arXiv (OAI Expanded)
open access
When Consistency Does Not Mean Reliability: Evaluating Local LLM Judges Against Human Ratings
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faster and cheaper than human evaluation. However, a judge may produce consistent scores without necessarily agreeing with human evaluators. In this work,
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English#923998
- Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English#919769
- Do Reasoning Representations Help Humans Evaluate LLM Outputs?#986647
- Evaluating Steering Techniques using Human Similarity Judgments#972377
- Fair Fact-Checking: Closing the Cross-Lingual Gap in LLM Factual Judgement with RoSh#1128937
Record · ID 1083320
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive