CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-31

CalibratedRubric: Task-Adaptive Rubric Banks for Open-Ended LLM Evaluation

Mengting Chen, Yanshu Sun, Wanting Liang, Beidi Luan, Rui Sun, Dezhi Chen, Jing Li, Zuo Bai

Reliable evaluation of open-ended LLM outputs requires fine-grained rubrics, yet expert curation is costly and difficult to scale. Existing automated pipelines rely on strict judge unanimity and binary variance filters, which cannot distinguish measurable rubrics from informative ones. We introduce CalibratedRubric, a task-adaptive framework that combines type-specific scoring, Bayesian rubric-measurability filtering, and item response theory (IRT)-based bank assembly. CalibratedRubric estimates each rubric's measurability with a Beta--Bernoulli agreement posterior and uses a submodular information-coverage objective to construct compact rubric banks over the observed capability range. Across financial, healthcare, general, and legal benchmarks, measurability filtering improves human-gold agreement on JudgmentBench from $κ=0.604$ to $0.743$. IRT-based greedy selection improves cross-fitted rank fidelity over random selection across all six evaluated response blocks and requires only 49 rather than 131 rubrics to reach the target correlation on FinResearchBench decision-support tasks. Task-label perturbations further reduce system separation, confirming the practical relevance of task-adaptive scoring. These results support CalibratedRubric as an efficient, uncertainty-aware approach to open-ended LLM evaluation, with calibration gains depending on sufficient judge redundancy.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-22

Reference-Free Evaluation of Reasoning in Open-Ended Question Answering

Guneet Singh Kohli, Yuxiang Zhou, Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Gregory E Dean, Maria Liakata

AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer. We propose a reasoning-based, reference-free framework for auditing LLM-generated outputs. The method decompo…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.SE2026-06-29

EvalSafetyGap: A Hybrid Survey and Conceptual Framework for LLM Evaluation-Safety Failures

Buğra Alperen Uluırmak, Rifat Kurban

LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify. This paper combines a hybrid survey - a systematic s…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-24

Teaching LLMs to Self-Evolve: Cultivating Core Meta-Skills with Reinforcement Learning

Shujin Wu, Cheng Qian, Xiusi Chen, Heng Ji

Test-time scaling through iterative self-evolution with environment feedback, as demonstrated by AlphaEvolve, shows remarkable performance gains. We hypothesize that the success of such evolution frameworks hinges on meta-skills, such as self-reflection with environment feedback,…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG2026-07-04

Evaluating LLM Uncertainty in Long-Form Generation Using Deterministic Ground Truth

Ido Amit, Ido Galil, Ran El-Yaniv

As LLMs generate increasingly long outputs, effective uncertainty estimation must identify errors at fine-grained levels rather than discard entire responses. While such methods exist, evaluating uncertainty at any resolution (token to an entire generation) is challenging and hig…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AIcs.CL2026-06-30

Calibrating the Evaluator: Does Probability Calibration Mitigate Preference Coupling in LLM Agent Feedback Loops?

Zewen Liu

When large language model (LLM) agents adapt their behavior through evaluator feedback, systematic evaluator biases propagate into the agent's learned strategy distribution - a phenomenon termed evaluator preference coupling. Prior work has documented this coupling and establishe…

View free PDFSource page