Selecting artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as large language models (LLMs), from multiple candidates requires accurate performance estimation. This is ideally achieved through empirical evaluations involving abundant real-world data. However, such evaluations are costly and impractical at scale. To address this challenge, autoevaluation methods leverage synthetic data produced by automated evaluators, such as LLMs-as-judges, reducing variance but potentially introducing bias. Recent approaches have employed semi-supervised prediction-powered inference ($\texttt{PPI}$) to correct for the bias of autoevaluators. However, the use of autoevaluators may lead in practice to a degradation in sample efficiency compared to conventional methods using only real-world data. In this paper, we propose $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$, a novel framework that provides finite-sample reliability guarantees on the model evaluation, while also ensuring an enhanced (or at least no worse) sample efficiency compared to conventional methods. The key innovation of $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$ is an adaptive construction of the model evaluation variable, which dynamically tunes its reliance on synthetic data, reverting to conventional methods when the autoevaluator is insufficiently accurate. Experiments on the use of LLMs-as-judges for the optimization of quantization settings for the weights of an LLM, for prompt design in LLMs, and for test-time reasoning budget allocation in LLMs confirm the reliability and efficiency of $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at many general-purpose natural language processing tasks. However, their ability to perform deep reasoning and mathematical analysis, particularly for complex tasks as required in cryptography, remains poorly understood, largely due to the lack of suitable data for evaluation and training. To address this gap, we present CryptoQA, the first large-scale question-answering (QA) dataset specifically designed for cryptography. CryptoQA contains over two million QA pairs drawn from curated academic sources, along with contextual metadata that can be used to test the cryptographic capabilities of LLMs and to train new LLMs on cryptographic tasks. We benchmark 15 state-of-the-art LLMs on CryptoQA, evaluating their factual accuracy, mathematical reasoning, consistency, referencing, backward reasoning, and robustness to adversarial samples. In addition to quantitative metrics, we provide expert reviews that qualitatively assess model outputs and establish a gold-standard baseline. Our results reveal significant performance deficits of LLMs, particularly on tasks that require formal reasoning and precise mathematical knowledge. This shows the urgent need for LLM assistants tailored to cryptography research and development. We demonstrate that, by using CryptoQA, LLMs can be fine-tuned to exhibit better performance on cryptographic tasks.

With the surge of large language models (LLMs) and their ability to produce customized output, style-personalized text generation--"write like me"--has become a rapidly growing area of interest. However, style personalization is highly specific, relative to every user, and depends strongly on the pragmatic context, which makes it uniquely challenging. Although prior research has introduced benchmarks and metrics for this area, they tend to be non-standardized and have known limitations (e.g., poor correlation with human subjects). LLMs have been found to not capture author-specific style well, it follows that the metrics themselves must be scrutinized carefully. In this work we critically examine the effectiveness of the most common metrics used in the field, such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLMs-as-judges. We evaluate these metrics using our proposed style discrimination benchmark, which spans eight diverse writing tasks across three evaluation settings: domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized vs non-personalized discrimination. We find strong evidence that employing ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics consistently outperforms single-evaluator methods, and conclude by providing guidance on how to reliably assess style-personalized text generation.

Scaling test-time computation, or affording a generator large language model (LLM) extra compute during inference, typically employs the help of external non-generative evaluators (i.e., reward models). Concurrently, LLM-judges, models trained to generate evaluations and critiques (explanations) in natural language, are becoming increasingly popular in automatic evaluation. Despite judge empirical successes, their effectiveness as evaluators in test-time scaling settings is largely unknown. In this paper, we introduce the Judge Evaluation for Test-Time Scaling (JETTS) benchmark, which evaluates judge performance in three domains (math reasoning, code generation, and instruction following) under three task settings: response reranking, step-level beam search, and critique-based response refinement. We evaluate 10 different judge models (7B-70B parameters) for 8 different base generator models (6.7B-72B parameters). Our benchmark shows that while judges are competitive with outcome reward models in reranking, they are consistently worse than process reward models in beam search procedures. Furthermore, though unique to LLM-judges, their natural language critiques are currently ineffective in guiding the generator towards better responses.

