An LLM-as-Judge Metric for Bridging the Gap with Human Evaluation in SE Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20854v2
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 09:54:06 GMT
• Title: An LLM-as-Judge Metric for Bridging the Gap with Human Evaluation in SE Tasks
• Authors: Xin Zhou, Kisub Kim, Ting Zhang, Martin Weyssow, Luis F. Gomes, Guang Yang, Kui Liu, Xin Xia, David Lo,
• Abstract summary: SE-Jury is the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge.<n>We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks.
• Score: 15.820416019287622
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Related papers

• AXIOM: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Code via Rule-Based Perturbation and Multisource Quality Calibration [28.117814524373667]
  AXIOM is a novel perturbation-based framework for synthesizing code evaluation benchmarks at scale.<n>It reframes program scores as the refinement effort needed for deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:39:22Z)
• COMPASS: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating Code Generation in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework that assesses code generation across three dimensions: correctness, efficiency, and quality.<n>Our evaluation of three leading reasoning-enhanced models, Anthropic Claude Opus 4, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro, and OpenAI O4-Mini-High, reveals that models achieving high correctness scores do not necessarily produce efficient algorithms or maintainable code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T11:55:07Z)
• Automated Validation of LLM-based Evaluators for Software Engineering Artifacts [0.7548538278943616]
  REFINE (Ranking Evaluators for FIne grained Nuanced Evaluation) is an automated framework for benchmarking large language models (LLMs)<n> REFINE applies novel generation techniques to automatically synthesize artifacts with progressively reduced quality.<n>It quantifies each candidate evaluator configuration by measuring how closely its rankings align with expected ordering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T18:52:01Z)
• ArtifactsBench: Bridging the Visual-Interactive Gap in LLM Code Generation Evaluation [48.24550684610705]
  ArtifactsBench is a framework for automated visual code generation evaluation.<n>Our framework renders each generated artifact and captures its dynamic behavior through temporal screenshots.<n>We construct a new benchmark of 1,825 diverse tasks and evaluate over 30 leading Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T12:53:00Z)
• J1: Incentivizing Thinking in LLM-as-a-Judge via Reinforcement Learning [54.85131761693927]
  We introduce J1, a reinforcement learning framework for teaching LLM judges to think before making decisions.<n>Our core contribution lies in converting all judgment tasks for non-verifiable and verifiable prompts into a unified format with verifiable rewards.<n>We then use RL to train thinking-judges at scales of 8B, 32B, and 70B and show that they obtain state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T14:05:15Z)
• AIvaluateXR: An Evaluation Framework for on-Device AI in XR with Benchmarking Results [55.33807002543901]
  We present AIvaluateXR, a comprehensive evaluation framework for benchmarking large language models (LLMs) running on XR devices.<n>We deploy 17 selected LLMs across four XR platforms: Magic Leap 2, Meta Quest 3, Vivo X100s Pro, and Apple Vision Pro, and conduct an extensive evaluation.<n>We propose a unified evaluation method based on the 3D Optimality theory to select the optimal device-model pairs from quality and speed objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T20:55:48Z)
• Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineering [18.766132076075365]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation.<n>Pass@k metric requires extensive unit tests and configured environments, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text.<n>Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T06:49:29Z)
• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• Self-Training with Pseudo-Label Scorer for Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction [54.23208041792073]
  Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction (ASQP) aims to predict all quads (aspect term, aspect category, opinion term, sentiment polarity) for a given review. A key challenge in the ASQP task is the scarcity of labeled data, which limits the performance of existing methods. We propose a self-training framework with a pseudo-label scorer, wherein a scorer assesses the match between reviews and their pseudo-labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T05:30:21Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Code [7.556444391696562]
  We propose textttICE-Score, a new evaluation metric via instructing large language models for code assessments. Our metric addresses the limitations of existing approaches by achieving superior correlations with functional correctness and human preferences. Our results demonstrate that our metric surpasses state-of-the-art metrics for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T16:38:17Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)

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.