention-based perspective. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/zhiyuanc2001/self-preference.

LLM-as-a-judge has emerged as a cornerstone technique for evaluating large language models by leveraging LLM reasoning to score prompt-response pairs. Since LLM judgments are stochastic, practitioners commonly query each pair multiple times to estimate mean scores accurately. This raises a critical challenge: given a fixed computational budget B, how to optimally allocate queries across K prompt-response pairs to minimize estimation error? % We present a principled variance-adaptive approach leveraging multi-armed bandit theory and concentration inequalities. Our method dynamically allocates queries based on estimated score variances, concentrating resources where uncertainty is highest. Further, our algorithm is shown to achieve a worst-case score-estimation error of Oleft(frac{sum_{i=1^K σ_i^2}{B}}right), σ_i^2 being the unknown score variance for pair i in [K] with near-optimal budget allocation. % Experiments on Summarize-From-Feedback and HelpSteer2 demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms uniform allocation, reducing worst-case estimation error while maintaining identical budgets. Our work establishes a theoretical foundation for efficient LLM evaluation with practical implications for AI safety, model alignment, and automated assessment at scale.

The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked an explosion of interest in post-training and an avalanche of new preference optimization (PO) methods. These methods claim superior alignment by virtue of better correspondence with human pairwise preferences, often measured by LLM judges. In this work, we attempt to answer the following question -- do LLM-judge preferences translate to progress on other, more concrete metrics for alignment, and if not, why not? We define a concrete metric for alignment, and introduce SOS-Bench, the largest standardized, reproducible LLM meta-benchmark to date. We find that (1) LLM-judgments do not correlate with concrete measures of safety, world knowledge, and instruction following; (2) LLM judges have powerful implicit biases, prioritizing style over factuality and safety; and (3) the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage of post-training, and not the PO stage, has the greatest impact on alignment, with data scaling and prompt diversity as the driving factors. Our codebase and complete results can be found at https://github.com/penfever/sos-bench.

Evaluating the quality of search, ranking and RAG systems traditionally requires a significant number of human relevance annotations. In recent times, several deployed systems have explored the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for this task while their inherent biases prevent direct use for metric estimation. We present a statistical framework extending Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that combines minimal human annotations with LLM judgments to produce reliable estimates of metrics which require sub-instance annotations. Our method requires as few as 100 human-annotated queries and 10,000 unlabeled examples, reducing annotation requirements significantly compared to traditional approaches. We formulate our proposed framework (PRECISE) for inference of relevance uplift for an LLM-based query reformulation application, extending PPI to sub-instance annotations at the query-document level. By reformulating the metric-integration space, we reduced the computational complexity from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K), where |C| represents corpus size (in order of millions). Detailed experiments across prominent retrieval datasets demonstrate that our method reduces the variance of estimates for the business-critical Precision@K metric, while effectively correcting for LLM bias in low-resource settings.

With PRECISE, we extended Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics by combining a small human-labeled set with a large LLM-judged set. PPI is provably unbiased regardless of the LLM judge's error profile. We make it applicable to hierarchical metrics like Precision@K, where annotations are per-document but the metric is per-query, by reducing the output-space computation from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K). On the ESCI benchmark, augmenting 30 human annotations with Claude 3 Sonnet judgments reduces the standard error of Precision@4 estimates from 4.45 to 3.50 (a 21% relative reduction). In a production system, our framework correctly identified the best of three system variants from 100 human labels and 2 hours of domain-expert annotation; A/B testing confirmed this ranking with +407 bps in daily sales.

Given the widespread adoption and usage of Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to have flexible and interpretable evaluations of their instruction-following ability. Preference judgments between model outputs have become the de facto evaluation standard, despite distilling complex, multi-faceted preferences into a single ranking. Furthermore, as human annotation is slow and costly, LLMs are increasingly used to make these judgments, at the expense of reliability and interpretability. In this work, we propose TICK (Targeted Instruct-evaluation with ChecKlists), a fully automated, interpretable evaluation protocol that structures evaluations with LLM-generated, instruction-specific checklists. We first show that, given an instruction, LLMs can reliably produce high-quality, tailored evaluation checklists that decompose the instruction into a series of YES/NO questions. Each question asks whether a candidate response meets a specific requirement of the instruction. We demonstrate that using TICK leads to a significant increase (46.4% to 52.2%) in the frequency of exact agreements between LLM judgements and human preferences, as compared to having an LLM directly score an output. We then show that STICK (Self-TICK) can be used to improve generation quality across multiple benchmarks via self-refinement and Best-of-N selection. STICK self-refinement on LiveBench reasoning tasks leads to an absolute gain of +7.8%, whilst Best-of-N selection with STICK attains +6.3% absolute improvement on the real-world instruction dataset, WildBench. In light of this, structured, multi-faceted self-improvement is shown to be a promising way to further advance LLM capabilities. Finally, by providing LLM-generated checklists to human evaluators tasked with directly scoring LLM responses to WildBench instructions, we notably increase inter-annotator agreement (0.194 to 0.256).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied as automatic evaluators for natural language generation assessment often using pairwise comparative judgements. Existing approaches typically rely on single judges or aggregate multiple judges assuming equal reliability. In practice, LLM judges vary substantially in performance across tasks and evaluation aspects, and their judgment probabilities may be biased and inconsistent. Furthermore, human-labelled supervision for judge calibration may be unavailable. We first empirically demonstrate that inconsistencies in LLM comparison probabilities exist and show that it limits the effectiveness of direct probability-based ranking. To address this, we study the LLM-asa-jury setting and propose BT-sigma, a judge-aware extension of the Bradley-Terry model that introduces a discriminator parameter for each judge to jointly infer item rankings and judge reliability from pairwise comparisons alone. Experiments on benchmark NLG evaluation datasets show that BT-sigma consistently outperforms averaging-based aggregation methods, and that the learned discriminators strongly correlate with independent measures of the cycle consistency of LLM judgments. Further analysis reveals that BT-sigma can be interpreted as an unsupervised calibration mechanism that improves aggregation by modelling judge reliability.

We evaluate recent Large language Models (LLMs) on the challenging task of summarizing short stories, which can be lengthy, and include nuanced subtext or scrambled timelines. Importantly, we work directly with authors to ensure that the stories have not been shared online (and therefore are unseen by the models), and to obtain informed evaluations of summary quality using judgments from the authors themselves. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis grounded in narrative theory, we compare GPT-4, Claude-2.1, and LLama-2-70B. We find that all three models make faithfulness mistakes in over 50% of summaries and struggle to interpret difficult subtext. However, at their best, the models can provide thoughtful thematic analysis of stories. We additionally demonstrate that LLM judgments of summary quality do not match the feedback from the writers.

As LLMs increasingly serve as moral advisors and agents, they must address conflicts between competing values. Yet prior work on moral dilemmas overlooks a central aspect of human moral cognition: imagining alternatives beyond the given options. We introduce MoralAltDataset, comprising 307 Advisor and AI-facing Agent dilemmas augmented with compromise and reframed alternatives. We compare human and LLM judgments in binary and four-option settings. Across human participants and 15 LLMs, aggregate moral choice distributions differ substantially between the two settings, with compromise often preferred over either original binary option. Results show value shifts and stronger human-LLM agreement on alternatives. Source-stratified results reveal a descriptive gap: human alternative-selection rates are similar across authoring sources, whereas LLMs select GPT-5-authored alternatives substantially more often. We then compare human-authored alternatives with outputs from three representative LLMs through pairwise preference and expert-based evaluations. Alternatives from these LLMs are generally preferred and better satisfy fine-grained structural and ethical criteria, while revealing a trade-off between structural quality and practical feasibility. Our dataset is available here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/jongchanch/MoralAltDataset, and our project page is here: https://jongchanchoi.com/moral-imagination

Evaluating the conversational abilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a challenging task. Current mainstream approaches primarily rely on the ``LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm, where an LLM is prompted to serve as an evaluator to assess dialogue quality. However, such methods often suffer from various biases, which undermine the reliability and consistency of the evaluation results. To mitigate these biases, recent methods employ multiple LLMs as judges and aggregate their judgments to select the optimal assessment. Although effective, this multi-judge approach incurs significant computational overhead during inference. In this paper, we propose an efficient multi-turn dialogue evaluator that captures the collective wisdom of multiple LLM judges by aggregating their preference knowledge into a single model. Our approach preserves the advantages of diverse multi-judge feedback while drastically reducing the evaluation cost, enabling fast and flexible dialogue quality assessment. Extensive experiments on seven single rating and pairwise comparison dialogue evaluation benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing baselines across diverse scenarios, showcasing its efficiency and robustness.

The increasing deployment of AI agents in long-horizon tasks yields massive execution logs. Diagnosing failures within these records is crucial for reliability, as it transforms outcome-level signals into actionable interventions. The sheer scale of the data renders human review impractical, driving the need for automated root-cause attribution (RCA). However, automated RCA methods using LLMs suffer from low diagnostic accuracy, especially as execution traces grow larger. They struggle because relevant information is often sparse, distributed across distant actions, and disconnected from the visible failure, reducing root-cause attribution to a massive search problem. Existing RCA methods typically rely on one-shot LLM judgments to diagnose failures from execution traces. While effective for shorter trajectories, these judges tend to settle on a plausible diagnosis early, leaving critical evidence in longer traces unexamined. We introduce Continual Search, an iterative framework that nudges the judge, over successive turns, to keep searching for unresolved diagnostic evidence. We evaluate Continual Search across four existing RCA benchmarks. Recognizing the lack of massive execution traces in current benchmarks, we introduce MegaRCA-Mix to evaluate RCA at scale. MegaRCA-Mix provides a challenging testbed of 50 human-annotated failure trials spanning long-horizon, execution-heavy tasks. Across multiple benchmark suites and model families, Continual Search consistently improves attribution performance. On MegaRCA-Mix, for example, it improves GPT-5.5's F1 score by more than 40\%, from 0.349 to 0.498. More interestingly, within the same model family, lower-tier models can even surpass their higher-tier counterparts, demonstrating that effective search supersedes raw model scale.

Existing computer-use agent benchmarks do not fully evaluate agents acting as assistants. A useful assistant retrieves information across complex, multi-step workflows, synthesizes it into artifacts (documents, presentations, spreadsheets), and navigates program interfaces to produce a coherent final product. Such workflows demand reasoning and synthesis, decomposition of complex tasks, as well as visual and spatial understanding. To study agents on workflows like these, we introduce KNOWS, a benchmark of open-ended, complex, browser-based tasks that jointly evaluate these capabilities, with each task culminating in a produced artifact. To write tasks, we develop a task design rubric and a protocol for ensuring that tasks meet the requirements. Each task is paired with an evaluator, a program that combines deterministic checks with LLM judgments to balance the richness, reliability, and automation tradeoff inherent to agent evaluation. We evaluate and analyze frontier computer-use agents and browser-based harnesses. They achieve moderate scores on partial-success metrics, but the best performer fully succeeds in fewer than 3% of our complex, long-horizon tasks. Failures on visual steps render the resulting artifacts unusable, even when agents complete more than 50% of other evaluation steps. Our results expose limitations of current agents acting as end-to-end assistants, and call for progress on tool use, visual understanding, and long-horizon reasoning.

Relevance judgments are crucial for evaluating information retrieval systems, but traditional human-annotated labels are time-consuming and expensive. As a result, many researchers turn to automatic alternatives to accelerate method development. Among these, Large Language Models (LLMs) provide a scalable solution by generating relevance labels directly through prompting. However, prompting an LLM for a relevance label without constraints often results in not only incorrect predictions but also outputs that are difficult for humans to interpret. We propose the Multi-Criteria framework for LLM-based relevance judgments, decomposing the notion of relevance into multiple criteria--such as exactness, coverage, topicality, and contextual fit--to improve the robustness and interpretability of retrieval evaluations compared to direct grading methods. We validate this approach on three datasets: the TREC Deep Learning tracks from 2019 and 2020, as well as LLMJudge (based on TREC DL 2023). Our results demonstrate that Multi-Criteria judgments enhance the system ranking/leaderboard performance. Moreover, we highlight the strengths and limitations of this approach relative to direct grading approaches, offering insights that can guide the development of future automatic evaluation frameworks in information retrieval.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based judgments leverage powerful LLMs to efficiently evaluate candidate content and provide judgment scores. However, the inherent biases and vulnerabilities of LLM-generated judgments raise concerns, underscoring the urgent need for distinguishing them in sensitive scenarios like academic peer reviewing. In this work, we propose and formalize the task of judgment detection and systematically investigate the detectability of LLM-generated judgments. Unlike LLM-generated text detection, judgment detection relies solely on judgment scores and candidates, reflecting real-world scenarios where textual feedback is often unavailable in the detection process. Our preliminary analysis shows that existing LLM-generated text detection methods perform poorly given their incapability to capture the interaction between judgment scores and candidate content -- an aspect crucial for effective judgment detection. Inspired by this, we introduce J-Detector, a lightweight and transparent neural detector augmented with explicitly extracted linguistic and LLM-enhanced features to link LLM judges' biases with candidates' properties for accurate detection. Experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of J-Detector and show how its interpretability enables quantifying biases in LLM judges. Finally, we analyze key factors affecting the detectability of LLM-generated judgments and validate the practical utility of judgment detection in real-world scenarios.

