Tuning LLM Judge Design Decisions for 1/1000 of the Cost

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17178v2
• Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 08:21:00 GMT
• Title: Tuning LLM Judge Design Decisions for 1/1000 of the Cost
• Authors: David Salinas, Omar Swelam, Frank Hutter,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) often require costly human annotations.<n>To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs.<n>While several approaches have been proposed, many confounding factors are present between different papers.
• Score: 42.06346155380305
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs enabling the ranking of models without human intervention. While several approaches have been proposed, many confounding factors are present between different papers. For instance the model, the prompt and other hyperparameters are typically changed at the same time making apple-to-apple comparisons challenging. In this paper, we propose to systematically analyze and tune hyperparameter of LLM judges. To alleviate the high cost of evaluating a judge, we propose to leverage multi-objective multi-fidelity which allows to find judges that trades accuracy for cost and also reduce significantly the cost of the search. Our method identifies judges that not only outperform existing benchmarks in accuracy and cost-efficiency but also utilize open-weight models, ensuring greater accessibility and reproducibility.

Related papers

• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• JudgeBoard: Benchmarking and Enhancing Small Language Models for Reasoning Evaluation [13.831735556002426]
  Small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks.<n>Their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T01:14:39Z)
• Topic-Specific Classifiers are Better Relevance Judges than Prompted LLMs [34.14678608130442]
  The unjudged document problem is a key obstacle to the reusability of test collections in information retrieval.<n>We train topic-specific relevance classifiers by finetuning monoT5 with independent LoRA weight adaptation on the judgments of a single assessor.<n>As little as 128 initial human judgments per topic suffice to improve the comparability of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T09:38:13Z)
• Bridging Human and LLM Judgments: Understanding and Narrowing the Gap [39.90675202514829]
  Large language models are increasingly used as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs at scale.<n>We present Bridge, a unified statistical framework that explicitly bridges human and LLM evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T10:14:20Z)
• Time To Impeach LLM-as-a-Judge: Programs are the Future of Evaluation [16.017941636877193]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate the quality of LLM generations and responses.<n>We introduce PAJAMA, a new alternative that uses LLMs to synthesize executable judging programs instead of directly scoring responses.<n>These synthesized programs can be stored and run locally, costing orders of magnitude less while providing interpretable, and auditable judging logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T06:53:22Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [48.676042957523045]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to human scores in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge by using the judge's textual evaluation and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can effectively improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge [65.14085339820795]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) judges truly benefit from enhanced reasoning capabilities. We introduce JudgeLRM, a family of judgment-oriented LLMs trained using reinforcement learning (RL) with judge-wise, outcome-driven rewards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:18:51Z)
• RocketEval: Efficient Automated LLM Evaluation via Grading Checklist [32.66840523942929]
  We propose a straightforward, replicable, and accurate automated evaluation method by leveraging a lightweight LLM as the judge, named RocketEval. Our experiments carried out on the automated evaluation benchmarks, MT-Bench and WildBench datasets, reveal that RocketEval, when using Gemma-2-2B as the judge, achieves a high correlation (0.965) with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T04:51:30Z)
• Judge as A Judge: Improving the Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation through the Judge-Consistency of Large Language Models [68.92020689188887]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven its effectiveness in alleviating hallucinations for Large Language Models (LLMs) Existing automated evaluation metrics cannot fairly evaluate the outputs generated by RAG models during training and evaluation. This paper introduces the Judge-Consistency (ConsJudge) method, which aims to enhance LLMs to generate more accurate evaluations for RAG models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T04:50:43Z)
• JudgeBlender: Ensembling Judgments for Automatic Relevance Assessment [28.4353755578306]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating relevance labels for search tasks.<n>We introduce JudgeBlender, a framework that employs smaller, open-source models to provide relevance judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T19:04:15Z)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding. Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks [11.01213914485374]
  We study large language models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning tasks. Our analysis uncovers a strong correlation between judgment performance and the candidate model task performance. We show that it is possible to use statistics, such as the task performances of the individual models, to predict judgment performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T10:09:41Z)
• On Speeding Up Language Model Evaluation [48.51924035873411]
  Development of prompt-based methods with Large Language Models (LLMs) requires making numerous decisions. We propose a novel method to address this challenge. We show that it can identify the top-performing method using only 5-15% of the typically needed resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:48:42Z)
• Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
  The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models.<n>This paper focuses on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high.<n>We identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z)
• Optimising Calls to Large Language Models with Uncertainty-Based Two-Tier Selection [80.63946798650653]
  Decision centers on whether to use a large LLM with better performance or a smaller one with reduced costs. We propose a simpler solution; we use only the uncertainty of the generations of the small LLM as the decision criterion. Our experiments reveal this simple solution optimally balances cost and performance, outperforming existing methods on 25 out of 27 experimental setups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T14:38:59Z)
• Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models [56.02275285521847]
  We propose to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL) We find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:33:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.