REVIEW 14 cited by
Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human evaluation, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases of LLMs are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally. PAIRS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks in long-form generations and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PAIRS benefits from calibration using debiased pairwise evaluations.
Forward citations
Cited by 14 Pith papers
-
LLM-Based Examination of Eligibility Criteria from Securities Prospectuses at the German Central Bank
LLMs are applied in a generative pipeline for extracting, normalizing, and interpreting eligibility criteria from securities prospectuses, achieving up to 91% precision in document-level decisions with a conservative bias.
-
Stability vs. Manipulability: Evaluating Robustness Under Post-Decision Interaction in LLM Judges
LLM judges exhibit high stability under neutral re-evaluation but substantial reversibility under targeted post-decision challenges, quantified via a new Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS).
-
GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs
GRASP aggregates stable local LLM interaction judgments into global argument rankings via a convergent attack-defense propagation operator on interaction graphs, yielding higher reproducibility than holistic judging a...
-
Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild
Qualitative study of 19 practitioners reveals ten LLM product evaluation practices and introduces the results-actionability gap as a key barrier to turning findings into improvements.
-
Towards Spec Learning: Inference-Time Alignment from Preference Pairs
Proposes compiling preference pairs into readable natural-language specifications for inference-time LLM alignment, claiming outperformance over DPO on dense-preference domains.
-
Semantic Data Processing with Holistic Data Understanding
HoldUp uses LLM-guided clustering to provide holistic dataset context for semantic operators, yielding up to 33% higher classification accuracy and 30% higher scoring accuracy than row-by-row LLM processing across 15 ...
-
Fragile Preferences: A Deep Dive Into Order Effects in Large Language Models
LLMs exhibit quality-dependent order biases and name biases in pairwise comparisons that can cause selection of inferior options, demonstrated across resume and color tasks with a new classification of preferences as ...
-
Towards Spec Learning: Inference-Time Alignment from Preference Pairs
Spec learning compiles brief instructions and preference pairs into readable natural-language specifications that condition LLMs at inference time and can outperform DPO on domains with dense preference signals.
-
Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines
Gemini 2.5 Flash with a Combined Budget debiasing strategy achieves 71.0% judge agreement at ~$0.001/evaluation, outperforming frontier models at 15x lower cost.
-
Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines
Style bias dominates LLM-as-a-Judge systems far more than position bias, with debiasing strategies providing model-dependent gains and public tools released for replication.
-
(Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models
Multi-LLM pairwise Elo ranking with adjustable consensus thresholds produces rankings of competency profiles that average Spearman ρ≈0.83 with expert judgments.
-
Harnessing Meta-Learning for Controllable Full-Frame Video Stabilization
Meta-learned test-time adaptation, focused on the shakiest parts of a video, improves the stability and quality of full-frame neural video stabilizers.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
-
Causal Connections: Leveraging Multilingual Fine-Tuning for Financial QA@FinCausal 2026
Fine-tuned multilingual LLMs achieve top shared-task scores on financial causality extraction in English and Spanish.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.