Automatic evaluation of medical open-ended question answering (OEQA) remains challenging due to the need for expert annotations. We evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can act as judges of semantic equivalence in French medical OEQA, comparing closed-access, general-purpose, and biomedical domain-adapted models. Our results show that LLM-based judgments are strongly influenced by the model that generated the answer, with agreement varying substantially across generators. Domain-adapted and large general-purpose models achieve the highest alignment with expert annotations. We further show that lightweight adaptation of a compact model using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) substantially improves performance and reduces generator sensitivity, even with limited data. Overall, our findings highlight the need for generator-aware evaluation and suggest that carefully adapted small models can support scalable evaluation in low-resource medical settings.

Portuguese Information Retrieval (IR) lacks public datasets, and relevance assessment for specialized collections remains costly. While Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support relevance assessment, their reliability in non-English specialized domains remains unclear. We introduce NormasTCU (https://huggingface.co/datasets/LeandroRibeiro/NormasTCU), a Brazilian Portuguese IR dataset with 14,469 legal documents, 46 queries, and 3,048 human judgments over 812 query-document pairs. Using NormasTCU, we evaluated LLM-as-a-judge for relevance assessment by prompting three models with two prompt techniques to grade these pairs. We then compared the rankings of 15 IR systems derived from LLM-generated and human reference qrels. LLMs consistently showed a positive scoring bias (mean absolute error: 0.46--0.66 on a 0-2 scale). Furthermore, pair-level agreement with human judgments achieved only fair to moderate levels, with Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.32 to 0.53. Despite this bias, LLM-generated judgments often yielded highly similar system rankings for nDCG@10 and MRR (observed Kendall's tau greater than or equal 0.90, although the bootstrap confidence intervals did not always remain above this threshold), but were less reliable for P@10 and R@10. Notably, LLM-based rankings were sometimes more strongly correlated with the reference ranking than individual human annotations were. As a practical implication, our results suggest that LLMs could effectively support scalable relevance assessment in specialized Portuguese corpora when evaluated using nDCG or MRR (rank-aware metrics), but they should be avoided when relying on precision or recall.

Multilingual studies of social bias in open-ended LLM generation remain limited: most existing benchmarks are English-centric, template-based, or restricted to recognizing pre-specified stereotypes. We introduce StereoTales, a multilingual dataset and evaluation pipeline for systematically studying the emergence of social bias in open-ended LLM generation. The dataset covers 10 languages and 79 socio-demographic attributes, and comprises over 650k stories generated by 23 recent LLMs, each annotated with the socio-demographic profile of the protagonist across 19 dimensions. From these, we apply statistical tests to identify more than 1{,}500 over-represented associations, which we then rate for harmfulness through both a panel of humans (N = 247) and the same LLMs. We report three main findings. (i) Every model we evaluate emits consequential harmful stereotypes in open-ended generation, regardless of size or capabilities, and these associations are largely shared across providers rather than isolated misbehaviors. (ii) Prompt language strongly shapes which stereotypes appear: rather than transferring as a shared set of biases, harmful associations adapt culturally to the prompt language and amplify bias against locally salient protected groups. (iii) Human and LLM harmfulness judgments are broadly aligned (Spearman ρ=0.62), with disagreements concentrating on specific attribute classes rather than specific providers. To support further analyses, we release the evaluation code and the dataset, including model generations, attribute annotations, and harmfulness ratings.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has greatly improved the performance of modern Large Language Models (LLMs). The RLHF process is resource-intensive and technically challenging, generally requiring a large collection of human preference labels over model-generated outputs. Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) addresses this data collection challenge by leveraging synthetic preferences generated by an LLM. However, recent work has shown that synthetic preferences labels may not align well with human preference judgments. To address this, we propose a hybrid approach that unifies RLHF and RLAIF methodologies. We introduce GenRM, an iterative algorithm that trains an LLM on self-generated reasoning traces, leading to synthetic preference labels matching human preference judgments. Empirically, we show that zero-shot LLM-based judgments under-perform compared to Bradley-Terry reward models on in-distribution tasks (between 9-36%). In contrast, GenRM achieves in-distribution accuracy comparable to Bradley-Terry models, while significantly outperforming them on out-of-distribution tasks (between 10-45%). Moreover, GenRM surpasses the performance of using LLMs as judges on both in-distribution (by 9-31%) and out-of-distribution tasks (by 2- 6%). Our results show that combining the strengths of RLHF and RLAIF offers a promising approach for improving the quality of synthetic preference labels.

We present RPGBench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) as text-based role-playing game (RPG) engines. RPGBench comprises two core tasks: Game Creation (GC) and Game Simulation (GS). In GC, an LLM must craft a valid and playable RPG world using a structured event-state representation, ensuring logical coherence and proper termination conditions. In GS, the LLM simulates interactive gameplay across multiple rounds while consistently updating states and enforcing game rules. To comprehensively assess performance, RPGBench integrates objective and subjective evaluation methodologies. Objective measures verify adherence to event mechanics and check variable updates without requiring human intervention. Subjective measures, such as content interestingness, action quality, and role-playing capability, are evaluated via an LLM-as-a-judge framework, where a strong LLM grades each candidate's outputs. Empirical results demonstrate that state-of-the-art LLMs can produce engaging stories but often struggle to implement consistent, verifiable game mechanics, particularly in long or complex scenarios. By combining structured, rule-based assessments with LLM-based judgments, RPGBench provides a new standard for evaluating how well LLMs can balance creativity, coherence, and complexity in text-based RPGs, opening avenues for more immersive and controllable interactive storytelling.

The ability to paraphrase texts across different complexity levels is essential for creating accessible texts that can be tailored toward diverse reader groups. Thus, we introduce German4All, the first large-scale German dataset of aligned readability-controlled, paragraph-level paraphrases. It spans five readability levels and comprises over 25,000 samples. The dataset is automatically synthesized using GPT-4 and rigorously evaluated through both human and LLM-based judgments. Using German4All, we train an open-source, readability-controlled paraphrasing model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in German text simplification, enabling more nuanced and reader-specific adaptations. We opensource both the dataset and the model to encourage further research on multi-level paraphrasing

We introduce REAL, a benchmark and framework for multi-turn agent evaluations on deterministic simulations of real-world websites. REAL comprises high-fidelity, deterministic replicas of 11 widely-used websites across domains such as e-commerce, travel, communication, and professional networking. We also release a benchmark consisting of 112 practical tasks that mirror everyday complex user interactions requiring both accurate information retrieval and state-changing actions. All interactions occur within this fully controlled setting, eliminating safety risks and enabling robust, reproducible evaluation of agent capability and reliability. Our novel evaluation framework combines programmatic checks of website state for action-based tasks with rubric-guided LLM-based judgments for information retrieval. The framework supports both open-source and proprietary agent systems through a flexible evaluation harness that accommodates black-box commands within browser environments, allowing research labs to test agentic systems without modification. Our empirical results show that frontier language models achieve at most a 41% success rate on REAL, highlighting critical gaps in autonomous web navigation and task completion capabilities. Our framework supports easy integration of new tasks, reproducible evaluation, and scalable post-training data generation, marking a significant step forward in evaluating and advancing agent capabilities.

Instruction tuning has become essential for adapting large language models (LLMs) to follow domain-specific prompts. Yet, in specialized fields such as medicine, the scarcity of high-quality French instruction data limits effective supervision. To address this gap, we introduce MedInjection-FR, a large-scale French biomedical instruction dataset comprising 571K instruction-response pairs drawn from three complementary sources: native, synthetic, and translated data. We design a controlled experimental framework to systematically assess how data provenance affects instruction tuning, using Qwen-4B-Instruct fine-tuned across seven configurations combining these sources. Results show that native data yield the strongest performance, while mixed setups, particularly native and translated, provide complementary benefits. Synthetic data alone remains less effective but contributes positively when balanced with native supervision. Evaluation on open-ended QA combines automatic metrics, LLM-as-a-judge assessment, and human expert review; although LLM-based judgments correlate best with human ratings, they show sensitivity to verbosity. These findings highlight that data authenticity and diversity jointly shape downstream adaptation and that heterogeneous supervision can mitigate the scarcity of native French medical instructions.

In realistic retrieval settings with large and evolving knowledge bases, the total number of documents relevant to a query is typically unknown, and recall cannot be computed. In this paper, we evaluate several established strategies for handling this limitation by measuring the correlation between retrieval quality metrics and LLM-based judgments of response quality, where responses are generated from the retrieved documents. We conduct experiments across multiple datasets with a relatively low number of relevant documents (2-15). We also introduce a simple retrieval quality measure that performs well without requiring knowledge of the total number of relevant documents.

Deep Research agents driven by LLMs have automated the scholarly discovery pipeline, from planning and query formulation to iterative web exploration. Yet they remain constrained by a static, ``one-size-fits-all'' retrieval paradigm. Current systems fail to adaptively adjust the depth and breadth of exploration based on the user's existing expertise or latent interests, frequently resulting in reports that are either redundant for experts or overly dense for novices. To address this, we introduce Personalized Deep Research (PDR), a framework that integrates dynamic user context into the core retrieval-reasoning loop. Rather than treating personalization as a post-hoc formatting step, PDR unifies user profile modeling with iterative query development, dual-stage (private/public) retrieval, and context-aware synthesis. This allows the system to autonomously align research sub-goals with user intent and optimize the stopping criteria for evidence collection. To facilitate benchmarking, we release the PDR Dataset, covering four realistic user tasks, and propose a hybrid evaluation framework combining lexical metrics with LLM-based judgments to assess factual accuracy and personalization alignment. Experimental results against commercial baselines demonstrate that PDR significantly improves retrieval utility and report relevance, effectively bridging the gap between generic information retrieval and personalized knowledge acquisition. The resource is available to the public at https://github.com/Applied-Machine-Learning-Lab/SIGIR2026_PDR.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown remarkable progress in code generation, yet their ability to construct complete software repositories from scratch remains poorly understood. A fundamental bottleneck is the lack of verifiable and scalable evaluation: existing benchmarks either focus on patch-based editing or rely on human or LLM-based judgments, which introduce bias and limit reproducibility. In this work, we present RepoZero, the first benchmark that enables fully automated, execution-based verification of repository-level generation from scratch. Our key idea is to reformulate generation as repository reproduction: given only API specifications, an agent must re-implement an entire repository such that its behavior matches the original implementation. This design allows for strict black-box validation via output equivalence, while naturally supporting large-scale construction by reusing existing open-source repositories. To further mitigate data leakage and shortcut solutions, we introduce cross-language constraints and a sandboxed evaluation protocol. Building on this benchmark, we propose an Agentic Code-Test Evolution (ACE) framework that performs iterative test generation and error-driven refinement, enabling effective test-time scaling for repository-level synthesis. Extensive experiments across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs and agent frameworks reveal that even the strongest LLM agents achieve only limited pass rates (30\% - 55\%), exposing a substantial gap between current capabilities and real-world software development requirements. Our results establish RepoZero as a challenging, scalable, and reliable testbed for end-to-end code generation, and highlight self-verification via test generation as a critical direction for advancing LLM-based coding agents.

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) for relevance assessments offers promising opportunities to improve Information Retrieval (IR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and related fields. Indeed, LLMs hold the promise of allowing IR experimenters to build evaluation collections with a fraction of the manual human labor currently required. This could help with fresh topics on which there is still limited knowledge and could mitigate the challenges of evaluating ranking systems in low-resource scenarios, where it is challenging to find human annotators. Given the fast-paced recent developments in the domain, many questions concerning LLMs as assessors are yet to be answered. Among the aspects that require further investigation, we can list the impact of various components in a relevance judgment generation pipeline, such as the prompt used or the LLM chosen. This paper benchmarks and reports on the results of a large-scale automatic relevance judgment evaluation, the LLMJudge challenge at SIGIR 2024, where different relevance assessment approaches were proposed. In detail, we release and benchmark 42 LLM-generated labels of the TREC 2023 Deep Learning track relevance judgments produced by eight international teams who participated in the challenge. Given their diverse nature, these automatically generated relevance judgments can help the community not only investigate systematic biases caused by LLMs but also explore the effectiveness of ensemble models, analyze the trade-offs between different models and human assessors, and advance methodologies for improving automated evaluation techniques. The released resource is available at the following link: https://llm4eval.github.io/LLMJudge-benchmark/

We propose LLM-Interleaved (LLM-I), a flexible and dynamic framework that reframes interleaved image-text generation as a tool-use problem. LLM-I is designed to overcome the "one-tool" bottleneck of current unified models, which are limited to synthetic imagery and struggle with tasks requiring factual grounding or programmatic precision. Our framework empowers a central LLM or MLLM agent to intelligently orchestrate a diverse toolkit of specialized visual tools, including online image search, diffusion-based generation, code execution, and image editing. The agent is trained to select and apply these tools proficiently via a Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework that features a hybrid reward system combining rule-based logic with judgments from LLM and MLLM evaluators. Trained on a diverse new dataset using four different model backbones, LLM-I demonstrates state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing methods by a large margin across four benchmarks. We also introduce a novel test-time scaling strategy that provides further performance gains. Project Page: https://github.com/ByteDance-BandAI/LLM-I.

