LaajMeter: A Framework for LaaJ Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10161v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:51:05 GMT
• Title: LaajMeter: A Framework for LaaJ Evaluation
• Authors: Gal Amram, Eitan Farchi, Shmulik Froimovich, Raviv Gal, Avi Ziv,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in natural language processing tasks.<n>LaaJMeter is a simulation-based framework for controlled meta-evaluation of LaaJs.
• Score: 1.8583060903632522
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in natural language processing tasks, a paradigm known as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ). While effective in general domains, LaaJs pose significant challenges in domain-specific contexts, where annotated data is scarce and expert evaluation is costly. In such cases, meta-evaluation is often performed using metrics that have not been validated for the specific domain in which they are applied. As a result, it becomes difficult to determine which metrics effectively identify LaaJ quality, and further, what threshold indicates sufficient evaluator performance. In this work, we introduce LaaJMeter, a simulation-based framework for controlled meta-evaluation of LaaJs. LaaJMeter enables engineers to generate synthetic data representing virtual models and judges, allowing systematic analysis of evaluation metrics under realistic conditions. This helps practitioners validate and refine LaaJs for specific evaluation tasks: they can test whether their metrics correctly distinguish between better and worse (virtual) LaaJs, and estimate appropriate thresholds for evaluator adequacy. We demonstrate the utility of LaaJMeter in a code translation task involving a legacy programming language, showing how different metrics vary in sensitivity to evaluator quality. Our results highlight the limitations of common metrics and the importance of principled metric selection. LaaJMeter provides a scalable and extensible solution for assessing LaaJs in low-resource settings, contributing to the broader effort to ensure trustworthy and reproducible evaluation in NLP.

Related papers

• Beyond Blind Spots: Analytic Hints for Mitigating LLM-Based Evaluation Pitfalls [2.4484932263697234]
  Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as judges (LaaJ) in code generation pipelines.<n>LaaJs tend to overlook domain specific issues raising concerns about their reliability in critical evaluation tasks.<n>We develop a lightweight analytic checker tool that flags over 30 domain specific issues observed in practice.<n>We use its outputs as analytic hints, dynamically injecting them into the judges prompt to encourage LaaJ to revisit aspects it may have overlooked.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-18T07:43:48Z)
• The illusion of a perfect metric: Why evaluating AI's words is harder than it looks [0.0]
  Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI.<n>Human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, but it is expensive and lacks scalability.<n>No single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-19T13:22:41Z)
• Meta-Evaluating Local LLMs: Rethinking Performance Metrics for Serious Games [3.725822359130832]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as evaluators in serious games.<n>This study investigates the reliability of five small-scale LLMs when assessing player responses in textitEn-join, a game that simulates decision-making within energy communities.<n>Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of each model, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T10:46:13Z)
• Contextual Metric Meta-Evaluation by Measuring Local Metric Accuracy [52.261323452286554]
  We introduce a method for contextual metric meta-evaluation by comparing the local metric accuracy of evaluation metrics.<n>Across translation, speech recognition, and ranking tasks, we demonstrate that the local metric accuracies vary both in absolute value and relative effectiveness as we shift across evaluation contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T16:42:25Z)
• Evaluation of RAG Metrics for Question Answering in the Telecom Domain [0.650923326742559]
  Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely used to enable Large Language Models (LLMs) perform Question Answering (QA) tasks. This work is a modified version of this package for few metrics (faithfulness, context relevance, answer relevance, answer correctness, answer similarity and factual correctness) through which we provide the intermediate outputs of the prompts. Next, we analyse the expert evaluations of the output of the modified RAGAS package and observe the challenges of using it in the telecom domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T17:40:15Z)
• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• Machine Translation Meta Evaluation through Translation Accuracy Challenge Sets [92.38654521870444]
  We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs. This dataset aims to discover whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:17:42Z)
• Exploring validation metrics for offline model-based optimisation with diffusion models [50.404829846182764]
  In model-based optimisation (MBO) we are interested in using machine learning to design candidates that maximise some measure of reward with respect to a black box function called the (ground truth) oracle. While an approximation to the ground oracle can be trained and used in place of it during model validation to measure the mean reward over generated candidates, the evaluation is approximate and vulnerable to adversarial examples. This is encapsulated under our proposed evaluation framework which is also designed to measure extrapolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T16:57:37Z)
• Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation [59.60445111432934]
  Metrics Reloaded is a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-03T15:56:51Z)
• BEAMetrics: A Benchmark for Language Generation Evaluation Evaluation [16.81712151903078]
  Natural language processing (NLP) systems are increasingly trained to generate open-ended text. Different metrics have different strengths and biases, and reflect human intuitions better on some tasks than others. Here, we describe the Benchmark to Evaluate Automatic Metrics (BEAMetrics) to make research into new metrics itself easier to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:03:19Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

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.