REVIEW 6 cited by
Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Tasks
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
Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Tasks
read the original abstract
The potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) themselves to evaluate LLM outputs offers a promising method for assessing model performance across various contexts. Previous research indicates that LLM-as-a-judge exhibits a strong correlation with human judges in the context of general instruction following. However, for instructions that require specialized knowledge, the validity of using LLMs as judges remains uncertain. In our study, we applied a mixed-methods approach, conducting pairwise comparisons in which both subject matter experts (SMEs) and LLMs evaluated outputs from domain-specific tasks. We focused on two distinct fields: dietetics, with registered dietitian experts, and mental health, with clinical psychologist experts. Our results showed that SMEs agreed with LLM judges 68% of the time in the dietetics domain and 64% in mental health when evaluating overall preference. Additionally, the results indicated variations in SME-LLM agreement across domain-specific aspect questions. Our findings emphasize the importance of keeping human experts in the evaluation process, as LLMs alone may not provide the depth of understanding required for complex, knowledge specific tasks. We also explore the implications of LLM evaluations across different domains and discuss how these insights can inform the design of evaluation workflows that ensure better alignment between human experts and LLMs in interactive systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Benchmarking LLMs on File System Design and Implementation
LLMs pass 88–96% of basic file-system tasks but only 38–42% of optimization and new-feature tasks on the new 505-task Phi-Bench benchmark.
-
Does Pass Rate Tell the Whole Story? Evaluating Design Constraint Compliance in LLM-based Issue Resolution
LLM agents resolve fewer than half of issues while satisfying design constraints despite passing tests, as shown by a benchmark of 495 issues and 1787 constraints from six repositories.
-
Evaluating AI-Generated Images of Cultural Artifacts with Community-Informed Rubrics
Community members from the UK blind community, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu helped define what counts as culturally appropriate depictions of artifacts, and the authors tested whether those definitions can be turned into re...
-
InFerActive: Interactive Tree-Based Exploration of LLM Sampling for Safety Evaluation
An interactive tree visualization of LLM sampling lets evaluators cover the same harmful-response space as random sampling with up to 5x fewer samples.
-
Evaluating AI-Generated Images of Cultural Artifacts with Community-Informed Rubrics
Case studies with blind UK residents and people from Kerala and Tamil Nadu demonstrate that community input at the systematization stage produces culturally grounded definitions of appropriateness for text-to-image mo...
-
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.