REPA: Russian Error Types Annotation for Evaluating Text Generation and Judgment Capabilities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Mar 2025.
Builds on
23 of 50 references.
References · 23
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 575
- 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 446
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
- 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 316
- 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 258
- 2023FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Setscited by 201
- 2024Aya Dataset: An Open-Access Collection for Multilingual Instruction Tuningcited by 177
- 2024Prometheus-Vision: Vision-Language Model as a Judge for Fine-Grained Evaluationcited by 125
- 2024The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Modelscited by 93
11 more
- 2021Is GPT-3 Text Indistinguishable from Human Text? Scarecrow: A Framework for Scrutinizing Machine Textcited by 89
- 2023Human Feedback is not Gold Standardcited by 83
- 2023GPTEval: A Survey on Assessments of ChatGPT and GPT-4cited by 73
- 2024TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generationcited by 68
- 2020RussianSuperGLUE: A Russian Language Understanding Evaluation Benchmarkcited by 53
- 2024M-RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models in Multilingual Settingscited by 50
- 2023A Family of Pretrained Transformer Language Models for Russiancited by 27
- 2024MERA: A Comprehensive LLM Evaluation in Russiancited by 22
- 2022Vote'n'Rank: Revision of Benchmarking with Social Choice Theorycited by 15
- 2022TAPE: Assessing Few-shot Russian Language Understandingcited by 11
- 2023MISMATCH: Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine-generated Text with Mismatch Error Typescited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.