arXiv (All)
open access
Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Beyond Score Alignment: A Psychometric Analysis of Residual Judging Difficulty
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as automatic judges, with validity typically assessed via alignment with human scores. However, aggregate agreement fails to reveal whether humans and LLMs find the same evaluation cases difficult. In this paper, we study this problem in summarization eva
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
- Pair Difficulty Matters: Rethinking Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation and Consistency#1141894
- Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation#1109553
- Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization#1319171
Record · ID 1187555
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