Beyond Single-Point Judgment: Distribution Alignment for LLM-as-a-Judge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12301v1
• Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 08:33:09 GMT
• Title: Beyond Single-Point Judgment: Distribution Alignment for LLM-as-a-Judge
• Authors: Luyu Chen, Zeyu Zhang, Haoran Tan, Quanyu Dai, Hao Yang, Zhenhua Dong, Xu Chen,
• Abstract summary: Previous methods rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations.<n>We propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with empirical human distributions.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods.
• Score: 24.862965044243168
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have emerged as powerful evaluators in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, offering significant efficiency and flexibility compared to human judgments. However, previous methods primarily rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations. This approach leads to information loss and decreases the reliability of evaluations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with empirical human distributions. Specifically, we propose a distributional alignment objective based on KL divergence, combined with an auxiliary cross-entropy regularization to stabilize the training process. Furthermore, considering that empirical distributions may derive from limited human annotations, we incorporate adversarial training to enhance model robustness against distribution perturbations. Extensive experiments across various LLM backbones and evaluation tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods, with improved alignment quality, evaluation accuracy, and robustness.

Related papers

• Exploring the Potential of LLMs for Serendipity Evaluation in Recommender Systems [10.227007419503297]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly revolutionizing evaluation methodologies across various human annotation tasks.<n>We conduct a meta-evaluation on two datasets derived from real user studies in the e-commerce and movie domains.<n>Our findings indicate that even the simplest zero-shot LLMs achieve parity with, or surpass, the performance of conventional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T07:51:56Z)
• Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge [13.45579129351493]
  We introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T13:29:22Z)
• Attribute Controlled Fine-tuning for Large Language Models: A Case Study on Detoxification [76.14641982122696]
  We propose a constraint learning schema for fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) with attribute control. We show that our approach leads to an LLM that produces fewer inappropriate responses while achieving competitive performance on benchmarks and a toxicity detection task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T23:38:58Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [11.948519516797745]
  We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.<n>Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Demographic Inference with Large Multimodal Models [58.58594658683919]
  Large multimodal models (LMMs) have shown transformative potential across various research tasks. Our findings indicate LMMs possess advantages in zero-shot learning, interpretability, and handling uncurated 'in-the-wild' inputs. We propose a Chain-of-Thought augmented prompting approach, which effectively mitigates the off-target prediction issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T16:26:56Z)
• FedEval-LLM: Federated Evaluation of Large Language Models on Downstream Tasks with Collective Wisdom [19.104850413126066]
  Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising solution for collaborative training of large language models (LLMs) Traditional evaluation methods that rely on labeled test sets and similarity-based metrics cover only a subset of the acceptable answers. We propose FedEval-LLM that provides reliable performance measurements of LLMs on downstream tasks without the reliance on labeled test sets and external tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:46:26Z)
• Confidence Calibration and Rationalization for LLMs via Multi-Agent Deliberation [18.815226646364476]
  Existing calibration methods for large language models (LLMs) focus on estimating or eliciting individual confidence without taking full advantage of the "Collective Wisdom" We propose Collaborative, a post-hoc training-free calibration strategy that leverages the collaborative and expressive capabilities of multiple tool-augmented LLM agents in a simulated group deliberation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T02:40:43Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Learning Calibrated Uncertainties for Domain Shift: A Distributionally Robust Learning Approach [150.8920602230832]
  We propose a framework for learning calibrated uncertainties under domain shifts. In particular, the density ratio estimation reflects the closeness of a target (test) sample to the source (training) distribution. We show that our proposed method generates calibrated uncertainties that benefit downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T02:10:54Z)

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.