QQJ: Quantifying Qualitative Judgment for Scalable and Human-Aligned Evaluation of Generative AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17382v1
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 10:53:43 GMT
• Title: QQJ: Quantifying Qualitative Judgment for Scalable and Human-Aligned Evaluation of Generative AI
• Abstract summary: Quantifying qualitative judgment (QQJ) is a scalable and human-centric evaluation framework.<n>QQJ separates the definition of quality from its execution by anchoring evaluation in expert-designed, multi-dimensional rubrics.<n>Extensive experiments on text and image generation demonstrate that QQJ achieves substantially stronger alignment with human judgment.
• Score: 1.5749416770494706
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid progress of generative artificial intelligence has exposed fundamental limitations in existing evaluation methodologies, particularly for open-ended, creative, and human-facing tasks. Traditional automatic metrics rely on surface-level statistical similarity and often fail to reflect human perceptions of quality, while purely human evaluation, although reliable, is costly, subjective, and difficult to scale. Recent approaches using large language models as evaluators offer improved scalability but frequently lack explicit grounding in human-defined evaluation principles, leading to bias and inconsistency. In this paper, we introduce Quantifying Qualitative Judgment (QQJ), a scalable and human-centric evaluation framework that explicitly bridges the gap between human judgment and automated assessment. QQJ separates the definition of quality from its execution by anchoring evaluation in expert-designed, multi-dimensional rubrics and calibrating large language model evaluators to align with expert reasoning using a small, high-quality annotation set. This design enables consistent, interpretable, and scalable evaluation across diverse generative tasks and modalities. Extensive experiments on text and image generation demonstrate that QQJ achieves substantially stronger alignment with human judgment than traditional automatic metrics and unconstrained LLM-based evaluators. Moreover, QQJ exhibits improved stability across repeated evaluations and superior diagnostic capability in identifying critical failure modes such as hallucination and intent mismatch. These results indicate that structured qualitative judgment can be operationalized at scale without sacrificing interpretability or human alignment, positioning QQJ as a practical foundation for reliable evaluation of modern generative AI systems.

Related papers

• Beyond Rating: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Benchmark for AI Reviews [69.66583722746904]
  We introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions.<n>We propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews.<n>Our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T14:21:15Z)
• Markovian ODE-guided scoring can assess the quality of offline reasoning traces in language models [16.178449605148995]
  We introduce MarODE, an offline evaluation framework that assigns quality scores to reasoning traces.<n>Its effectiveness is assessed using human-centric perturbations and human judgments.<n>In a large-scale evaluation, MarODE outperforms existing baselines by over 250%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T08:09:33Z)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• An Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkit [1.2499537119440245]
  evaluating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) involves either labor intensive human assessments or automated methods that prioritize readability. We introduce SAQUET, an open-source tool that leverages the Item-Writing Flaws (IWF) rubric for a comprehensive and automated quality evaluation of MCQs. With an accuracy rate of over 94%, our findings emphasize the limitations of existing evaluation methods and showcase potential in improving the quality of educational assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T23:04:53Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• 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)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Dynamic Human Evaluation for Relative Model Comparisons [8.843915018287476]
  We present a dynamic approach to measure the required number of human annotations when evaluating generated outputs in relative comparison settings. We propose an agent-based framework of human evaluation to assess multiple labelling strategies and methods to decide the better model in a simulation and a crowdsourcing case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T11:32:13Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.