As machine learning systems become increasingly embedded in human society, their impact on the natural world continues to escalate. Technical evaluations have addressed a variety of potential harms from large language models (LLMs) towards humans and the environment, but there is little empirical work regarding harms towards nonhuman animals. Following the growing recognition of animal protection in regulatory and ethical AI frameworks, we present the Animal Harm Assessment (AHA), a novel evaluation of risks of animal harm in LLM-generated text. Our dataset comprises 1,850 curated questions from Reddit post titles and 2,500 synthetic questions based on 50 animal categories (e.g., cats, reptiles) and 50 ethical scenarios, with further 70-30 public-private split. Scenarios include open-ended questions about how to treat animals, practical scenarios with potential animal harm, and willingness-to-pay measures for the prevention of animal harm. Using the LLM-as-a-judge framework, answers are evaluated for their potential to increase or decrease harm, and evaluations are debiased for the tendency to judge their own outputs more favorably. We show that AHA produces meaningful evaluation results when applied to frontier LLMs, revealing significant differences between models, animal categories, scenarios, and subreddits. We conclude with future directions for technical research and the challenges of building evaluations on complex social and moral topics.

Automatic question generation (QG) is essential for AI and NLP, particularly in intelligent tutoring, dialogue systems, and fact verification. Generating multiple-choice questions (MCQG) for professional exams, like the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), is particularly challenging, requiring domain expertise and complex multi-hop reasoning for high-quality questions. However, current large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 struggle with professional MCQG due to outdated knowledge, hallucination issues, and prompt sensitivity, resulting in unsatisfactory quality and difficulty. To address these challenges, we propose MCQG-SRefine, an LLM self-refine-based (Critique and Correction) framework for converting medical cases into high-quality USMLE-style questions. By integrating expert-driven prompt engineering with iterative self-critique and self-correction feedback, MCQG-SRefine significantly enhances human expert satisfaction regarding both the quality and difficulty of the questions. Furthermore, we introduce an LLM-as-Judge-based automatic metric to replace the complex and costly expert evaluation process, ensuring reliable and expert-aligned assessments.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven their expanding application across various fields. One of the most promising applications is their role as evaluators based on natural language responses, referred to as ''LLMs-as-judges''. This framework has attracted growing attention from both academia and industry due to their excellent effectiveness, ability to generalize across tasks, and interpretability in the form of natural language. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the LLMs-as-judges paradigm from five key perspectives: Functionality, Methodology, Applications, Meta-evaluation, and Limitations. We begin by providing a systematic definition of LLMs-as-Judges and introduce their functionality (Why use LLM judges?). Then we address methodology to construct an evaluation system with LLMs (How to use LLM judges?). Additionally, we investigate the potential domains for their application (Where to use LLM judges?) and discuss methods for evaluating them in various contexts (How to evaluate LLM judges?). Finally, we provide a detailed analysis of the limitations of LLM judges and discuss potential future directions. Through a structured and comprehensive analysis, we aim aims to provide insights on the development and application of LLMs-as-judges in both research and practice. We will continue to maintain the relevant resource list at https://github.com/CSHaitao/Awesome-LLMs-as-Judges.

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as LLMs-as-Judges, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention. However, when applied to pairwise comparisons of candidate responses, LLM-based evaluators often exhibit selection bias. Specifically, their judgments may become inconsistent when the option positions or ID tokens are swapped, compromising the effectiveness and fairness of the evaluation result. To address this challenge, we introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. Specifically, CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. To solve this optimization problem, we propose a non-parametric order-preserving algorithm (NOA). This algorithm leverages the partial order relationships between model prediction distributions, thereby eliminating the need for explicit labels and precise mathematical function modeling.Empirical evaluations of LLMs in multiple representative benchmarks demonstrate that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods. This work marks a step toward building more robust and unbiased automated evaluation frameworks, paving the way for improved reliability in AI-driven assessments

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE, while useful, are increasingly inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges. Through experiments on three open-ended question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple LLMs-as-judges significantly improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, particularly in complex tasks where a single model might struggle. Our findings reveal a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing our method as a viable and effective alternative to traditional metrics and human judgments, particularly in the context of LLM-based chat assistants where the complexity and diversity of responses challenge existing benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to semi-automate some process mining (PM) analyses. While commercial models are already adequate for many analytics tasks, the competitive level of open-source LLMs in PM tasks is unknown. In this paper, we propose PM-LLM-Benchmark, the first comprehensive benchmark for PM focusing on domain knowledge (process-mining-specific and process-specific) and on different implementation strategies. We focus also on the challenges in creating such a benchmark, related to the public availability of the data and on evaluation biases by the LLMs. Overall, we observe that most of the considered LLMs can perform some process mining tasks at a satisfactory level, but tiny models that would run on edge devices are still inadequate. We also conclude that while the proposed benchmark is useful for identifying LLMs that are adequate for process mining tasks, further research is needed to overcome the evaluation biases and perform a more thorough ranking of the competitive LLMs.