Abstract--Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems, e.g., to assess responses in telecom customer support chatbots. However, the impartiality of these AI "judges" is not guaranteed, and any biases in their evaluation criteria could skew outcomes and undermine user trust. In this paper, we systematically investigate judgment biases in two LLMas-a-judge models (i.e., GPT -Judge and JudgeLM) under the point-wise scoring setting, encompassing 11 types of biases that cover both implicit and explicit forms. We observed that state-of-the-art LLM judges demonstrate robustness to biased inputs, generally assigning them lower scores than the corresponding clean samples. Providing a detailed scoring rubric further enhances this robustness. We further found that fine-tuning an LLM on high-scoring yet biased responses can significantly degrade its performance, highlighting the risk of training on biased data. We also discovered that the judged scores correlate with task difficulty: a challenging dataset like GPQA yields lower average scores, whereas an open-ended reasoning dataset (e.g., JudgeLM-val) sees higher average scores. Finally, we proposed four potential mitigation strategies to ensure fair and reliable AI judging in practical communication scenarios. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated judges to evaluate the quality of AI-generated responses in place of human annotators [1]. This LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm offers scalable and flexible evaluation, providing natural-language feedback and rapid scoring across diverse tasks [2]. The communications and networking industry has begun exploring such AI evaluators in domain-specific applications.

Large language models (LLMs) can act as evaluators, a role studied by methods like LLM-as-a-Judge and fine-tuned judging LLMs. In the field of education, LLMs have been studied as assistant tools for students and teachers. Our research investigates LLM-driven automatic evaluation systems for academic Text-Input Problems using rubrics. We propose five evaluation systems that have been tested on a custom dataset of 110 answers about computer science from higher education students with three models: JudgeLM, Llama-3.1-8B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B. The evaluation systems include: The JudgeLM evaluation, which uses the model's single answer prompt to obtain a score; Reference Aided Evaluation, which uses a correct answer as a guide aside from the original context of the question; No Reference Evaluation, which ommits the reference answer; Additive Evaluation, which uses atomic criteria; and Adaptive Evaluation, which is an evaluation done with generated criteria fitted to each question. All evaluation methods have been compared with the results of a human evaluator. Results show that the best method to automatically evaluate and score Text-Input Problems using LLMs is Reference Aided Evaluation. With the lowest median absolute deviation (0.945) and the lowest root mean square deviation (1.214) when compared to human evaluation, Reference Aided Evaluation offers fair scoring as well as insightful and complete evaluations. Other methods such as Additive and Adaptive Evaluation fail to provide good results in concise answers, No Reference Evaluation lacks information needed to correctly assess questions and JudgeLM Evaluations have not provided good results due to the model's limitations. As a result, we conclude that Artificial Intelligence-driven automatic evaluation systems, aided with proper methodologies, show potential to work as complementary tools to other academic resources.

This paper explores the multilingual commonsense generation abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). To facilitate this investigation, we introduce MULTICOM, a novel benchmark that extends the COCOTEROS dataset to four languages: English, Spanish, Dutch, and Valencian. The task involves generating a commonsensical sentence that includes a given triplet of words. We evaluate a range of open-source LLMs, including LLaMA, Qwen, Gemma, EuroLLM, and Salamandra, on this benchmark. Our evaluation combines automatic metrics, LLM-as-a-judge approaches (using Prometheus and JudgeLM), and human annotations. Results consistently show superior performance in English, with significantly lower performance in less-resourced languages. While contextual support yields mixed results, it tends to benefit underrepresented languages. These findings underscore the current limitations of LLMs in multilingual commonsense generation. The dataset is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/gplsi/MULTICOM.

Despite the global prevalence of Modern Standard Chinese language, counterspeech (CS) resources for Chinese remain virtually nonexistent. To address this gap in East Asian counterspeech research we introduce the a corpus of Modern Standard Mandarin counterspeech that focuses on combating hate speech in Mainland China. This paper proposes a novel approach of generating CS by using an LLM-as-a-Judge, simulated annealing, LLMs zero-shot CN generation and a round-robin algorithm. This is followed by manual verification for quality and contextual relevance. This paper details the methodology for creating effective counterspeech in Chinese and other non-Eurocentric languages, including unique cultural patterns of which groups are maligned and linguistic patterns in what kinds of discourse markers are programmatically marked as hate speech (HS). Analysis of the generated corpora, we provide strong evidence for the lack of open-source, properly labeled Chinese hate speech data and the limitations of using an LLM-as-Judge to score possible answers in Chinese. Moreover, the present corpus serves as the first East Asian language based CS corpus and provides an essential resource for future research on counterspeech generation and evaluation.

This paper introduces a context-aware model for robust counterspeech generation, which achieved significant success in the MCG-COLING-2025 shared task. Our approach particularly excelled in low-resource language settings. By leveraging a simulated annealing algorithm fine-tuned on multilingual datasets, the model generates factually accurate responses to hate speech. We demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across four languages (Basque, English, Italian, and Spanish), with our system ranking first for Basque, second for Italian, and third for both English and Spanish. Notably, our model swept all three top positions for Basque, highlighting its effectiveness in low-resource scenarios. Evaluation of the shared task employs both traditional metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, Novelty) and JudgeLM based on LLM. We present a detailed analysis of our results, including an empirical evaluation of the model performance and comprehensive score distributions across evaluation metrics. This work contributes to the growing body of research on multilingual counterspeech generation, offering insights into developing robust models that can adapt to diverse linguistic and cultural contexts in the fight against online hate speech.

The proliferation of misinformation and harmful narratives in online discourse has underscored the critical need for effective Counter Narrative (CN) generation techniques. However, existing automatic evaluation methods often lack interpretability and fail to capture the nuanced relationship between generated CNs and human perception. Aiming to achieve a higher correlation with human judgments, this paper proposes a novel approach to asses generated CNs that consists on the use of a Large Language Model (LLM) as a evaluator. By comparing generated CNs pairwise in a tournament-style format, we establish a model ranking pipeline that achieves a correlation of $0.88$ with human preference. As an additional contribution, we leverage LLMs as zero-shot (ZS) CN generators and conduct a comparative analysis of chat, instruct, and base models, exploring their respective strengths and limitations. Through meticulous evaluation, including fine-tuning experiments, we elucidate the differences in performance and responsiveness to domain-specific data. We conclude that chat-aligned models in ZS are the best option for carrying out the task, provided they do not refuse to generate an answer due to security concerns.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively. To address this problem, we propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalable judges (JudgeLM) to evaluate LLMs efficiently and effectively in open-ended benchmarks. We first propose a comprehensive, large-scale, high-quality dataset containing task seeds, LLMs-generated answers, and GPT-4-generated judgments for fine-tuning high-performance judges, as well as a new benchmark for evaluating the judges. We train JudgeLM at different scales from 7B, 13B, to 33B parameters, and conduct a systematic analysis of its capabilities and behaviors. We then analyze the key biases in fine-tuning LLM as a judge and consider them as position bias, knowledge bias, and format bias. To address these issues, JudgeLM introduces a bag of techniques including swap augmentation, reference support, and reference drop, which clearly enhance the judge's performance. JudgeLM obtains the state-of-the-art judge performance on both the existing PandaLM benchmark and our proposed new benchmark. Our JudgeLM is efficient and the JudgeLM-7B only needs 3 minutes to judge 5K samples with 8 A100 GPUs. JudgeLM obtains high agreement with the teacher judge, achieving an agreement exceeding 90% that even surpasses human-to-human agreement. JudgeLM also demonstrates extended capabilities in being judges of the single answer, multimodal models, multiple answers, and multi-turn chat.