LLM-as-a-Judge for Evaluating System Responses in Conversational Music Recommendation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25640v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:26:55 GMT
• Title: LLM-as-a-Judge for Evaluating System Responses in Conversational Music Recommendation
• Abstract summary: We present the first user study to empirically assess the reliability of LLM-as-a-judge for evaluating CRS responses.<n>We collect $n=400$ ratings from 20 domain-expert annotators, who evaluate each response across two dimensions: Personalization Quality and Explanation Quality.<n>We find that LLM-based judges exhibit moderate positive alignment with human assessments and outperform all reference-based baselines.
• Score: 20.276417246845593
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Conversational Recommendation Systems (CRS) aim to achieve two primary objectives: recommending relevant items and generating natural language responses. While recommendation accuracy is effectively measured by established ranking metrics, the evaluation of response generation poses a more fundamental challenge. Although human evaluation remains the gold standard, its cost and scalability constraints have motivated the adoption of LLM-as-a-judge as a promising proxy, whose alignment with human judgment in the context of CRS remains an open question. In this paper, we present the first user study to empirically assess the reliability of LLM-as-a-judge for evaluating CRS responses. We sample 20 multi-turn music recommendation sessions and generate candidate system responses using four instruction-tuned LLMs, inducing variance in response quality across model scales. We collect $n{=}400$ ratings from 20 domain-expert annotators, who evaluate each response across two dimensions: Personalization Quality and Explanation Quality. Through bootstrapped correlation analysis, we find that LLM-based judges exhibit moderate positive alignment with human assessments and outperform all reference-based baselines. Furthermore, we analyze how judge performance varies according to model scale and conditioning information, providing practical guidance for deploying LLM-as-a-judge.

Related papers

• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• Auto-Prompt Ensemble for LLM Judge [24.30935583220292]
  Existing LLM judges often miss crucial evaluation dimensions because they fail to recognize the implicit standards underlying human assessments.<n>We propose the Auto-Prompt Ensemble (APE), an adaptive framework that automatically learns evaluation dimensions from its failure cases.<n>APE incorporates a confidence-based ensemble mechanism to decide when to adopt the judgments from additional evaluation dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T00:28:51Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• DAFE: LLM-Based Evaluation Through Dynamic Arbitration for Free-Form Question-Answering [12.879551933541345]
  We propose the Dynamic Arbitration Framework for Evaluation (DAFE) to evaluate large language models.<n>DAFE employs two primary LLM-as-judges and engages a third arbitrator only in cases of disagreements.<n>We show DAFE's ability to provide consistent, scalable, and resource-efficient assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T15:29:55Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.