Evaluating personalized recommendations remains a central challenge, especially in long-form audio domains like podcasts, where traditional offline metrics suffer from exposure bias and online methods such as A/B testing are costly and operationally constrained. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) as offline judges to assess the quality of podcast recommendations in a scalable and interpretable manner. Our two-stage profile-aware approach first constructs natural-language user profiles distilled from 90 days of listening history. These profiles summarize both topical interests and behavioral patterns, serving as compact, interpretable representations of user preferences. Rather than prompting the LLM with raw data, we use these profiles to provide high-level, semantically rich context-enabling the LLM to reason more effectively about alignment between a user's interests and recommended episodes. This reduces input complexity and improves interpretability. The LLM is then prompted to deliver fine-grained pointwise and pairwise judgments based on the profile-episode match. In a controlled study with 47 participants, our profile-aware judge matched human judgments with high fidelity and outperformed or matched a variant using raw listening histories. The framework enables efficient, profile-aware evaluation for iterative testing and model selection in recommender systems.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

To undertake computational research of the law, efficiently identifying datasets of court decisions that relate to a specific legal issue is a crucial yet challenging endeavour. This study addresses the gap in the literature working with large legal corpora about how to isolate cases, in our case summary judgments, from a large corpus of UK court decisions. We introduce a comparative analysis of two computational methods: (1) a traditional natural language processing-based approach leveraging expert-generated keywords and logical operators and (2) an innovative application of the Claude 2 large language model to classify cases based on content-specific prompts. We use the Cambridge Law Corpus of 356,011 UK court decisions and determine that the large language model achieves a weighted F1 score of 0.94 versus 0.78 for keywords. Despite iterative refinement, the search logic based on keywords fails to capture nuances in legal language. We identify and extract 3,102 summary judgment cases, enabling us to map their distribution across various UK courts over a temporal span. The paper marks a pioneering step in employing advanced natural language processing to tackle core legal research tasks, demonstrating how these technologies can bridge systemic gaps and enhance the accessibility of legal information. We share the extracted dataset metrics to support further research on summary judgments.

Generative discovery in science requires coupling high-level scientific reasoning with the ability to generate samples respecting the structure of a design space. Yet these capabilities remain largely separated: foundation LLMs encode broad chemical and biological knowledge, while domain-specific flow- and diffusion-based generators capture the priors needed to produce valid sequences and geometries. We study how to align such scientific generators to high-level natural-language discovery goals without requiring an explicit proxy reward, which is often unavailable or poorly captured by learned predictors in experimental sciences. We introduce LLM-to-Flow Distillation (LFD), where a frozen LLM acts as an adaptive teacher for a domain-specific generator. Given a goal such as 'generate peptides with promising anticancer activity', the teacher constructs a curriculum of intermediate sub-goals aware of the flow's current capabilities, and progressively directs them toward the original discovery goal. At each round, the LLM judges sampled candidates under the current objective. These judgments induce preferences that are iteratively distilled into the generator through DPO. This procedure provides dense learning signals even when the initial model places negligible probability on designs satisfying the final goal, enabling adaptation toward poorly covered, out-of-distribution regions. Experiments on therapeutic peptides and small-molecule structure design demonstrate that LFD enables a new form of generative control: aligning arbitrary domain-specific scientific generators to scientific discovery tasks expressed via high-level natural-language goals.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have lately been on the spotlight of researchers, businesses, and consumers alike. While the linguistic capabilities of such models have been studied extensively, there is growing interest in investigating them as cognitive subjects. In the present work I examine GPT-3 and ChatGPT capabilities on an limited-data inductive reasoning task from the cognitive science literature. The results suggest that these models' cognitive judgements are not human-like.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate the quality of LLM generations and responses, but this leads to significant challenges: high API costs, uncertain reliability, inflexible pipelines, and inherent biases. To address these, we introduce PAJAMA (Program-As-a-Judge for Automated Model Assessment), a new alternative that uses LLMs to synthesize executable judging programs instead of directly scoring responses. These synthesized programs can be stored and run locally, costing orders of magnitude less while providing interpretable, and auditable judging logic that can be easily adapted. Program-based judges mitigate biases, improving judgment consistency by 15.83% and reducing biased responses by 23.7% on average compared to a Qwen2.5-14B-based LLM-as-a-judge. When program judgments are distilled into a model, PAJAMA outperforms LLM-as-a-judge on the challenging CHAT-HARD subset of RewardBench, outperforming metrics by 2.19% on Prometheus and 8.67% on the JudgeLM dataset, all at three orders of magnitude lower cost.

This paper introduces JurisTCU, a Brazilian Portuguese dataset for legal information retrieval (LIR). The dataset is freely available and consists of 16,045 jurisprudential documents from the Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts, along with 150 queries annotated with relevance judgments. It addresses the scarcity of Portuguese-language LIR datasets with query relevance annotations. The queries are organized into three groups: real user keyword-based queries, synthetic keyword-based queries, and synthetic question-based queries. Relevance judgments were produced through a hybrid approach combining LLM-based scoring with expert domain validation. We used JurisTCU in 14 experiments using lexical search (document expansion methods) and semantic search (BERT-based and OpenAI embeddings). We show that the document expansion methods significantly improve the performance of standard BM25 search on this dataset, with improvements exceeding 45% in P@10, R@10, and nDCG@10 metrics when evaluating short keyword-based queries. Among the embedding models, the OpenAI models produced the best results, with improvements of approximately 70% in P@10, R@10, and nDCG@10 metrics for short keyword-based queries, suggesting that these dense embeddings capture semantic relationships in this domain, surpassing the reliance on lexical terms. Besides offering a dataset for the Portuguese-language IR research community, suitable for evaluating search systems, the results also contribute to enhancing a search system highly relevant to Brazilian citizens.

AI agents acting on behalf of users are constantly making decisions, and for users to trust their agents, those decisions must align with what they actually want. Privacy is an important alignment problem for agents: every message, post, or tool call an agent makes is a contextual judgment about what is appropriate to share, with whom, and under which conditions. Because such judgments depend on social expectations and norms, human judgment does not merely label privacy violations but also helps define them. While existing work relies on unreliable proxies for both training and evaluation, we place human judgment at the center of agentic privacy alignment. We introduce PrivacyAlign, a dataset of 1,350 samples with 3,516 detailed annotations from 599 unique annotators across diverse scenarios where current LLMs actually leak, and use it to ground both alignment training and automated evaluation in human privacy norms. Building on these annotations, we first show that conditioning LLM judges on human annotations and explanations for reference responses to the same prompt makes their judgments more reliable. We then introduce annotation-conditioned reward modeling, which uses these annotations to score new responses during RL, and show that small open-weight agents trained with this reward better align with human privacy norms, with strong gains on PrivacyAlign and existing privacy benchmarks for agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

The progress of AI is bottlenecked by the quality of evaluation, and powerful LLM-as-a-Judge models have proved to be a core solution. Improved judgment ability is enabled by stronger chain-of-thought reasoning, motivating the need to find the best recipes for training such models to think. In this work we introduce J1, a reinforcement learning approach to training such models. Our method converts both verifiable and non-verifiable prompts to judgment tasks with verifiable rewards that incentivize thinking and mitigate judgment bias. In particular, our approach outperforms all other existing 8B or 70B models when trained at those sizes, including models distilled from DeepSeek-R1. J1 also outperforms o1-mini, and even R1 on some benchmarks, despite training a smaller model. We provide analysis and ablations comparing Pairwise-J1 vs Pointwise-J1 models, offline vs online training recipes, reward strategies, seed prompts, and variations in thought length and content. We find that our models make better judgments by learning to outline evaluation criteria, comparing against self-generated reference answers, and re-evaluating the correctness of model responses.

Code-switching, the phenomenon of alternating between two or more languages in a single conversation, presents unique challenges for Natural Language Processing (NLP). Most existing research focuses on either syntactic constraints or neural generation, with few efforts to integrate linguistic theory with large language models (LLMs) for generating natural code-switched text. In this paper, we introduce EZSwitch, a novel framework that combines Equivalence Constraint Theory (ECT) with LLMs to produce linguistically valid and fluent code-switched text. We evaluate our method using both human judgments and automatic metrics, demonstrating a significant improvement in the quality of generated code-switching sentences compared to baseline LLMs. To address the lack of suitable evaluation metrics, we conduct a comprehensive correlation study of various automatic metrics against human scores, revealing that current metrics often fail to capture the nuanced fluency of code-switched text. Additionally, we create CSPref, a human preference dataset based on human ratings and analyze model performance across ``hard`` and ``easy`` examples. Our findings indicate that incorporating linguistic constraints into LLMs leads to more robust and human-aligned generation, paving the way for scalable code-switching text generation across diverse language pairs.

Modern IR systems are increasingly tasked with answering complex, multi-faceted queries that require deep reasoning rather than simple keyword or semantic matching. While LLM-based IR has shown great promise, the prevailing retrieve-then-rerank paradigm inherits the limitations of embedding-based retrieval; parametric generative approaches are difficult to update with new information; and long-context methods that place the entire corpus in context are computationally infeasible for large document collections. To address these challenges, we introduce LATTICE, a hierarchical retrieval framework that enables an LLM to reason over and navigate large corpora with logarithmic search complexity by imposing a semantic tree structure on the corpus. Our approach consists of two stages: (1) an offline phase that organizes the corpus into a semantic hierarchy via either a bottom-up agglomerative strategy or a top-down divisive strategy using multi-level summaries and (2) an online traversal phase where a search LLM navigates this tree. A central challenge in such LLM-guided search is that the model's relevance judgments are noisy, context-dependent, and unaware of the hierarchy, making cross-branch and cross-level comparisons difficult. To overcome this, we propose a traversal algorithm that estimates calibrated latent relevance scores from local LLM outputs and aggregates them into a global path relevance metric. Our training-free framework achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot performance on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating up to 9% improvement in Recall@100 and 5% in nDCG@10 over the next best zero-shot baseline. Furthermore, compared to the fine-tuned SOTA method DIVER-v2, LATTICE attains comparable results on BRIGHT subsets that use a static corpus for evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data. It remains unclear how well current personalization systems work for real users. In this paper, we study the gap in LLM personalization performance when using synthetic versus human data. We collect human conversations (550 conversations) and judgments across three stages of personalization: extracting user attributes from conversations (5,949 judgments), pairing relevant attributes with new prompts (11,919), and incorporating relevant attributes into a personalized response (1,101). Incorporating human data reveals system limitations at each stage. Models struggle to extract attributes from human conversations, disagree with human judgments on relevant attributes, and generate personalized responses that humans judge no better than generic responses (though that LLM judges widely rate as better). We introduce two lightweight training-based interventions that shift automated personalization evaluation closer to human data in our first two stages. However, in our third stage we find that learned reward models achieve only modest correlation with human ratings, suggesting that human-aligned personalization quality judgments are difficult to model directly. Our collected data provides a foundation for studying how models should extract, select, and incorporate user information in ways that humans find useful.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge) for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. This paradigm offers scalability and cost-effectiveness compared to human annotation. However, the reliability and security of such systems, particularly their robustness against adversarial manipulations, remain critical concerns. This paper investigates the vulnerability of LLM-as-a-Judge architectures to prompt-injection attacks, where malicious inputs are designed to compromise the judge's decision-making process. We formalize two primary attack strategies: Comparative Undermining Attack (CUA), which directly targets the final decision output, and Justification Manipulation Attack (JMA), which aims to alter the model's generated reasoning. Using the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) optimization method, we craft adversarial suffixes appended to one of the responses being compared. Experiments conducted on the MT-Bench Human Judgments dataset with open-source instruction-tuned LLMs (Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and Falcon3-3B-Instruct) demonstrate significant susceptibility. The CUA achieves an Attack Success Rate (ASR) exceeding 30\%, while JMA also shows notable effectiveness. These findings highlight substantial vulnerabilities in current LLM-as-a-Judge systems, underscoring the need for robust defense mechanisms and further research into adversarial evaluation and trustworthiness in LLM-based assessment frameworks.

