Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating and ranking the capabilities of different LLMs is crucial for understanding their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose a system-level evaluation framework that ranks LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework aims to rank LLMs based on their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
Similar Papers
JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work has focused on instance-based evaluation of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. |
| Approach: | They propose to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself by comparing system scores to a human-based ranking. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model fails to validate the quality of the judge itself, ignoring critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge’s positive or negative bias towards certain systems. |
Ranking Unraveled: Recipes for LLM Rankings in Head-to-Head AI Combat (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is a complex task. Pairwise ranking has emerged as state-of-the-art method to evaluate human preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose to use pairwise ranking to evaluate human preferences . they propose to evaluate the robustness of ranking algorithms in LLMs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods are based on the principles of effective ranking and the robustness of several ranking algorithms in the context of LLMs. |
Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings . this overlooks individual user preferences when establishing model rankings . |
| Approach: | They compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients . they find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles . |
| Outcome: | The results show that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate rankings . a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space . |
LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Desmond Elliott, Raquel Fernández, Albert Gatt, Esam Ghaleb, Mario Giulianelli, Michael Hanna, Alexander Koller, Andre Martins, Philipp Mondorf, Vera Neplenbroek, Sandro Pezzelle, Barbara Plank, David Schlangen, Alessandro Suglia, Aditya K Surikuchi, Ece Takmaz, Alberto Testoni
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of NLP models with LLMs are based on human judgments . however, there are concerns about their validity and reproducibility in proprietary models . |
| Approach: | They evaluate 11 current LLMs for their ability to replicate annotations. they show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can replicate human annotations on 20 NLP datasets and show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
Yuxuan Liu, Tianchi Yang, Shaohan Huang, Zihan Zhang, Haizhen Huang, Furu Wei, Weiwei Deng, Feng Sun, Qi Zhang
| Challenge: | Existing models for large language models lack the ability to calibrate their outputs towards human preference. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach improves correlation with expert evaluation on multiple text quality evaluation datasets. |
Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges to evaluate recommendation systems, search engines, and other subjective tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to align LLM judgments with individual human evaluators or their aggregated judgments without retraining or fine-tuning the LLM. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework achieves 142% improvement in agreement across 29 tasks and exceeds inter-human agreement on four out of six tasks. |
Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that human and Large Language Model preferences are important for model fine-tuning and evaluation. |
| Approach: | They dissect the preferences of human and 32 different Large Language Models to understand their quantitative composition. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is compared with 32 different large language models using real-world user-model conversations. |
AlignBench: Benchmarking Chinese Alignment of Large Language Models (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Xiao Liu, Xuanyu Lei, Shengyuan Wang, Yue Huang, Andrew Feng, Bosi Wen, Jiale Cheng, Pei Ke, Yifan Xu, Weng Lam Tam, Xiaohan Zhang, Lichao Sun, Xiaotao Gu, Hongning Wang, Jing Zhang, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang
| Challenge: | Effective evaluation of alignment for emerging Chinese LLMs is still significantly lacking, calling for real-scenario grounded, open-ended, challenging and automatic evaluations tailored for alignment. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-dimensional benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ alignment in Chinese with 8 main categories, 683 real-scenario rooted queries and corresponding human verified references. |
| Outcome: | The benchmark uses a human-in-the-loop data curation pipeline, 683 real-scenario rooted queries and human verified references. |
STEER-BENCH: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Steerability of Large Language Models (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models can adapt outputs to align with community-specific norms, perspectives and communication styles. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to assess community-specific steering using contrasting reddit communities. |
| Outcome: | STEER-BENCH assesses how well large language models understand community-specific instructions, their resilience to adversarial steering attempts, and their ability to accurately represent cultural and ideological perspectives. |
LLMeBench: A Flexible Framework for Accelerating LLMs Benchmarking (2024.eacl-demo)
Copied to clipboard
Fahim Dalvi, Maram Hasanain, Sabri Boughorbel, Basel Mousi, Samir Abdaljalil, Nizi Nazar, Ahmed Abdelali, Shammur Absar Chowdhury, Hamdy Mubarak, Ahmed Ali
| Challenge: | Recent development and success of Large Language Models necessitate evaluation of their performance across diverse NLP tasks in different languages. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that can be customized to evaluate LLMs for any NLP task, regardless of language. |
| Outcome: | The LLMeBench framework can be customized to evaluate LLMs for any NLP task, regardless of language. |