Beyond LLM-as-a-Judge: Deterministic Metrics for Multilingual Generative Text Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05083v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 18:36:54 GMT
• Title: Beyond LLM-as-a-Judge: Deterministic Metrics for Multilingual Generative Text Evaluation
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as automated judges for evaluating generated text.<n>We propose textbftextit OmniScore, a family of complementary, deterministic learned metrics.<n>We trained the models large-scale synthetic supervision ($sim$564k instances, in textbf107 languages) and evaluated using 8,617 manually annotated instances.
• Score: 20.309826321619482
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as automated judges for evaluating generated text, their outputs are often costly, and highly sensitive to prompt design, language, and aggregation strategies, severely, which limits reproducibility. To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{\textit{OmniScore}}, a family of complementary, deterministic learned metrics developed using small size ($<$1B) parameter models. OmniScore approximates LLM-judge behavior while preserving the low latency and consistency of traditional model-based scoring. We trained the models large-scale synthetic supervision ($\sim$564k instances, in \textbf{107 languages}) and evaluated using 8,617 manually annotated instances. The OmniScore family supports reliable, multi-dimensional scores across a variety of settings, including reference-based, source-grounded, and hybrid evaluations. We evaluate these models across question answering (QA), translation, and summarization in \textbf{6 languages}. Our results demonstrate that lightweight, deterministic learned metrics provide a highly practical and scalable alternative to frontier LLMs. Our models and datasets can be found at https://huggingface.co/collections/QCRI/omniscore

Related papers

• HoWToBench: Holistic Evaluation for LLM's Capability in Human-level Writing using Tree of Writing [84.84959282480641]
  We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW) to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation.<n>We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing 12 genres and 1302 instructions across three task categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T04:26:39Z)
• Found in Translation: Measuring Multilingual LLM Consistency as Simple as Translate then Evaluate [36.641755706551336]
  Large language models (LLMs) provide detailed and impressive responses to queries in English.<n>But are they really consistent at responding to the same query in other languages?<n>We propose a framework to evaluate LLM's cross-lingual consistency based on a simple Translate then Evaluate strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:00:21Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Model with Knowledge Oriented Language Specific Simple Question Answering [73.73820209993515]
  We introduce KoLasSimpleQA, the first benchmark evaluating the multilingual factual ability of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Inspired by existing research, we created the question set with features such as single knowledge point coverage, absolute objectivity, unique answers, and temporal stability.<n>Results show significant performance differences between the two domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T12:27:02Z)
• SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models [4.875712300661656]
  We present SCORE ($mathbfS$ystematic $mathbfCO$nsistency and $mathbfR$obustness $mathbfE$valuation), a comprehensive framework for non-adversarial evaluation of Large Language Models.<n>The SCORE framework evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups to give a realistic estimate of their accuracy and consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:27:29Z)
• Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models [54.26923012617675]
  We unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that fine-tuning text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy.<n>We leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:59:02Z)
• What do Large Language Models Need for Machine Translation Evaluation? [12.42394213466485]
  Large language models (LLMs) can achieve results comparable to fine-tuned multilingual pre-trained language models. This paper explores what translation information, such as the source, reference, translation errors and annotation guidelines, is needed for LLMs to evaluate machine translation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T09:50:45Z)
• FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMs [22.62504593575933]
  FineSurE is a fine-grained evaluator specifically tailored for the summarization task using large language models (LLMs) It also employs completeness and conciseness criteria, in addition to faithfulness, enabling multi-dimensional assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T02:20:28Z)
• Long-Span Question-Answering: Automatic Question Generation and QA-System Ranking via Side-by-Side Evaluation [65.16137964758612]
  We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T20:15:10Z)
• 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)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)
• The Devil is in the Errors: Leveraging Large Language Models for Fine-grained Machine Translation Evaluation [93.01964988474755]
  AutoMQM is a prompting technique which asks large language models to identify and categorize errors in translations. We study the impact of labeled data through in-context learning and finetuning. We then evaluate AutoMQM with PaLM-2 models, and we find that it improves performance compared to just prompting for scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T17:17:21Z)
• Scalable Performance Analysis for Vision-Language Models [26.45624201546282]
  Joint vision-language models have shown great performance over a diverse set of tasks. Our paper introduces a more scalable solution that relies on already annotated benchmarks. We confirm previous findings that CLIP behaves like a bag of words model and performs better with nouns and verbs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T06:40:08Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)

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.