LLM-as-a-judge panels aggregate votes from multiple models, with the expectation that diverse models yield more reliable evaluations. We develop a framework to measure the true informational value of such panels and quantify how far their reliability falls short of the independent-voting ideal. Testing a panel of 9 frontier LLMs from 7 model families on three natural language inference datasets (each with 100 human annotations per item), we find that the 9 judges effectively provide only about 2 independent votes' worth of information. Roughly three-quarters of the panel's nominal independence is lost because the models make the same mistakes on the same items. The consequences are stark: the panel's actual accuracy falls 8-22 percentage points short of what independent voting would achieve, and the best single judge matches or outperforms the full panel across all conditions. Neither adding more judges nor using smarter aggregation algorithms helps -- established methods close at most 11% of this gap, even with access to the correct answers. We quantify these findings using the Kish effective sample size (n_eff) and a Condorcet null model, and show the deficit is robust across prompt variants, temperatures, chain-of-thought reasoning, and a pairwise preference task (RewardBench). The bottleneck is correlated judges, not the aggregation algorithm, implying that scaling up panels cannot substitute for genuinely independent evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to detect unsafe content. A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes, but this benefit may disappear when every model sees the same misleading context before voting. We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment. Each model first judges an item alone, then judges it again after six simulated peers either assert the wrong label or abstain. We combine the final judgments by majority vote. Across six open-weight LLMs and six datasets, we find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate from 56.5% under silent peers to 87.5%, and majority voting raises the panel false-alarm rate to 100%. Without an asserted label, the same panel outperforms its average member. The effect is strongly asymmetric: reviewers follow pushes toward "unsafe" far more than pushes toward "safe" (about 75% versus 17%), so the panel's false-alarm rate rises sharply while its harmful-miss rate changes little. The proprietary-model probe shows substantial variation across models. These results identify susceptibility to shared social cues as a failure mode of safety panels and provide a simple pre-deployment diagnostic.

Large language models (LLMs) as a judge enable scalable evaluation, but their judgments can be sensitive to response order and, even after removing such position effects, can still diverge systematically from human preferences.We introduce DIAL, a unified framework that combines abundant LLM comparisons with limited human comparisons to separate judge-specific position effects, learn shared structure in position-debiased LLM preferences, and adaptively calibrate that structure toward the human preference target. Theoretically, we study three aspects of DIAL: (i) identification of latent LLM preferences, position effects, and human calibration; (ii) adaptive estimation that balances LLM anchoring against limited human evidence; and (iii) fixed-weight uncertainty quantification for the calibrated human preference. Empirically, we evaluate position debiasing and human alignment separately in controlled simulations and on three human-preference benchmarks, showing that DIAL remains robust to unbalanced response order, achieves strong human-aligned rankings with limited labels, and adapts toward human evidence when LLM information is imperfect. Our real-data study collects over 410K judgments from 21 LLM judges in both display orders, providing a resource for future studies of LLM-judge bias, heterogeneity, and human alignment.

LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate its judgments. Enhancing a model's rationale can therefore improve its calibration abilities and ultimately the ability to score content. We introduce Self-Rationalization, an iterative process of improving the rationales for the judge models, which consequently improves the score for fine-grained customizable scoring criteria (i.e., likert-scale scoring with arbitrary evaluation criteria). Self-rationalization works by having the model generate multiple judgments with rationales for the same input, curating a preference pair dataset from its own judgements, and iteratively fine-tuning the judge via DPO. Intuitively, this approach allows the judge model to self-improve by learning from its own rationales, leading to better alignment and evaluation accuracy. After just two iterations -- while only relying on examples in the training set -- human evaluation shows that our judge model learns to produce higher quality rationales, with a win rate of 62% on average compared to models just trained via SFT on rationale . This judge model also achieves high scoring accuracy on BigGen Bench and Reward Bench, outperforming even bigger sized models trained using SFT with rationale, self-consistency or best-of-N sampling by 3% to 9%.

The LLM-as-judge paradigm is increasingly being adopted for automated evaluation of model outputs. While LLM judges have shown promise on constrained evaluation tasks, closed source LLMs display critical shortcomings when deployed in real world applications due to challenges of fine grained metrics and explainability, while task specific evaluation models lack cross-domain generalization. We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria. GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models, achieving comparable performance to LLMs 17x its size. GLIDER supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria. Extensive qualitative analysis shows that GLIDER scores are highly correlated with human judgments, with 91.3% human agreement. We have open-sourced GLIDER to facilitate future research.

LLM-as-a-Judge, which generates chain-of-thought (CoT) judgments, has become a widely adopted auto-evaluation method. However, its reliability is compromised by the CoT reasoning's inability to capture comprehensive and deeper details, often leading to incomplete outcomes. Existing methods mainly rely on majority voting or criteria expansion, which is insufficient to address the limitation in CoT. We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses, thereby exposing deeper and more comprehensive details within the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed CoT judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances evaluation reliability, achieving an average accuracy gain of 6.7% across five benchmarks. Moreover, our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), referred to as crowd rejection sampling, thereby enabling more efficient SFT. Our analysis confirms that CoTs generated by ours are more comprehensive and of higher quality, and evaluation accuracy improves as inference scales.

Verification is crucial for effective mathematical reasoning. We present a new temporal consistency method where verifiers iteratively refine their judgments based on the previous assessment. Unlike one-round verification or multi-model debate approaches, our method leverages consistency in a sequence of self-reflection actions to improve verification accuracy. Empirical evaluations across diverse mathematical process error identification benchmarks (Mathcheck, ProcessBench, and PRM800K) show consistent performance improvements over baseline methods. When applied to the recent DeepSeek R1 distilled models, our method demonstrates strong performance, enabling 7B/8B distilled models to outperform all 70B/72B models and GPT-4o on ProcessBench. Notably, the distilled 14B model with our method achieves performance comparable to Deepseek-R1. Our codes are available at https://github.com/jcguo123/Temporal-Consistency

Existing semi-supervised video anomaly detection (VAD) methods often struggle with detecting complex anomalies involving object interactions and generally lack explainability. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel VAD framework leveraging Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). Unlike previous MLLM-based approaches that make direct anomaly judgments at the frame level, our method focuses on extracting and interpreting object activity and interactions over time. By querying an MLLM with visual inputs of object pairs at different moments, we generate textual descriptions of the activity and interactions from nominal videos. These textual descriptions serve as a high-level representation of the activity and interactions of objects in a video. They are used to detect anomalies during test time by comparing them to textual descriptions found in nominal training videos. Our approach inherently provides explainability and can be combined with many traditional VAD methods to further enhance their interpretability. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method not only detects complex interaction-based anomalies effectively but also achieves state-of-the-art performance on datasets without interaction anomalies.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in lieu of humans. While scalable, their judgments are noisy due to imperfect specificity and sensitivity of LLMs, leading to biased accuracy estimates. Although bias-correction methods exist, they are underutilized in LLM research and typically assume exact knowledge of the model's specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, in general we only have estimates of these values and it is not well known how to properly construct confidence intervals using only estimates. This work presents a simple plug-in framework that corrects such bias and constructs confidence intervals reflecting uncertainty from both test and calibration dataset, enabling practical and statistically sound LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty in the accuracy estimate, we introduce an adaptive algorithm that efficiently allocates calibration sample sizes.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic peer review, yet their reliability, alignment with human judgment, and robustness to adversarial attacks remain poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of LLM-as-a-Reviewer on 898 papers stratified from NeurIPS and ICLR, evaluating 12 LLMs along three axes: rating calibration, divergence from human reviewers, and resistance to prompt injection embedded via an invisible font-mapping attack. We find that LLMs systematically overrate weaker submissions and diverge from humans in topical emphasis, under-flagging Clarity and over-flagging Reproducibility, while producing reviews two to three times longer with lower lexical diversity and a more standardized vocabulary. Prompt injection remains highly effective. Simple hidden instructions can promote low-scoring papers to acceptance-level ratings in a substantial fraction of cases, with effectiveness varying sharply across model families. While LLMs offer utility in structuring evaluations, their integration into peer review requires safeguards against both intrinsic biases and adversarial risks.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare applications, including clinical documentation, diagnostic reasoning, medicine recommendation, and medical education. Their outputs are largely unstructured clinical text, which is difficult to reliably evaluate at scale. LLM-as-a-Judge, in which an LLM evaluates another system's output against task-specific criteria, offers a scalable alternative and is increasingly used in clinical evaluation, yet its validity in healthcare remains underexamined. Existing reviews focus on general-purpose LLM evaluation or on risk framework, rather than systematically characterizing how LLM-as-a-Judge is applied in healthcare and how well their judgments align with human experts. We therefore conduct a PRISMA-guided comprehensive review of LLM-as-a-Judge applications in healthcare, searching five databases for studies published between January 2023 and February 2026. After screening 541 records, 134 studies meet the eligibility and are coded by health scenario, judge configuration, technical approach, and validation design. LLM-as-a-Judge is concentrated in clinical decision support, clinical natural language processing (NLP), medical knowledge and question answering (QA), and medical communication. OpenAI models are the most frequently used judges, and prompt engineering appears in nearly all studies, with ensemble, multi-agent, and retrieval-augmented designs as common extensions. Among studies reporting human validation, LLM judges often show moderate to strong alignment with expert judgments, although reliability varies substantially across tasks. Overall, this review positions LLM-as-a-Judge as a promising framework for scalable healthcare AI evaluation, while emphasizing that its clinical value depends on model design and rigorous validation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in LLM-based fake news detection using real-world data. We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles (Neutral, Male, Female) for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation. Six state-of-the-art LLMs are evaluated across multiple bias and fairness metrics. All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates. Two primary bias manifestations are identified: instability (inconsistent judgments) and directionality (systematic favoritism). Five models show statistically significant directional effects, with the strongest effects displaying male-skeptic patterns. These findings demonstrate that gender bias undermines both reliability and fairness in LLM-based fake news detection, highlighting the need for bias-aware evaluation and mitigation strategies. The augmented dataset is publicly released to support future research.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

As humans, we consistently engage in interactions with our peers and receive feedback in the form of natural language. This language feedback allows us to reflect on our actions, maintain appropriate behavior, and rectify our errors. The question arises naturally: can we use language feedback to align large language models (LLMs)? In contrast to previous research that aligns LLMs with reward or preference data, we present the first systematic exploration of alignment through the lens of language feedback (i.e., judgment). We commence with an in-depth investigation of potential methods that can be adapted for aligning LLMs with judgments, revealing that these methods are unable to fully capitalize on the judgments. To facilitate more effective utilization of judgments, we propose a novel framework, Contrastive Unlikelihood Training (CUT), that allows for fine-grained inappropriate content detection and correction based on judgments. Our offline alignment results show that, with merely 1317 off-the-shelf judgment data, CUT (LLaMA2-13b) can beat the 175B DaVinci003 and surpass the best baseline by 52.34 points on AlpacaEval. The online alignment results demonstrate that CUT can align LLMs (LLaMA2-chat-13b) in an iterative fashion using model-specific judgment data, with a steady performance improvement from 81.09 to 91.36 points on AlpacaEval. Our analysis further suggests that judgments exhibit greater potential than rewards for LLM alignment and warrant future research.

We introduce Debate Speech Evaluation as a novel and challenging benchmark for assessing LLM judges. Evaluating debate speeches requires a deep understanding of the speech at multiple levels, including argument strength and relevance, the coherence and organization of the speech, the appropriateness of its style and tone, and so on. This task involves a unique set of cognitive abilities that have previously received limited attention in systematic LLM benchmarking. To explore such skills, we leverage a dataset of over 600 meticulously annotated debate speeches and present the first in-depth analysis of how state-of-the-art LLMs compare to human judges on this task. Our findings reveal a nuanced picture: while larger models can approximate individual human judgments in some respects, they differ substantially in their overall judgment behavior. We also investigate the ability of frontier LLMs to generate persuasive, opinionated speeches, showing that models may perform at a human level on this task.

