On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20604v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 18:33:24 GMT
• Title: On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges
• Authors: Yixin Liu, Pengfei Liu, Arman Cohan,
• Abstract summary: evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
• Score: 68.15541137648721
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Alignment with human preferences is an important evaluation aspect of LLMs, requiring them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions. Evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment typically involves directly assessing their open-ended responses, requiring human annotators or strong LLM judges. Conversely, LLMs themselves have also been extensively evaluated as judges for assessing alignment. In this work, we examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences. To this end, we first conduct a comprehensive analysis of the generation-evaluation consistency (GE-consistency) among various LLMs, revealing a strong correlation between their generation and evaluation capabilities when evaluated by a strong LLM preference oracle. Utilizing this finding, we propose a benchmarking paradigm that measures LLM alignment with human preferences without directly evaluating their generated outputs, instead assessing LLMs in their role as evaluators. Our evaluation shows that our proposed benchmark, AlignEval, matches or surpasses widely used automatic LLM evaluation benchmarks, such as AlpacaEval and Arena-Hard, in capturing human preferences when ranking LLMs. Our study offers valuable insights into the connection between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities, and introduces a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.

Related papers

• Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference [63.03859517284341]
  An automatic evaluation framework aims to rank LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences.<n>An automatic LLM bencher consists of four components: the input set, the evaluation model, the evaluation type and the aggregation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T17:46:51Z)
• ReIFE: Re-evaluating Instruction-Following Evaluation [105.75525154888655]
  We present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 proposed evaluation protocols. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:14:50Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments [41.25558612970942]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T09:48:53Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.