Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

REPA: Russian Error Types Annotation for Evaluating Text Generation and Judgment Capabilities

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.13102 v2 pith:QYS6CXD4 submitted 2025-03-17 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords russianerrorhumanjudgespreferencestypesllmsacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have introduced the novel paradigm of using LLMs as judges, where an LLM evaluates and scores the outputs of another LLM, which often correlates highly with human preferences. However, the use of LLM-as-a-judge has been primarily studied in English. In this paper, we evaluate this framework in Russian by introducing the Russian Error tyPes Annotation dataset (REPA), a dataset of 1k user queries and 2k LLM-generated responses. Human annotators labeled each response pair expressing their preferences across ten specific error types, as well as selecting an overall preference. We rank six generative LLMs across the error types using three rating systems based on human preferences. We also evaluate responses using eight LLM judges in zero-shot and few-shot settings. We describe the results of analyzing the judges and position and length biases. Our findings reveal a notable gap between LLM judge performance in Russian and English. However, rankings based on human and LLM preferences show partial alignment, suggesting that while current LLM judges struggle with fine-grained evaluation in Russian, there is potential for improvement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Self-Preference Bias in Rubric-Based Evaluation of Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Self-preference bias persists in rubric-based LLM evaluation even with fully objective, programmatically verifiable rubrics, and can shift subjective medical-chat scores by up to ~10 points.

Pith tools