REPA: Russian Error Types Annotation for Evaluating Text Generation and Judgment Capabilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13102v2
• Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 19:53:19 GMT
• Title: REPA: Russian Error Types Annotation for Evaluating Text Generation and Judgment Capabilities
• Authors: Alexander Pugachev, Alena Fenogenova, Vladislav Mikhailov, Ekaterina Artemova,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the framework of using large language models as judges in Russian.<n>We rank six generative LLMs across the error types using three rating systems based on human preferences.<n>Our findings reveal a notable gap between LLM judge performance in Russian and English.
• Score: 45.00513157371274
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have introduced the novel paradigm of using LLMs as judges, where an LLM evaluates and scores the outputs of another LLM, which often correlates highly with human preferences. However, the use of LLM-as-a-judge has been primarily studied in English. In this paper, we evaluate this framework in Russian by introducing the Russian Error tyPes Annotation dataset (REPA), a dataset of 1k user queries and 2k LLM-generated responses. Human annotators labeled each response pair expressing their preferences across ten specific error types, as well as selecting an overall preference. We rank six generative LLMs across the error types using three rating systems based on human preferences. We also evaluate responses using eight LLM judges in zero-shot and few-shot settings. We describe the results of analyzing the judges and position and length biases. Our findings reveal a notable gap between LLM judge performance in Russian and English. However, rankings based on human and LLM preferences show partial alignment, suggesting that while current LLM judges struggle with fine-grained evaluation in Russian, there is potential for improvement.

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)
• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs [21.97227334180969]
  "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. We propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-19T07:09:11Z)
• From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge [32.55871325700294]
  Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP)<n>Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T17:28:44Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluation [12.852595634767901]
  This study proposes a framework for an end-to-end assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators in multilingual scenarios. We create a dataset covering 10 languages containing native speaker judgments for the task of summarization. We compare the performance of LLM-based evaluators created using GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, and PaLM2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T06:14:54Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [48.48819141999387]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically. We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores. We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback [65.84061725174269]
  Recent large language models (LLM) are leveraging human feedback to improve their generation quality. We propose LLMRefine, an inference time optimization method to refine LLM's output. We conduct experiments on three text generation tasks, including machine translation, long-form question answering (QA), and topical summarization. LLMRefine consistently outperforms all baseline approaches, achieving improvements up to 1.7 MetricX points on translation tasks, 8.1 ROUGE-L on ASQA, 2.2 ROUGE-L on topical summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:52:11Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.