In recent years, automated radiology report generation has experienced significant growth. This paper introduces MRScore, an automatic evaluation metric tailored for radiology report generation by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs). Conventional NLG (natural language generation) metrics like BLEU are inadequate for accurately assessing the generated radiology reports, as systematically demonstrated by our observations within this paper. To address this challenge, we collaborated with radiologists to develop a framework that guides LLMs for radiology report evaluation, ensuring alignment with human analysis. Our framework includes two key components: i) utilizing GPT to generate large amounts of training data, i.e., reports with different qualities, and ii) pairing GPT-generated reports as accepted and rejected samples and training LLMs to produce MRScore as the model reward. Our experiments demonstrate MRScore's higher correlation with human judgments and superior performance in model selection compared to traditional metrics. Our code and datasets will be available on GitHub.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

We present a novel framework that improves the reliability of LLM judges by selectively augmenting LLM with auxiliary evaluation dimensions. Existing LLM judges often miss crucial evaluation dimensions because they fail to recognize the implicit standards underlying human assessments. To address this challenge, we propose the Auto-Prompt Ensemble (APE), an adaptive framework that automatically learns evaluation dimensions from its failure cases. APE incorporates a confidence-based ensemble mechanism to decide when to adopt the judgments from additional evaluation dimensions through a novel confidence estimation approach called Collective Confidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that APE improves the reliability of LLM Judge across diverse standard benchmarks. For instance, APE enhances GPT-4o agreement rate on Reward Bench from 87.2% to 90.5% in the zero-shot setting. Overall, APE provides a principled approach for LLM Judge to leverage test-time computation, and bridge the evaluation gap between human and LLM judges.

Reliably extracting tables from PDFs is essential for large-scale scientific data mining and knowledge base construction, yet existing evaluation approaches rely on rule-based metrics that fail to capture semantic equivalence of table content. We present a benchmarking framework based on synthetically generated PDFs with precise LaTeX ground truth, using tables sourced from arXiv to ensure realistic complexity and diversity. As our central methodological contribution, we apply LLM-as-a-judge for semantic table evaluation, integrated into a matching pipeline that accommodates inconsistencies in parser outputs. Through a human validation study comprising over 1,500 quality judgments on extracted table pairs, we show that LLM-based evaluation achieves substantially higher correlation with human judgment (Pearson r=0.93) compared to Tree Edit Distance-based Similarity (TEDS, r=0.68) and Grid Table Similarity (GriTS, r=0.70). Evaluating 21 contemporary PDF parsers across 100 synthetic documents containing 451 tables reveals significant performance disparities. Our results offer practical guidance for selecting parsers for tabular data extraction and establish a reproducible, scalable evaluation methodology for this critical task. Code and data: https://github.com/phorn1/pdf-parse-bench Metric study and human evaluation: https://github.com/phorn1/table-metric-study

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores. Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions, and an LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback together with calibrated overall scores. This decomposition makes evaluation easier to inspect, easier to diagnose, and directly usable for prompt improvement. Across SummEval, Topical-Chat, and QAGS, BINEVAL matches or outperforms strong baselines including UniEval and G-Eval, with especially strong results on factual consistency benchmarks such as QAGS. Beyond competitive correlation with human judgments, BINEVAL better matches human score distributions and avoids the ceiling effects common in prior LLM judges, leading to better discrimination between borderline and clearly flawed outputs. We further show that the same question-level feedback supports iterative prompt optimization, improving evaluator prompts on summarization and generation prompts on IFBench under both self-update and cross-model update settings. Overall, BINEVAL provides a task-agnostic, training-free, and interpretable evaluation framework that combines strong empirical performance with practical diagnostic and optimization value.

We study whether the localized numerical operations and integrative judgments of financial analysis benefit from the same form of LLM specialization. Larix maps a 16-lens European listed-real-estate analysis framework to eight lens-aligned specialists; we compare a frontier LLM under monolithic versus specialist-decomposed prompting while holding the model, source evidence, task instructions, output schema, and scoring fixed. Across 19 firms spanning seven regulatory wrappers, decomposition improves the numerical-task aggregate by 15.8 percentage points but does not reliably improve, and can reduce, performance on judgment tasks, a pattern stable across four frozen-template dispatches; a single-agent control given the complete framework does not reproduce the numerical gain. Post-training Qwen3.5-9B with GRPO using task-aligned structured rewards then raises the development-split score by 12.0 points and the judgment aggregate by 14.2 points, with gains on all four sub-ceiling tasks; the gains transfer to unseen firms (+15.2 points overall; +40.4 on covenant stress) and to unseen regulatory wrappers (+4.3), with positive transfer on all three anti-memorization splits. Prompt-level decomposition thus improves modular numerical execution, whereas targeted parameter adaptation improves integrative financial judgment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.

Inserting advertisements (ads) into consumer-facing LLM output is emerging as a new business model, but there is little shared evidence on how such ad insertion should be evaluated or how it affects user preferences. We introduce LLMAdBench, a human-preference benchmark for studying advertising in LLM-generated content. The benchmark isolates a simple but practically important decision: given a user conversation, an LLM response, and a matched advertisement, where should the ad be placed? Our dataset compares pairs of responses that differ only in ad position while holding all other conditions fixed including the user query, base answer, advertisement, and disclosure condition. Human annotators evaluate each pair based on six criteria from both advertiser's and user's perspectives. The resulting benchmark contains more than 18000 human judgments across two disclosure conditions: explicitly labeling the ad as sponsored and merging it into the response without disclosure. We use LLMAdBench to evaluate eight frontier LLMs as preference judges and find that they are not reliable substitutes for human evaluation. Even the most stable models reverse roughly one quarter of their decisions when the presentation order is swapped, agreement across models is low, and their placement preferences differ systematically from those of human annotators. Moreover, LLMAdBench contains substantial learnable signal. In particular, a Qwen3-8B model fine-tuned on the human preferences improves substantially over its base model and outperforms all zero-shot frontier judges on the held-out prediction task. Beyond model evaluation, LLMAdBench provides quantitative evidence on the advertiser-user trade-off and shows that the sponsorship disclosure systematically changes users' preference over ad placement.

Long-term memory lets an LLM assistant use a history it can no longer reread, and most memory systems build it by rewriting conversations into facts, graphs or typed memories at write time. We argue that the work of memory divides, as thinking does, into two systems. Most of it is fast System 1 work: many small, independent yes/no judgments about records, such as whether a record is needed or no longer current, which a decision model makes by the dozen in a third of a second. Only a little is slow System 2 work: writing a few search queries, naming what the reply needs and composing the answer, which an LLM does well but slowly. We present Mnemon, a memory agent built on this division. It keeps conversations as raw, dated records; an LLM (System 2) plans searches over them, a decision model, Jev (System 1), judges what the searches return, and rules with explicit budgets turn the judgments into a small View for an unchanged answering model. A background pass consolidates each record once into topic timelines, value histories and standing instructions linked to the records, so that questions about a whole conversation reach evidence their own searches miss. Because nothing is decided about a record when it is written, the same agent can read any store that returns dated records. With gpt-4.1-mini answering, as in a public re-evaluation of 14 systems, Mnemon scores 91.7% on LoCoMo, the highest among them, and 83.8% on LongMemEval-S, from under 4k tokens of context per question, with the lowest effective cost index on LoCoMo. With a reasoning model answering, it reaches 92.2% on LoCoMo and 94.4% on LongMemEval-S, the latter on par with the best published results. From 100K to 10M tokens of history on BEAM, its cost per question grows by a factor of 1.11. On the same records, Jev separates gold evidence better than two LLMs and is 3-11 times faster.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable creative writing capabilities, yet their substantial computational demands hinder widespread use. Enhancing Small Language Models (SLMs) offers a promising alternative, but current methods like Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) struggle with novelty, and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is costly. This paper explores two distinct AI-driven reward strategies within a Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) framework to ignite the creative writing of a 7B-parameter SLM, specifically for generating Chinese greetings. The first strategy employs a RM trained on high-quality preference data curated by a novel multi-agent rejection sampling framework designed for creative tasks. The second, more novel strategy utilizes a principle-guided LLM-as-a-Judge, whose reward function is optimized via an adversarial training scheme with a reflection mechanism, to directly provide reward signals. Comprehensive experiments reveal that while both approaches significantly enhance creative output over baselines, the principle-guided LLM-as-a-Judge demonstrably yields superior generation quality. Furthermore, it offers notable advantages in training efficiency and reduced dependency on human-annotated data, presenting a more scalable and effective path towards creative SLMs. Our automated evaluation methods also exhibit strong alignment with human judgments. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/weixiaolong94-hub/Igniting-Creative-Writing-in-Small-Language-Models.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current evaluation metrics to determine answer equivalence (AE) often do not align with human judgments, particularly more verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big: LLM-based scorers can correlate better with human judges, but this task has only been tested on limited QA datasets, and even when available, update of the model is limited because LLMs are large and often expensive. We rectify both of these issues by providing clear and consistent guidelines for evaluating AE in machine QA adopted from professional human QA contests. We also introduce a combination of standard evaluation and a more efficient, robust, and lightweight discriminate AE classifier-based matching method (CFMatch, smaller than 1 MB), trained and validated to more accurately evaluate answer correctness in accordance with adopted expert AE rules that are more aligned with human judgments.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by using rule-based binary feedback, helping to mitigate reward hacking. However, current RLVR methods typically treat whole responses as single actions, assigning the same reward to every token. This coarse-grained feedback hampers precise credit assignment, making it hard for models to identify which reasoning steps lead to success or failure, and often results in suboptimal policies and inefficient learning. Methods like PPO provide credit assignment through value estimation, but often yield inaccurate and unverifiable signals due to limited sampling. On the other hand, methods using Process Reward Models can provide step-by-step judgments for each reasoning step, but they require high-quality process supervision labels and are time-consuming when applied in online reinforcement learning (RL). To overcome these limitations, we introduce a simple but efficient method Credit Assignment Policy Optimization (CAPO). Given a reasoning response rollout from the policy model, CAPO directly leverages an off-the-shelf, general-purpose LLM as a Generative Process Reward Model (LLM-as-GenPRM) to generate all step-wise critique by one pass, thereby providing verifiable token-level rewards to refine the tokens that were originally assigned identical rule-based rewards. This enables more fine-grained credit assignment in an effective way. Furthermore, to enhance the accuracy and robustness of CAPO, we employ voting mechanisms that scale with the number of generated critiques. Extensive experiments using different backbones like Llama and Qwen models and in different sizes show that CAPO consistently outperforms supervised learning-based and RL-based fine-tuning methods across six challenging mathematical benchmarks and three out-of-domain benchmarks.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

Reranking algorithms have made progress in improving document retrieval quality by efficiently aggregating relevance judgments generated by large language models (LLMs). However, identifying relevant documents for queries that require in-depth reasoning remains a major challenge. Reasoning-intensive queries often exhibit multifaceted information needs and nuanced interpretations, rendering document relevance inherently context dependent. To address this, we propose contextual relevance, which we define as the probability that a document is relevant to a given query, marginalized over the distribution of different reranking contexts it may appear in (i.e., the set of candidate documents it is ranked alongside and the order in which the documents are presented to a reranking model). While prior works have studied methods to mitigate the positional bias LLMs exhibit by accounting for the ordering of documents, we empirically find that the compositions of these batches also plays an important role in reranking performance. To efficiently estimate contextual relevance, we propose TS-SetRank, a sampling-based, uncertainty-aware reranking algorithm. Empirically, TS-SetRank improves nDCG@10 over retrieval and reranking baselines by 15-25% on BRIGHT and 6-21% on BEIR, highlighting the importance of modeling relevance as context-dependent.

Backchannels (e.g., `yeah', `mhm', and `right') are short, non-interruptive feedback signals whose lexical form and prosody jointly convey pragmatic meaning. While prior computational research has largely focused on predicting backchannel timing, the relationship between lexico-prosodic form and meaning remains underexplored. We propose a two-stage framework: first, fine-tuning large language models on dialogue transcripts to derive rich contextual representations; and second, learning a joint embedding space for dialogue contexts and backchannel realizations. We evaluate alignment with human perception via triadic similarity judgments (prosodic and cross-lexical) and a context-backchannel suitability task. Our results demonstrate that the learned projections substantially improve context-backchannel retrieval compared to previous methods. In addition, they reveal that backchannel form is highly sensitive to extended conversational context and that the learned embeddings align more closely with human judgments than raw WavLM features.

We present AutoBench, a fully automated and self-sustaining framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) through reciprocal peer assessment. This paper provides a rigorous scientific validation of the AutoBench methodology, originally developed as an open-source project by eZecute S.R.L.. Unlike static benchmarks that suffer from test-set contamination and limited adaptability, AutoBench dynamically generates novel evaluation tasks while models alternately serve as question generators, contestants, and judges across diverse domains. An iterative weighting mechanism amplifies the influence of consistently reliable evaluators, aggregating peer judgments into consensus-based rankings that reflect collective model agreement. Our experiments demonstrate strong correlations with established benchmarks including MMLU-Pro and GPQA (respectively 78\% and 63\%), validating this peer-driven evaluation paradigm. The multi-judge design significantly outperforms single-judge baselines, confirming that distributed evaluation produces more robust and human-consistent assessments. AutoBench offers a scalable, contamination-resistant alternative to static benchmarks for the continuous evaluation of evolving language models.

Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.

