Seven clinician-informed safety criteria enable LLM-as-a-Judge to reach substantial agreement with human consensus (Cohen's κ up to 0.75) on evaluating LLM responses to users demonstrating psychosis.
Reference-guided verdict: Llms-as-judges in automatic evaluation of free-form text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09235, 2024
3 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
3
Pith papers citing it
citation-role summary
background 2
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CL 3roles
background 2polarities
background 2representative citing papers
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
citing papers explorer
-
Using LLM-as-a-Judge/Jury to Advance Scalable, Clinically-Validated Safety Evaluations of Model Responses to Users Demonstrating Psychosis
Seven clinician-informed safety criteria enable LLM-as-a-Judge to reach substantial agreement with human consensus (Cohen's κ up to 0.75) on evaluating LLM responses to users demonstrating psychosis.
-
A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.