mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

LaajMeter: A Framework for LaaJ Evaluation

arXiv 2508.10161 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in natural language processing tasks, a paradigm known as LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ). The analysis of a LaaJ software, commonly refereed to as meta-evaluation, pose significant challenges in domain-specific contexts. In such domains, in contrast to general domains, annotated data is scarce and expert evaluation is costly. As a result, meta-evaluation is often performed using metrics that have not been validated for the specific domain in which they are applied. Therefore, it becomes difficult to determine which metrics effectively identify LaaJ quality, and further, what threshold indicates sufficient evaluator performance. In this work, we introduce LaaJMeter, a simulation-based framework for controlled meta-evaluation of LaaJs. LaaJMeter enables engineers to generate synthetic data representing virtual models and judges, allowing systematic analysis of evaluation metrics under realistic conditions. This helps practitioners validate LaaJs for specific tasks: they can test whether their metrics correctly distinguish between high and low quality (virtual) LaaJs, and estimate appropriate thresholds for evaluator adequacy. We demonstrate the utility of LaaJMeter in a code translation task involving a legacy programming language, showing how different metrics vary in sensitivity to evaluator quality. Our results highlight the limitations of common metrics and the importance of principled metric selection. LaaJMeter provides a scalable and extensible solution for assessing LaaJs in low-resource settings, contributing to the broader effort to ensure trustworthy and reproducible evaluation in NLP.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.

Builds on

35 of 51 references.

References · 35

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  5. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
  6. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  7. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  8. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
  9. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,049
  10. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  11. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
  12. 2023A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Modelscited by 648
23 more
  1. 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
  2. 2024JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judgescited by 318
  3. 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 205
  4. 2023Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examinercited by 172
  5. 2020A Survey of Evaluation Metrics Used for NLG Systemscited by 164
  6. 2024Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluatorscited by 149
  7. 2024Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?cited by 100
  8. 2023Exploring the Use of Large Language Models for Reference-Free Text Quality Evaluation: An Empirical Studycited by 85
  9. 2024A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendationscited by 85
  10. 2023LEXTREME: A Multi-Lingual and Multi-Task Benchmark for the Legal Domaincited by 68
  11. 2022Out of the BLEU: how should we assess quality of the Code Generation models?cited by 65
  12. 2024Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debatecited by 41
  13. 2023Open-Source LLMs for Text Annotation: A Practical Guide for Model Setting and Fine-Tuningcited by 32
  14. 2024Constructing Domain-Specific Evaluation Sets for LLM-as-a-judgecited by 30
  15. 2020Curious Case of Language Generation Evaluation Metrics: A Cautionary Talecited by 28
  16. 2025Can LLM Agents Simulate Multi-Turn Human Behavior? Evidence from Real Online Customer Behavior Datacited by 28
  17. 2021BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore: Evaluation of Metrics Performance in Assessing Critical Translation Errors in Sentiment-oriented Textcited by 22
  18. 2022A global analysis of metrics used for measuring performance in natural language processingcited by 17
  19. 2024ChatGPT Rates Natural Language Explanation Quality Like Humans: But on Which Scales?cited by 17
  20. 2024METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluationcited by 15
  21. 2022Measuring the Measuring Tools: An Automatic Evaluation of Semantic Metrics for Text Corporacited by 11
  22. 2025Automated Validation of LLM-based Evaluators for Software Engineering Artifactscited by 4
  23. 2024How Safe is Your Safety Metric? Automatic Concatenation Tests for Metric Reliabilitycited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.