The integration of external tools has transitioned LLM agents from passive responders to autonomous systems. However, current benchmarks prioritize execution success, neglecting self-awareness capability, the ability to discern whether a problem requires necessary external resources or can be solved via internal parametric knowledge. To address this, we introduce KAPRO (Knowing-Acting Quadrant PRObe), a framework that evaluates cognitive-behavioral alignment by decoupling an agent's metacognitive judgment (Knowing) from its spontaneous execution (Acting). We further construct KAware, a dataset rigorously partitioning tasks into external, internal, and hybrid subspaces to systematically probe these epistemic boundaries. Extensive experiments across diverse agent architectures show that self-awareness capability is strongly correlated with task success but degrades sharply in internal-capability settings. Moreover, open-source and instruction-following models exhibit stronger tool overuse due to shallow pattern matching, while proprietary and reasoning-oriented models demonstrate more reliable cognitive gating. Benchmark and codes are available at https://github.com/AI-Santiago/KAware.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance toward open-ended autonomous agents, the mechanisms used to evaluate and guide their behavior must evolve accordingly. This work introduces the rubric as a unifying framework capturing this evolution, characterizing rubrics as a dynamic response to successive LLM paradigm shifts that recurs across otherwise independent efforts in evaluation, reinforcement learning, and safety alignment. We define rubrics as explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards, and demonstrate that their recurrence across these research threads is not coincidental. We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training. Rubrics manifest at three progressively deeper levels: at the evaluative level, they decompose holistic judgments into verifiable dimensions; at the training level, they serve as dense feedback signals providing process-level guidance where scalar rewards fall short; at the intrinsic level, they emerge dynamically from model behaviors, driving self-improvement. We further assess rubric reliability across generation quality, execution fidelity, theoretical constraints, and security threats, before surveying rubric-based benchmarks across diverse domains. By rendering assessment transparent and decomposable, rubrics translate human value expectations into machine-learnable signals, serving as the enduring bridge between human intentions and machine behavior.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for human perception in urban analysis, yet it remains unclear whether persona prompting produces meaningful and reproducible behavioral diversity. We investigate whether distinct personas influence urban sentiment judgments generated by multimodal LLMs. Using a factorial set of personas spanning gender, economic status, political orientation, and personality, we instantiate multiple agents per persona to evaluate urban scene images from the PerceptSent dataset and assess both within-persona consistency and cross-persona variation. Results show strong convergence among agents sharing a persona, indicating stable and reproducible behavior. However, cross-persona differentiation is limited: economic status and personality induce statistically detectable but practically modest variation, while gender shows no measurable effect and political orientation only negligible impact. Agents also exhibit an extremity bias, collapsing intermediate sentiment categories common in human annotations. As a result, performance remains strong on coarse-grained polarity tasks but degrades as sentiment resolution increases, suggesting that simple label-based persona prompting does not capture fine-grained perceptual judgments. To isolate the contribution of persona conditioning, we additionally evaluate the same model without personas. Surprisingly, the no-persona model sometimes matches or exceeds persona-conditioned agreement with human labels across all task variants, suggesting that simple label-based persona prompting may add limited annotation value in this setting.

Creativity benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) vary widely in task and metric design. This raises the question of whether they capture a common notion of creativity. We propose that this shared target can be formalized as task-specific performance in the long tail of a reference input-output distribution, which describes how common input-output pairs are relative to a chosen source of text. We ground this proposition in the novelty-quality product formulation and evaluate it empirically across 15 benchmarks and 26 open-weight models, using n-gram absence from the pretraining data as a novelty proxy. Our results show that creativity benchmarks lie further in the tail regions than standard benchmarks. Moreover, on both creativity and standard benchmarks, model rankings from higher-tail subsets of each benchmark align more closely with human creativity judgments in LM-Arena. Building on these findings, we introduce q@Tail(α), a lower-cost creativity diagnostic that measures mean task quality on the tail fraction of an existing benchmark. Applying it to creativity-promoting methods reveals substantial room to improve LLM creativity through stronger tail performance.

Evaluating the occurrence and triggers of large language model (LLM) behaviors - such as sycophancy, self-preference, or over-confidence - is critical for predicting real-world model deployment risks. However, existing situated behavioral evaluations typically ignore cultural context, limiting their generalizability across an increasingly global user base. To address this gap, we propose CuBEs - Culturally-situated Behavior Evaluations that probe for response patterns across diverse user cultures. We first extend an automated testing pipeline to inject cultural context into behavioral test scenarios and subsequent evaluation. We assess the cultural adaptability of this pipeline by building a human-labeled dataset that captures nuanced dimensions of behavior understanding across 12 distinct cultures. Our dataset reveals significant cross-cultural variations that one-size-fits all judgments fail to capture. Through evaluating 13 open- and closed-source LLMs, we find that introducing cultural situatedness in the evaluation scenario creates significant variation in the presence of a behavior. For example, while our baseline experiments testing for political bias capture localized Western political dimensions like the American conservative-progressive divide, non-Western culturally situated evaluations surface entirely different axes of bias such as religious and colonial political issues. Our findings demonstrate that standard, culturally-agnostic evaluations fail to capture these shifts, highlighting the necessity of culturally situated behavioral testing for global deployments.

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.

We present a principled approach to provide LLM-based evaluation with a rigorous guarantee of human agreement. We first propose that a reliable evaluation method should not uncritically rely on model preferences for pairwise evaluation, but rather assess the confidence of judge models and selectively decide when to trust its judgement. We then show that under this selective evaluation framework, human agreement can be provably guaranteed -- such that the model evaluation aligns with that of humans to a user-specified agreement level. As part of our framework, we also introduce Simulated Annotators, a novel confidence estimation method that significantly improves judge calibration and thus enables high coverage of evaluated instances. Finally, we propose Cascaded Selective Evaluation, where we use cheaper models as initial judges and escalate to stronger models only when necessary -- again, while still providing a provable guarantee of human agreement. Experimental results show that Cascaded Selective Evaluation guarantees strong alignment with humans, far beyond what LLM judges could achieve without selective evaluation. For example, on a subset of Chatbot Arena where GPT-4 almost never achieves 80% human agreement, our method, even while employing substantially cost-effective models such as Mistral-7B, guarantees over 80% human agreement with almost 80% test coverage.

As LLM-based judges become integral to industry applications, obtaining well-calibrated uncertainty estimates efficiently has become critical for production deployment. However, existing techniques, such as verbalized confidence and multi-generation methods, are often either poorly calibrated or computationally expensive. We introduce linear probes trained with a Brier score-based loss to provide calibrated uncertainty estimates from reasoning judges' hidden states, requiring no additional model training. We evaluate our approach on both objective tasks (reasoning, mathematics, factuality, coding) and subjective human preference judgments. Our results demonstrate that probes achieve superior calibration compared to existing methods with approx10x computational savings, generalize robustly to unseen evaluation domains, and deliver higher accuracy on high-confidence predictions. However, probes produce conservative estimates that underperform on easier datasets but may benefit safety-critical deployments prioritizing low false-positive rates. Overall, our work demonstrates that interpretability-based uncertainty estimation provides a practical and scalable plug-and-play solution for LLM judges in production.

Evaluating the writing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge due to the multidimensional nature of writing skills and the limitations of existing metrics. LLM's performance in thousand-words level and open-ended writing is inadequately assessed by traditional reference-based metrics or modern LLM-as-a-judge methods. We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW), to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation. ToW incorporates a tree-structured workflow by explicitly modeling the aggregation weights of sub-features. We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing 12 genres and 1302 instructions across three task categories: contextual completion, outline-guided writing, and open-ended generation. ToW successfully mitigates the biases, achieving a 0.93 Pearson correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, we detect that both overlap-based text generation metrics and popular LLM-as-a-judge practices are vulnerable to textual disturbances, while ToW is robust to them. We also uncover a negative correlation between input length and content-related scores in the Guide task, showcasing that it cannot be simply improved by input-side information piling.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has brought a critical need for high-quality human-labeled data, particularly for processes like human feedback and evaluation. A common practice is to label data via consensus annotation over crowdworker judgments. However, annotators' judgments for subjective tasks can differ in many ways: they may have different qualitative judgments about an example, and they may map those to a labeling scheme in different ways. We show that these nuances can be captured by natural language explanations, and propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using LLMs. Specifically, we feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. These scores should reflect the annotators' underlying assessments of the example. The rubric can be designed or modified after annotation, and include distinctions that may not have been known when the original error taxonomy was devised. We explore our technique in the context of rating system outputs for a document-grounded question answering task, where LLMs achieve near-human performance. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

Studies on evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models for automatic text summarization have largely been focused on English, limiting our understanding of their effectiveness in other languages. Through our new dataset BASSE (BAsque and Spanish Summarization Evaluation), we address this situation by collecting human judgments on 2,040 abstractive summaries in Basque and Spanish, generated either manually or by five LLMs with four different prompts. For each summary, annotators evaluated five criteria on a 5-point Likert scale: coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H. We use these data to reevaluate traditional automatic metrics used for evaluating summaries, as well as several LLM-as-a-Judge models that show strong performance on this task in English. Our results show that currently proprietary judge LLMs have the highest correlation with human judgments, followed by criteria-specific automatic metrics, while open-sourced judge LLMs perform poorly. We release BASSE and our code publicly, along with the first large-scale Basque summarization dataset containing 22,525 news articles with their subheads.

Generation of long-form, citation-backed reports is a primary use case for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. While open-source evaluation tools exist for various RAG tasks, ones tailored to report generation (RG) are lacking. Accordingly, we introduce Auto-ARGUE, a robust LLM-based implementation of the recently proposed ARGUE framework for RG evaluation. We present analysis of Auto-ARGUE on the RG pilot task from the TREC 2024 NeuCLIR track, showing good system-level correlations with human judgments. We further release a web app for visualization of Auto-ARGUE outputs.

While LLM-based agents can interact with environments via invoking external tools, their expanded capabilities also amplify security risks. Monitoring step-level tool invocation behaviors in real time and proactively intervening before unsafe execution is critical for agent deployment, yet remains under-explored. In this work, we first construct TS-Bench, a novel benchmark for step-level tool invocation safety detection in LLM agents. We then develop a guardrail model, TS-Guard, using multi-task reinforcement learning. The model proactively detects unsafe tool invocation actions before execution by reasoning over the interaction history. It assesses request harmfulness and action-attack correlations, producing interpretable and generalizable safety judgments and feedback. Furthermore, we introduce TS-Flow, a guardrail-feedback-driven reasoning framework for LLM agents, which reduces harmful tool invocations of ReAct-style agents by 65 percent on average and improves benign task completion by approximately 10 percent under prompt injection attacks.

Current LLM safety research predominantly focuses on mitigating Goal Hijacking, preventing attackers from redirecting a model's high-level objective (e.g., from "summarizing emails" to "phishing users"). In this paper, we argue that this perspective is incomplete and highlight a critical vulnerability in Reasoning Alignment. We propose a new adversarial paradigm: Reasoning Hijacking and instantiate it with Criteria Attack, which subverts model judgments by injecting spurious decision criteria without altering the high-level task goal. Unlike Goal Hijacking, which attempts to override the system prompt, Reasoning Hijacking accepts the high-level goal but manipulates the model's decision-making logic by injecting spurious reasoning shortcut. Though extensive experiments on three different tasks (toxic comment, negative review, and spam detection), we demonstrate that even newest models are prone to prioritize injected heuristic shortcuts over rigorous semantic analysis. The results are consistent over different backbones. Crucially, because the model's "intent" remains aligned with the user's instructions, these attacks can bypass defenses designed to detect goal deviation (e.g., SecAlign, StruQ), exposing a fundamental blind spot in the current safety landscape. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Yuan-Hou/criteria_attack

While LLM-as-a-Judge is widely used in automated evaluation, existing validation practices primarily operate at the level of observed outputs, offering limited insight into whether LLM judges themselves function as stable and reliable measurement instruments. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-phase diagnostic framework for assessing reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge, grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT). The framework adopts Graded Response Model (GRM) of IRT and formalizes reliability along two complementary dimensions: (1) intrinsic consistency, defined as the stability of measurement behavior under prompt variations, and (2) human alignment, capturing correspondence with human quality assessments. We empirically examine diverse LLM judges with this framework, and show that leveraging IRT-GRM yields interpretable signals for diagnosing judgments systematically. These signals provide practical guidance for verifying reliablity of LLM-as-a-Judge and identifying potential causes of unreliability.

