How Hypocritical Is Your LLM judge? Listener-Speaker Asymmetries in the Pragmatic Competence of Large Language Models (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied as repositories of linguistic knowledge. |
| Approach: | They compare LLMs’ performance as pragmatic listeners and as pragmatic speakers . they find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation . |
| Outcome: | The proposed models perform better as listeners than speakers, and produce more appropriate language than speakers. |
Similar Papers
How Reliable is Multilingual LLM-as-a-Judge? (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | LLMs are a popular evaluation strategy, but their reliability in multilingual evaluation remains uncertain. |
| Approach: | They evaluate five models from different model families across five diverse tasks involving 25 languages. |
| Outcome: | The models perform poorly across languages and average Fleiss’ Kappa is 0.3 . |
Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Bias (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Proprietary models such as GPT-4, Claude, Gemini-Pro and others are being democratized to improve evaluations of LLMs. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating **Misinformation Oversight Bias**, **Gender Bia**,**Authority Bia* and **Beauty Bia's** on LLM and human judges. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework investigates **Misinformation Oversight Bias**, **Gender Bia**,**Authority Bia* and **Beauty Bia' on LLM and human judges. |
Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using large language models (LLMs) for evaluating natural language generation has gained traction . lm judges have low intra-rater reliability in their assigned scores, making it difficult to measure how good their judgments actually are. |
| Approach: | They show that large language models align more closely with human preferences than n-grams . they quantify this variance and compare them to other NLG tasks and benchmarks based on the results . |
| Outcome: | The proposed models align more closely with human preferences than n-gram or embedding-based metrics. |
Don’t Judge Code by Its Cover: Exploring Biases in LLM Judges for Code Evaluation (2026.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for code evaluation tasks . however, whether they can handle superficial variations remains unclear . |
| Approach: | They define six types of potential biases in code evaluation and reveal their impact on LLM judges. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can be used to evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations without reference implementations. |
From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, Kai Shu, Lu Cheng, Huan Liu
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm . traditional methods of assessment and evaluation fail in dynamic and open-ended scenarios . |
| Approach: | They propose a paradigm where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection for machine learning evaluation scenarios. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model-based judgment and evaluation paradigms are based on large language models and are compared to the current model-driven evaluation paradigm. |
CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to judge code, but their reliability remains poorly understood. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models as code judges . they find that small reasoning models outperform larger non-reasoning models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates LLM-as-a-Judge models across three coding tasks. |
Safer or Luckier? LLMs as Safety Evaluators Are Not Robust to Artifacts (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content. |
| Approach: | They evaluate 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains . apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98% . |
| Outcome: | The findings show that apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98% . |
Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are unparalleled in their ability to generate grammatically correct, fluent text. |
| Approach: | They argue that LLMs only parrot statistical patterns in training data and that language learning in LLM cannot inform human language learning. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can generate grammatically correct, fluent text without requiring human intervention. |
Does Context Matter? ContextualJudgeBench for Evaluating LLM-based Judges in Contextual Settings (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Contextual evaluation is challenging for state-of-the-art judge models . evaluation criteria are often conditional and dependent on practitioner priorities . |
| Approach: | They propose a judge benchmark that evaluates large language models as judges in contexts . they use human annotations and model-based perturbations to build the benchmark . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark aims to evaluate large language models in contexts with 2,000 challenging response pairs. |
A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendations (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Sawsan Alqahtani, M Saiful Bari, Mizanur Rahman, Mohammad Abdullah Matin Khan, Haidar Khan, Israt Jahan, Amran Bhuiyan, Chee Wei Tan, Md Rizwan Parvez, Enamul Hoque, Shafiq Joty, Jimmy Huang
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant attention due to their capabilities in performing diverse tasks across domains. |
| Approach: | They review the primary challenges and limitations causing inconsistencies in evaluations . early models could generate coherent text but limited to simple tasks . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust. |