Large-scale public deliberations generate thousands of free-form contributions that must be synthesized into representative and neutral summaries for policy use. While LLMs have been shown as a promising tool to generate summaries for large-scale deliberations, they also risk underrepresenting minority perspectives and exhibiting bias with respect to the input order, raising fairness concerns in high-stakes contexts. Studying and fixing these issues requires a comprehensive evaluation at a large scale, yet current practice often relies on LLMs as judges, which show weak alignment with human judgments. To address this, we present DeliberationBank, a large-scale human-grounded dataset with (1) opinion data spanning ten deliberation questions created by 3,000 participants and (2) summary judgment data annotated by 4,500 participants across four dimensions (representativeness, informativeness, neutrality, policy approval). Using these datasets, we train DeliberationJudge, a fine-tuned DeBERTa model that can rate deliberation summaries from individual perspectives. DeliberationJudge is more efficient and more aligned with human judgements compared to a wide range of LLM judges. With DeliberationJudge, we evaluate 18 LLMs and reveal persistent weaknesses in deliberation summarization, especially underrepresentation of minority positions. Our framework provides a scalable and reliable way to evaluate deliberation summarization, helping ensure AI systems are more representative and equitable for policymaking.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be susceptible to jailbreak attacks, or adversarial attacks used to illicit high risk behavior from a model. Jailbreaks have been exploited by cybercriminals and blackhat actors to cause significant harm, highlighting the critical need to safeguard widely-deployed models. Safeguarding approaches, which include fine-tuning models or having LLMs "self-reflect", may lengthen the inference time of a model, incur a computational penalty, reduce the semantic fluency of an output, and restrict ``normal'' model behavior. Importantly, these Safety-Performance Trade-offs (SPTs) remain an understudied area. In this work, we introduce a novel safeguard, called SafeNudge, that combines Controlled Text Generation with "nudging", or using text interventions to change the behavior of a model. SafeNudge triggers during text-generation while a jailbreak attack is being executed, and can reduce successful jailbreak attempts by 30% by guiding the LLM towards a safe responses. It adds minimal latency to inference and has a negligible impact on the semantic fluency of outputs. Further, we allow for tunable SPTs. SafeNudge is open-source and available through https://pypi.org/, and is compatible with models loaded with the Hugging Face "transformers" library.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in code generation. However, how to reliably evaluate code generated by LLMs remains an unresolved problem. This paper presents CodeJudge, a code evaluation framework that leverages LLMs to evaluate the semantic correctness of generated code without the need for test cases. We investigate different ways to guide the LLM in performing "slow thinking" to arrive at an in-depth and reliable evaluation. We experimented with four LLMs as evaluators on four code generation datasets and five programming languages. The results show that CodeJudge significantly outperformed existing methods in most settings. Furthermore, compared with a SOTA GPT-3.5-based code evaluation method, CodeJudge achieved better results even when using a much smaller model, Llama-3-8B-Instruct. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub https://github.com/VichyTong/CodeJudge.

LLM-as-a-Judge and reward models are widely used alternatives of multiple-choice questions or human annotators for large language model (LLM) evaluation. Their efficacy shines in evaluating long-form responses, serving a critical role as evaluators of leaderboards and as proxies to align LLMs via reinforcement learning. However, despite their popularity, their effectiveness outside of English remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis on automated evaluators, reporting key findings on their behavior in a non-English environment. First, we discover that English evaluation capabilities significantly influence language-specific capabilities, often more than the language proficiency itself, enabling evaluators trained in English to easily transfer their skills to other languages. Second, we identify critical shortcomings, where LLMs fail to detect and penalize errors, such as factual inaccuracies, cultural misrepresentations, and the presence of unwanted language. Finally, we release Kudge, the first non-English meta-evaluation dataset containing 5,012 human annotations in Korean.

Existing approaches for aligning large language models with human preferences face a trade-off that requires a separate reward model (RM) for on-policy learning. In this paper, we present a novel alignment framework, SELF-JUDGE that (1) does on-policy learning and 2) is parameter efficient, as it does not require an additional RM for evaluating the samples for on-policy learning. To this end, we propose Judge-augmented Supervised Fine-Tuning (JSFT) to train a single model to act as both a policy and a judge. Specifically, we view the pairwise judgment task, choosing the better response from a response pair, as a special case of the instruction-following task. The resulting model can judge preferences of on-the-fly responses from current policy initialized from itself. Experimental results show the efficacy of SELF-JUDGE, outperforming baselines in preference benchmarks. We also show that the rejecting sampling by itself can improve performance further without an additional evaluator.

We propose Prefix-Adaptive Decoding (PREADD), a flexible method for controlled text generation. Unlike existing methods that use auxiliary expert models to control for attributes, PREADD does not require an external model, instead relying on linearly combining output logits from multiple prompts. Specifically, PREADD contrasts the output logits generated using a raw prompt against those generated using a prefix-prepended prompt, enabling both positive and negative control with respect to any attribute encapsulated by the prefix. We evaluate PREADD on three tasks -- toxic output mitigation, gender bias reduction, and sentiment control -- and find that PREADD outperforms not only prompting baselines, but also an auxiliary-expert control method, by 12% or more in relative gain on our main metrics for each task.