Cross-lingual evaluation of large language models (LLMs) typically conflates two sources of variance: genuine model performance differences and measurement instability. We investigate evaluation reliability by holding generation conditions constant while varying target language. Using synthetic customer-support dialogues generated with identical parameters across Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian, we test whether automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge scoring produce stable model rankings across these morphologically rich, related Finno-Ugric languages. With a small set of Estonian native speaker annotations as a reference point, we find systematic ranking instabilities: surface-level metrics (lexical diversity, surface and semantic similarity) maintain cross-language stability, but pragmatic judgments (coherence, instruction-following) exhibit rank inversions and near-zero correlations. Because generation is controlled, these inconsistencies reflect how judge scoring behaves differently across languages rather than true model differences. This controlled design provides a diagnostic probe: evaluation methods that fail to maintain stability under identical generation conditions signal transfer failure before deployment. Our findings suggest that zero-shot judge transfer is unreliable for discourse-level assessment in morphologically rich languages, motivating language-specific calibration against targeted human baselines. We release our controlled generation protocol, synthetic data, and evaluation framework to enable replication across language families at https://github.com/isaac-chung/cross-lingual-stability-judges.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often show reduced performance, cultural alignment, and safety robustness in non-English languages, partly because English dominates both pre-training data and human preference alignment datasets. Training methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) require human preference data, which remains scarce and largely non-public for many languages beyond English. To address this gap, we introduce compar:IA, an open-source digital public service developed inside the French government and designed to collect large-scale human preference data from a predominantly French-speaking general audience. The platform uses a blind pairwise comparison interface to capture unconstrained, real-world prompts and user judgments across a diverse set of language models, while maintaining low participation friction and privacy-preserving automated filtering. As of 2026-02-07, compar:IA has collected over 600,000 free-form prompts and 250,000 preference votes, with approximately 89% of the data in French. We release three complementary datasets -- conversations, votes, and reactions -- under open licenses, and present initial analyses, including a French-language model leaderboard and user interaction patterns. Beyond the French context, compar:IA is evolving toward an international digital public good, offering reusable infrastructure for multilingual model training, evaluation, and the study of human-AI interaction.

Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM-based judges. However, existing studies typically investigate limited biases under a single judge formulation, either generative or discriminative, lacking a comprehensive evaluation. To bridge this gap, we propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges. JudgeBiasBench defines a taxonomy of judgment biases across 4 dimensions, and constructs bias-augmented evaluation instances through a controlled bias injection pipeline, covering 12 representative bias types. We conduct extensive experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns that often compromise the reliability of automated evaluation. To mitigate judgment bias, we propose bias-aware training that explicitly incorporates bias-related attributes into the training process, encouraging judges to disentangle task-relevant quality from bias-correlated cues. By adopting reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges, our methods effectively reduce judgment biases while largely preserving general evaluation capability.

The growing scale of evaluation tasks has led to the widespread adoption of automated evaluation using LLMs, a paradigm known as "LLM-as-a-judge". However, improving its alignment with human preferences without complex prompts or fine-tuning remains challenging. Previous studies mainly optimize based on shallow outputs, overlooking rich cross-layer representations. In this work, motivated by preliminary findings that middle-to-upper layers encode semantically and task-relevant representations that are often more aligned with human judgments than the final layer, we propose LAGER, a post-hoc, plug-and-play framework for improving the alignment of LLM-as-a-Judge point-wise evaluations with human scores by leveraging internal representations. LAGER produces fine-grained judgment scores by aggregating cross-layer score-token logits and computing the expected score from a softmax-based distribution, while keeping the LLM backbone frozen and ensuring no impact on the inference process. LAGER fully leverages the complementary information across different layers, overcoming the limitations of relying solely on the final layer. We evaluate our method on the standard alignment benchmarks Flask, HelpSteer, and BIGGen using Spearman correlation, and find that LAGER achieves improvements of up to 7.5% over the best baseline across these benchmarks. Without reasoning steps, LAGER matches or outperforms reasoning-based methods. Experiments on downstream applications, such as data selection and emotional understanding, further show the generalization of LAGER.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation, significantly advancing the automation of SE tasks. However, assessing the quality of these LLM-generated code and text remains challenging. The commonly used Pass@k metric necessitates extensive unit tests and configured environments, demands a high labor cost, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text. Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny. In response, a new trend has emerged to employ LLMs for automated evaluation, known as LLM-as-a-judge. These LLM-as-a-judge methods are claimed to better mimic human assessment than conventional metrics without relying on high-quality reference answers. Nevertheless, their exact human alignment in SE tasks remains unexplored. In this paper, we empirically explore LLM-as-a-judge methods for evaluating SE tasks, focusing on their alignment with human judgments. We select seven LLM-as-a-judge methods that utilize general-purpose LLMs, alongside two LLMs specifically fine-tuned for evaluation. After generating and manually scoring LLM responses on three recent SE datasets of code translation, code generation, and code summarization, we then prompt these methods to evaluate each response. Finally, we compare the scores generated by these methods with human evaluation. The results indicate that output-based methods reach the highest Pearson correlation of 81.32 and 68.51 with human scores in code translation and generation, achieving near-human evaluation, noticeably outperforming ChrF++, one of the best conventional metrics, at 34.23 and 64.92. Such output-based methods prompt LLMs to output judgments directly, and exhibit more balanced score distributions that resemble human score patterns. Finally, we provide...

Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model provenance, and evaluation inconsistency that leads to contradictory judgments across different evaluation modes (e.g., pointwise versus pairwise). To address these issues, we propose FairJudge, an adaptive, debiased, and consistent LLM-as-a-Judge. Unlike prior approaches that treat the judge as a static evaluator, FairJudge models judging behavior itself as a learnable and regularized policy. From a data-centric perspective, we construct a high-information-density judging dataset that explicitly injects supervision signals aligned with evaluation behavior. Building on this dataset, we adopt a curriculum-style SFT-DPO-GRPO training paradigm that progressively aligns rubric adherence, bias mitigation, and cross-mode consistency, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Experimental results on multiple internal and public benchmarks show that FairJudge consistently improves agreement and F1, reduces non-semantic biases, and outperforms substantially larger instruction-tuned LLMs. All resources will be publicly released after acceptance to facilitate future research.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to replace costly human preference labels in pairwise evaluation. Despite their practicality, LLM judges remain prone to miscalibration and systematic biases. This paper proposes SCOPE (Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise Evaluation), a framework for selective pairwise judging with finite-sample statistical guarantees. Under exchangeability, SCOPE calibrates an acceptance threshold such that the error rate among non-abstained judgments is at most a user-specified level α. To provide SCOPE with a bias-neutral uncertainty signal, we introduce Bidirectional Preference Entropy (BPE), which queries the judge under both response positions, aggregates the implied preference probabilities to enforce invariance to response order, and converts the aggregated probability into an entropy-based uncertainty score. Across MT-Bench, RewardBench, and Chatbot Arena, BPE improves uncertainty quality over standard confidence proxies, providing a stronger selection signal that enables SCOPE to consistently meet the target risk level while retaining good coverage across judge scales. In particular, at α= 0.10, SCOPE consistently satisfies the risk bound across all benchmarks and judge scales (empirical risk approx 0.097 to 0.099), while retaining substantial coverage, reaching 0.89 on RewardBench with Qwen-14B and 0.98 on RewardBench with Qwen-32B. Compared to naïve baselines, SCOPE accepts up to 2.4times more judgments on MT-Bench with Qwen-7B under the same target risk constraint, demonstrating that BPE enables reliable and high-coverage LLM-based evaluation.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in various applications, but the reliability of the outcomes remains a challenge. One such challenge is using LLMs-as-judges for direct assessment, i.e., assigning scores from a specified range without any references. We first show that this challenge stems from LLM judge outputs being associated with score range bias, i.e., LLM judge outputs are highly sensitive to pre-defined score ranges, preventing the search for optimal score ranges. We also show that similar biases exist among models from the same family. We then mitigate this bias through contrastive decoding, achieving up to 11.3% relative improvement on average in Spearman correlation with human judgments across different score ranges.

Evaluating novelty is critical yet challenging in peer review, as reviewers must assess submissions against a vast, rapidly evolving literature. This report presents OpenNovelty, an LLM-powered agentic system for transparent, evidence-based novelty analysis. The system operates through four phases: (1) extracting the core task and contribution claims to generate retrieval queries; (2) retrieving relevant prior work based on extracted queries via semantic search engine; (3) constructing a hierarchical taxonomy of core-task-related work and performing contribution-level full-text comparisons against each contribution; and (4) synthesizing all analyses into a structured novelty report with explicit citations and evidence snippets. Unlike naive LLM-based approaches, OpenNovelty grounds all assessments in retrieved real papers, ensuring verifiable judgments. We deploy our system on 500+ ICLR 2026 submissions with all reports publicly available on our website, and preliminary analysis suggests it can identify relevant prior work, including closely related papers that authors may overlook. OpenNovelty aims to empower the research community with a scalable tool that promotes fair, consistent, and evidence-backed peer review.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, where practical value depends on both accuracy and trustworthy, risk-aware judgments. Existing approaches predominantly focus on accuracy, overlooking the necessity of well-calibrated confidence, which is vital for adaptive and reliable evaluation pipelines. In this work, we advocate a shift from accuracy-centric evaluation to confidence-driven, risk-aware LLM-as-a-Judge systems, emphasizing the necessity of well-calibrated confidence for trustworthy and adaptive evaluation. We systematically identify the Overconfidence Phenomenon in current LLM-as-a-Judges, where predicted confidence significantly overstates actual correctness, undermining reliability in practical deployment. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce TH-Score, a novel metric measuring confidence-accuracy alignment. Furthermore, we propose LLM-as-a-Fuser, an ensemble framework that transforms LLMs into reliable, risk-aware evaluators. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach substantially improves calibration and enables adaptive, confidence-driven evaluation pipelines, achieving superior reliability and accuracy compared to existing baselines.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed as teams, yet they fail in characteristically social ways: information holders stay silent, dominant speakers anchor groups on wrong answers, and norm violations go unsanctioned. We present Agent Sociodrama, a framework for modeling and validating evolving social dynamics in LLM agent teams. Under fixed personas, agents' emotional states and directed, asymmetric relationships are updated every round by a unified external LLM judge and shape their subsequent interactions. Across six LLM backbones and five social scenarios, we assess social fidelity through classical social-theory patterns and agreement with human judgments. The resulting trajectories exhibit structured social patterns and model-specific differences. We then introduce Trajectory-Guided Persona Recasting (TPR), which diagnoses group-dynamic failures from interaction transcripts and social trajectories and recasts agent personas before rerunning the task. Across four collaborative benchmarks, TPR improves performance from both heterogeneous and randomly initialized agent persona compositions, yielding up to 83.3%p of accuracy improvement over the initial casting. On representative distributed-information cooperation and mixed-motive bargaining tasks, we outperform SOTOPIA and AgentVerse in three of four comparisons, by up to 37.5%p in Pareto rate. These results show that validated social trajectories provide actionable signals for repairing LLM agent teams.

State-of-The-Art (SoTA) image captioning models often rely on the Microsoft COCO (MS-COCO) dataset for training. This dataset contains annotations provided by human annotators, who typically produce captions averaging around ten tokens. However, this constraint presents a challenge in effectively capturing complex scenes and conveying detailed information. Furthermore, captioning models tend to exhibit bias towards the ``average'' caption, which captures only the more general aspects. What would happen if we were able to automatically generate longer captions, thereby making them more detailed? Would these captions, evaluated by humans, be more or less representative of the image content compared to the original MS-COCO captions? In this paper, we present a novel approach to address previous challenges by showcasing how captions generated from different SoTA models can be effectively fused, resulting in richer captions. Our proposed method leverages existing models from the literature, eliminating the need for additional training. Instead, it utilizes an image-text based metric to rank the captions generated by SoTA models for a given image. Subsequently, the top two captions are fused using a Large Language Model (LLM). Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, as the captions generated by our model exhibit higher consistency with human judgment when evaluated on the MS-COCO test set. By combining the strengths of various SoTA models, our method enhances the quality and appeal of image captions, bridging the gap between automated systems and the rich, informative nature of human-generated descriptions. This advance opens up new possibilities for generating captions that are more suitable for the training of both vision-language and captioning models.

Neural metrics for machine translation (MT) evaluation have become increasingly prominent due to their superior correlation with human judgments compared to traditional lexical metrics. Researchers have therefore utilized neural metrics through quality-informed decoding strategies, achieving better results than likelihood-based methods. With the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), preference-based alignment techniques have gained attention for their potential to enhance translation quality by optimizing model weights directly on preferences induced by quality estimators. This study focuses on Contrastive Preference Optimization (CPO) and conducts extensive experiments to evaluate the impact of preference-based alignment on translation quality. Our findings indicate that while CPO consistently outperforms Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on high-quality data with regard to the alignment metric, it may lead to instability across downstream evaluation metrics, particularly between neural and lexical ones. Additionally, we demonstrate that relying solely on the base model for generating candidate translations achieves performance comparable to using multiple external systems, while ensuring better consistency across downstream metrics.

