arXiv (All)
open access
Post-hoc Alignment of LLM-judges to Human Judgment Distribution
The LLM-as-a-judge (LLMaJ) framework offers a cost-effective and reproducible solution for automatic evaluation. However, current evaluation practices typically compare LLMaJ judgments against aggregated ground-truth labels, overlooking the valuable information contained in Human Label Variation (HL
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
- Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation#1109553
- Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared#748731
- Self- and Other-Labels Induce Bidirectional Bias in LLM Judges#973316
- Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result#748730
- Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result#465574
Record · ID 821056
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