# Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04997 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04997/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.00161/) (2019)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.01193/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14520/) (2023)
- [Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.14478/) (2021)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [Newsroom: A Dataset of 1.3 Million Summaries with Diverse Extractive Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.11283/) (2018)
- [Cosmos QA: Machine Reading Comprehension with Contextual Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.00277/) (2019)
- [LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18403/) (2024)
- [Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04076/) (2023)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [Batch Calibration: Rethinking Calibration for In-Context Learning and Prompt Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17249/) (2023)
- [Mitigating Label Biases for In-context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19148/) (2023)
- [Are Large Language Model-based Evaluators the Solution to Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07462/) (2023)
- [Prototypical Calibration for Few-shot Learning of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10183/) (2022)
- [The Effectiveness of LLMs as Annotators: A Comparative Overview and Empirical Analysis of Direct Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01299/) (2024)
- [Using Interactive Feedback to Improve the Accuracy and Explainability of Question Answering Systems Post-Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.03025/) (2022)
- [Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02743/) (2024)
- [ChatGPT Rates Natural Language Explanation Quality Like Humans: But on Which Scales?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17368/) (2024)
- [Risk-graded Safety for Handling Medical Queries in Conversational AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.00572/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Analyzing Uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge: Interval Evaluations with Conformal Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.18658/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges to evaluate recommendation systems, search engines, and other subjective tasks, where relying on human evaluators can be costly, time-consuming, and unscalable. LLMs offer an efficient solution for continuous, automated evaluation. However, since the systems that are built and improved with these judgments are ultimately designed for human use, it is crucial that LLM judgments align closely with human evaluators to ensure such systems remain human-centered. On the other hand, aligning LLM judgments with human evaluators is challenging due to individual variability and biases in human judgments. We propose a simple yet effective framework to align LLM judgments with individual human evaluators or their aggregated judgments, without retraining or fine-tuning the LLM. Our approach learns a linear mapping between the LLM's outputs and human judgments, achieving over 142% average improvement in agreement across 29 tasks with only a small number of calibration examples used for training. Notably, our method works in zero-shot and few-shot settings, exceeds inter-human agreement on four out of six tasks, and enables smaller LLMs to achieve performance comparable to that of larger models.