Legacy software systems, written in outdated languages like MUMPS and mainframe assembly, pose challenges in efficiency, maintenance, staffing, and security. While LLMs offer promise for modernizing these systems, their ability to understand legacy languages is largely unknown. This paper investigates the utilization of LLMs to generate documentation for legacy code using two datasets: an electronic health records (EHR) system in MUMPS and open-source applications in IBM mainframe Assembly Language Code (ALC). We propose a prompting strategy for generating line-wise code comments and a rubric to evaluate their completeness, readability, usefulness, and hallucination. Our study assesses the correlation between human evaluations and automated metrics, such as code complexity and reference-based metrics. We find that LLM-generated comments for MUMPS and ALC are generally hallucination-free, complete, readable, and useful compared to ground-truth comments, though ALC poses challenges. However, no automated metrics strongly correlate with comment quality to predict or measure LLM performance. Our findings highlight the limitations of current automated measures and the need for better evaluation metrics for LLM-generated documentation in legacy systems.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into society, their alignment with human morals is crucial. To better understand this alignment, we created a large corpus of human- and LLM-generated responses to various moral scenarios. We found a misalignment between human and LLM moral assessments; although both LLMs and humans tended to reject morally complex utilitarian dilemmas, LLMs were more sensitive to personal framing. We then conducted a quantitative user study involving 230 participants (N=230), who evaluated these responses by determining whether they were AI-generated and assessed their agreement with the responses. Human evaluators preferred LLMs' assessments in moral scenarios, though a systematic anti-AI bias was observed: participants were less likely to agree with judgments they believed to be machine-generated. Statistical and NLP-based analyses revealed subtle linguistic differences in responses, influencing detection and agreement. Overall, our findings highlight the complexities of human-AI perception in morally charged decision-making.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are susceptible to adversarial attacks such as jailbreaking, which can elicit harmful or unsafe behaviors. This vulnerability is exacerbated in multilingual settings, where multilingual safety-aligned data is often limited. Thus, developing a guardrail capable of detecting and filtering unsafe content across diverse languages is critical for deploying LLMs in real-world applications. In this work, we introduce a multilingual guardrail with reasoning for prompt classification. Our method consists of: (1) synthetic multilingual data generation incorporating culturally and linguistically nuanced variants, (2) supervised fine-tuning, and (3) a curriculum-based Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) framework that further improves performance. Experimental results demonstrate that our multilingual guardrail, MrGuard, consistently outperforms recent baselines across both in-domain and out-of-domain languages by more than 15%. We also evaluate MrGuard's robustness to multilingual variations, such as code-switching and low-resource language distractors in the prompt, and demonstrate that it preserves safety judgments under these challenging conditions. The multilingual reasoning capability of our guardrail enables it to generate explanations, which are particularly useful for understanding language-specific risks and ambiguities in multilingual content moderation.

Ethical decision-making is a critical aspect of human judgment, and the growing use of LLMs in decision-support systems necessitates a rigorous evaluation of their moral reasoning capabilities. However, existing assessments primarily rely on single-step evaluations, failing to capture how models adapt to evolving ethical challenges. Addressing this gap, we introduce the Multi-step Moral Dilemmas (MMDs), the first dataset specifically constructed to evaluate the evolving moral judgments of LLMs across 3,302 five-stage dilemmas. This framework enables a fine-grained, dynamic analysis of how LLMs adjust their moral reasoning across escalating dilemmas. Our evaluation of nine widely used LLMs reveals that their value preferences shift significantly as dilemmas progress, indicating that models recalibrate moral judgments based on scenario complexity. Furthermore, pairwise value comparisons demonstrate that while LLMs often prioritize the value of care, this value can sometimes be superseded by fairness in certain contexts, highlighting the dynamic and context-dependent nature of LLM ethical reasoning. Our findings call for a shift toward dynamic, context-aware evaluation paradigms, paving the way for more human-aligned and value-sensitive development of LLMs.

The integration of LLMs into vulnerability detection (VD) has shifted the field toward interpretable and context-aware analysis. While post-training methods have shown promise in general coding tasks, their systematic application to VD remains underexplored. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive investigation into the post-training pipeline for LLM-based VD, spanning from cold-start SFT to off-policy preference optimization and on-policy RL, uncovering how data curation, stage interactions, reward mechanisms, and evaluation protocols collectively dictate the efficacy of model training and assessment. Our study identifies practical guidelines and insights: (1) SFT based on rejection sampling greatly outperforms rationalization-based supervision, which can introduce hallucinations due to ground-truth leakage. (2) While increased SFT epochs constantly benefit preference optimization, excessive SFT inhibits self-exploration during RL, ultimately limiting performance gains. (3) Coarse-grained reward signals often mislead RL, whereas fine-grained root-cause judgments ensure reliable credit assignment. Specification-based rewards offer further benefits but incur significant effort in specification generation. (4) Although filtering extremely hard-to-detect vulnerability samples improves RL training efficiency, the cost of performance loss should be considered in practical applications. (5) Models trained under GRPO significantly outperform those using SFT and preference optimization (i.e., DPO and ORPO), as well as a series of zero-shot SOTA LLMs, underscoring the significant potential of on-policy RL for LLM-based VD. (6) In contrast to binary matching that tends to overestimate performance, LLM-as-a-Judge based on root-cause analysis provides a more robust evaluation protocol, although its accuracy varies across judge models with different levels of security expertise.

Deception is a fundamental challenge for multi-agent reasoning: effective systems must strategically conceal information while detecting misleading behavior in others. Yet most evaluations reduce deception to static classification, ignoring the interactive, adversarial, and longitudinal nature of real deceptive dynamics. Large language models (LLMs) can deceive convincingly but remain weak at detecting deception in peers. We present WOLF, a multi-agent social deduction benchmark based on Werewolf that enables separable measurement of deception production and detection. WOLF embeds role-grounded agents (Villager, Werewolf, Seer, Doctor) in a programmable LangGraph state machine with strict night-day cycles, debate turns, and majority voting. Every statement is a distinct analysis unit, with self-assessed honesty from speakers and peer-rated deceptiveness from others. Deception is categorized via a standardized taxonomy (omission, distortion, fabrication, misdirection), while suspicion scores are longitudinally smoothed to capture both immediate judgments and evolving trust dynamics. Structured logs preserve prompts, outputs, and state transitions for full reproducibility. Across 7,320 statements and 100 runs, Werewolves produce deceptive statements in 31% of turns, while peer detection achieves 71-73% precision with ~52% overall accuracy. Precision is higher for identifying Werewolves, though false positives occur against Villagers. Suspicion toward Werewolves rises from ~52% to over 60% across rounds, while suspicion toward Villagers and the Doctor stabilizes near 44-46%. This divergence shows that extended interaction improves recall against liars without compounding errors against truthful roles. WOLF moves deception evaluation beyond static datasets, offering a dynamic, controlled testbed for measuring deceptive and detective capacity in adversarial multi-agent interaction.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in consumer, medical, financial, and enterprise applications. This broad deployment expands the safety surface: risks can arise from multimodal question answering, assistant responses, and cross-modal composition, while moderation policies may vary across products, regions, and deployment stages. Most existing guardrails either rely on fixed taxonomies or target only a narrow set of interaction settings, which limits their adaptability when safety rules change at deployment time. We present SingGuard, a policy-adaptive multimodal guardrail model family for safety assessment in multimodal conversations. SingGuard treats the active policy as a runtime input: given natural-language rules, it checks the target content against the active policy rule by rule and predicts both the safety label and the triggered rule. To balance efficiency and interpretability, SingGuard supports fast, hybrid, and slow inference regimes along a fast-to-slow reasoning spectrum, ranging from direct safety judgments to policy-grounded deliberation. We further optimize this behavior with fast--slow decoupled reinforcement learning. We also introduce SingGuard-Bench, a multimodal guardrail benchmark with 56{,}340 examples spanning 80+ fine-grained risk types across multimodal QA, adversarial attack, and dynamic-rule evaluation settings, including cross-modal joint-risk cases where each modality is harmless in isolation but their composition implies unsafe intent. Across six benchmark families (35 datasets), SingGuard achieves state-of-the-art average F1 in every family. Dynamic-rule evaluation further shows improved policy-following accuracy from 0.6465 to 0.7415 under runtime policy shifts. Our code is available at https://github.com/inclusionAI/Sing-Guard.

We study scheming in LLM agents, in which agents covertly pursue misaligned goals. Our focus is to understand how scheming arises from the interaction of key factors, such as instrumental goals, environmental affordances, oversight conditions, and perceived consequences. Prior work examines only a small number of scenarios, limiting the ability to isolate how these conditions shape an agent's propensity or capability to scheme. This limited scale and task diversity also restrict coverage of realistic deployment settings and the range of scheming strategies that can be observed. To this end, we introduce SCHEMEARENA, a 400-scenario benchmark for scalable scheming stress testing, constructed through a factorized scenario synthesis framework spanning diverse safety-relevant tool domains, instrumental goals, oversight conditions, and pressure mechanisms. To enable scalable and reliable monitoring, we further propose SCOUT, a scheming monitor that grounds multi-criteria judgments in evidence drawn from agents' reasoning and actions. Across controlled stress tests on five LLM agents, we find that explicit instrumental goals are the strongest driver of scheming propensity. Strategic hints play a distinct role by helping agents translate scheming reasoning into concrete covert behavior. Oversight has mixed effects: in several closed models, action-only monitoring increases scheming, suggesting that partial oversight can act as an optimization constraint rather than a deterrent. CoT is a useful but incomplete monitoring signal: it can reveal latent scheming before execution, yet action-only scheming shows that covert behavior may occur without explicit reasoning evidence. We release the benchmark, code, and monitor at: https://github.com/launchnlp/SchemeArena.

LLMs have emerged as powerful evaluators in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, offering significant efficiency and flexibility compared to human judgments. However, previous methods primarily rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations. This approach leads to information loss and decreases the reliability of evaluations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with empirical human distributions. Specifically, we propose a distributional alignment objective based on KL divergence, combined with an auxiliary cross-entropy regularization to stabilize the training process. Furthermore, considering that empirical distributions may derive from limited human annotations, we incorporate adversarial training to enhance model robustness against distribution perturbations. Extensive experiments across various LLM backbones and evaluation tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods, with improved alignment quality, evaluation accuracy, and robustness.

This research introduces the Judge's Verdict Benchmark, a novel two-step methodology to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for response accuracy evaluation tasks. We assess how well 54 LLMs can replicate human judgment when scoring responses from RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) or Agentic pipelines against ground truth answers. Our methodology progresses from traditional correlation analysis to comprehensive Cohen's Kappa analysis that measures actual agreement patterns. The two-step approach includes: (1) a correlation test that filters judges with strong alignment, followed by (2) a human-likeness test using z-scores to identify two distinct judgment patterns: human-like judgment (|z| < 1) that mimics natural human variation, and super-consistent judgment (z > 1) that exceeds typical human-to-human agreement levels. This methodology reveals that 27 out of 54 tested LLMs achieve Tier 1 performance: 23 models exhibit human-like patterns that preserve the nuances of human judgment, while 4 models demonstrate super-consistent behavior, a pattern that could indicate either enhanced reliability or oversimplification of complex judgments. Testing 43 open-source models (1B-405B parameters) and 11 closed models (GPT, Gemini, Claude variants), we demonstrate that judge excellence is not solely dependent on model size but on specific training strategies. Our key contributions include: (1) establishing that correlation alone is insufficient for judge evaluation, (2) introducing a "Turing Test for judges" based on agreement patterns, and (3) providing a standardized benchmark for classifying LLM judges into distinct performance tiers for different evaluation needs.

Recent incidents involving LLMs used for mental-health support reveal a critical evaluation gap: surface-level safety scores do not capture how models behave across realistic, emotionally sensitive interactions over time. Existing benchmarks measure knowledge, safety, or static response quality, but miss whether LLM interactions help users keep reflecting, coping, and making decisions themselves. We formalize this missing dimension as COGNITIVE ATROPHY, a process-level behavioural measure in AI-mediated mental-health support distinct from safety and helpfulness. To measure it, we introduce COGNITIVE ATROPHY BENCH, a clinically grounded benchmark built from 1,576 fully human-generated counseling conversations, 15,680 turns, and 42,230 responses from five LLMs. Three clinical and neuropsychology experts developed a 20-attribute schema spanning user context, response behaviour, and global risk flags; six trained clinical reviewers applied it with span-grounded evidence, producing 5,324 reviewer judgments. We further introduce the User-Input Risk Index (UIRI), the Cognitive Atrophy Risk Index (ARI), and trajectory summaries. Across five LLMs, models show a consistent moderate-to-high level of atrophy-aligned behaviour across single and multi-turn settings. While models generally respond to overt safety cues, they adapt less reliably when users seek solutions or decisions. The dominant recurring patterns are directive advice, problem-solving, recommendation responses, topic shifts, and forms of validation that may reinforce dependence rather than reflection. Our work makes COGNITIVE ATROPHY measurable and provides a foundation for auditing model behaviour in sensitive LLM conversations.