Think-J: Learning to Think for Generative LLM-as-a-Judge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14268v1
• Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 12:19:10 GMT
• Title: Think-J: Learning to Think for Generative LLM-as-a-Judge
• Authors: Hui Huang, Yancheng He, Hongli Zhou, Rui Zhang, Wei Liu, Weixun Wang, Wenbo Su, Bo Zheng, Jiaheng Liu,
• Abstract summary: We propose Think-J, which improves generative LLM-as-a-Judge by learning how to think.<n>We propose two methods for judgment thinking optimization, based on offline and online RL, respectively.<n> Experimental results showed that our approach can significantly enhance the evaluation capability of generative LLM-Judge.
• Score: 35.036953471299356
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge refers to the automatic modeling of preferences for responses generated by Large Language Models (LLMs), which is of significant importance for both LLM evaluation and reward modeling. Although generative LLMs have made substantial progress in various tasks, their performance as LLM-Judge still falls short of expectations. In this work, we propose Think-J, which improves generative LLM-as-a-Judge by learning how to think. We first utilized a small amount of curated data to develop the model with initial judgment thinking capabilities. Subsequently, we optimize the judgment thinking traces based on reinforcement learning (RL). We propose two methods for judgment thinking optimization, based on offline and online RL, respectively. The offline RL requires training a critic model to construct positive and negative examples for learning. The online method defines rule-based reward as feedback for optimization. Experimental results showed that our approach can significantly enhance the evaluation capability of generative LLM-Judge, surpassing both generative and classifier-based LLM-Judge without requiring extra human annotations.

Related papers

• CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks [63.562924932512765]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks.<n>LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:56:29Z)
• Estimating the Effects of Sample Training Orders for Large Language Models without Retraining [49.59675538160363]
  The order of training samples plays a crucial role in large language models (LLMs)<n>Traditional methods for investigating this effect generally require retraining the model with various sample orders.<n>We improve traditional methods by designing a retraining-free framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T07:07:02Z)
• Efficient Model Selection for Time Series Forecasting via LLMs [52.31535714387368]
  We propose to leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) as a lightweight alternative for model selection.<n>Our method eliminates the need for explicit performance matrices by utilizing the inherent knowledge and reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T20:33:27Z)
• Improve LLM-as-a-Judge Ability as a General Ability [40.2210529561692]
  Large language models (LLMs) can evaluate responses across diverse scenarios, providing accurate preference signals.<n>Recent studies have raised many methods to train LLM as generative judges, but most of them are data consuming or lack accuracy.<n>In this work, we implement a two-stage training approach, comprising supervised fine-tuning (SFT) warm-up and direct preference optimization (DPO) enhancement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T11:28:43Z)
• Online Preference-based Reinforcement Learning with Self-augmented Feedback from Large Language Model [17.4036850872656]
  Preference-based reinforcement learning (PbRL) provides a powerful paradigm to avoid meticulous reward engineering by learning rewards based on human preferences.<n>In this paper, we propose a RL Self-augmented Large Language Model Feedback (RL-SaLLM-F) technique that does not rely on privileged information for online PbRL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-22T06:15:25Z)
• VinePPO: Refining Credit Assignment in RL Training of LLMs [66.80143024475635]
  We propose VinePPO, a straightforward approach that leverages the flexibility of language environments to compute unbiased Monte Carlo-based estimates.<n>Our method consistently outperforms PPO and other baselines across MATH and GSM8K datasets in less wall-clock time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T15:49:30Z)
• Evaluating the Factuality of Large Language Models using Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs [30.179703001666173]
  Factuality issue is a critical concern for Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose GraphEval to evaluate an LLM's performance using a substantially large test dataset. Test dataset is retrieved from a large knowledge graph with more than 10 million facts without expensive human efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T06:01:17Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from Reflective Feedback (RLRF): Aligning and Improving LLMs via Fine-Grained Self-Reflection [24.435121488662897]
  We propose a novel framework: Reinforcement Learning from Reflective Feedback (RLRF) RLRF employs a self-reflection mechanism to systematically explore and refine LLM responses, then fine-tuning the models via a RL algorithm along with promising responses. Our experiments across Just-Eval, Factuality, and Mathematical Reasoning demonstrate the efficacy and transformative potential of RLRF.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T08:57:27Z)
• How Can LLM Guide RL? A Value-Based Approach [68.55316627400683]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has become the de facto standard practice for sequential decision-making problems by improving future acting policies with feedback. Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive capabilities in language understanding and generation, yet they fall short in exploration and self-improvement capabilities. We develop an algorithm named LINVIT that incorporates LLM guidance as a regularization factor in value-based RL, leading to significant reductions in the amount of data needed for learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T20:07:13Z)
• Are Large Language Models Good Prompt Optimizers? [65.48910201816223]
  We conduct a study to uncover the actual mechanism of LLM-based Prompt Optimization. Our findings reveal that the LLMs struggle to identify the true causes of errors during reflection, tending to be biased by their own prior knowledge. We introduce a new "Automatic Behavior Optimization" paradigm, which directly optimize the target model's behavior in a more controllable manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T09:48:54Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from LLM Feedback to Counteract Goal Misgeneralization [0.0]
  We introduce a method to address goal misgeneralization in reinforcement learning (RL) Goal misgeneralization occurs when an agent retains its capabilities out-of-distribution yet pursues a proxy rather than the intended one. This study demonstrates how the Large Language Model can efficiently supervise RL agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-14T01:09:48Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.