CLEAR: Error Analysis via LLM-as-a-Judge Made Easy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18392v1
• Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:15:21 GMT
• Title: CLEAR: Error Analysis via LLM-as-a-Judge Made Easy
• Authors: Asaf Yehudai, Lilach Eden, Yotam Perlitz, Roy Bar-Haim, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer,
• Abstract summary: We introduce CLEAR, an interactive, open-source package for LLM-based error analysis.<n> CLEAR first generates per-instance textual feedback, then creates a set of system-level error issues, and quantifies the prevalence of each identified issue.<n>Our package also provides users with an interactive dashboard that allows for a comprehensive error analysis through aggregate visualizations.
• Score: 9.285203198113917
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly relies on other LLMs acting as judges. However, current evaluation paradigms typically yield a single score or ranking, answering which model is better but not why. While essential for benchmarking, these top-level scores obscure the specific, actionable reasons behind a model's performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce CLEAR, an interactive, open-source package for LLM-based error analysis. CLEAR first generates per-instance textual feedback, then it creates a set of system-level error issues, and quantifies the prevalence of each identified issue. Our package also provides users with an interactive dashboard that allows for a comprehensive error analysis through aggregate visualizations, applies interactive filters to isolate specific issues or score ranges, and drills down to the individual instances that exemplify a particular behavioral pattern. We demonstrate CLEAR analysis for RAG and Math benchmarks, and showcase its utility through a user case study.

Related papers

• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Diagnosing Failures in Large Language Models' Answers: Integrating Error Attribution into Evaluation Framework [2.0364208478403554]
  We establish a Misattribution Framework with 6 primary and 15 secondary categories to facilitate in-depth analysis.<n>We present AttriData, a dataset specifically designed for error attribution, encompassing misattribution, along with the corresponding scores and feedback.<n>We also propose MisAttributionLLM, a fine-tuned model on AttriData, which is the first general-purpose judge model capable of simultaneously generating score, misattribution, and feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T10:02:21Z)
• Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [8.751901240110888]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed as evaluators for complex tasks.<n>There are various biases within LLM-as-a-Judge, which adversely affect the fairness and reliability of judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T15:25:23Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• Efficient Evaluation of Large Language Models via Collaborative Filtering [25.734508624520164]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been proposed to measure and compare the capabilities of different LLMs.<n> evaluating LLMs is costly due to the large number of test instances and their slow inference speed.<n>We propose a two-stage method to efficiently estimate a model's real performance on a given benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T07:46:30Z)
• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is widely used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We show that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs.<n>We analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• ToolScan: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  TOOLSCAN is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks.<n>We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs.<n>Researchers can use these insights from TOOLSCAN to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• 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)
• InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z)

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.