Beyond the Surface: Enhancing LLM-as-a-Judge Alignment with Human via Internal Representations
The growing scale of evaluation tasks has led to the widespread adoption of automated evaluation using LLMs, a paradigm known as "LLM-as-a-judge". However, improving its alignment with human preferences without complex prompts or fine-tuning remains challenging. Previous studies mainly optimize based on shallow outputs, overlooking rich cross-layer representations. In this work, motivated by preliminary findings that middle-to-upper layers encode semantically and task-relevant representations that are often more aligned with human judgments than the final layer, we propose LAGER, a post-hoc, plug-and-play framework for improving the alignment of LLM-as-a-Judge point-wise evaluations with human scores by leveraging internal representations. LAGER produces fine-grained judgment scores by aggregating cross-layer score-token logits and computing the expected score from a softmax-based distribution, while keeping the LLM backbone frozen and ensuring no impact on the inference process. LAGER fully leverages the complementary information across different layers, overcoming the limitations of relying solely on the final layer. We evaluate our method on the standard alignment benchmarks Flask, HelpSteer, and BIGGen using Spearman correlation, and find that LAGER achieves improvements of up to 7.5% over the best baseline across these benchmarks. Without reasoning steps, LAGER matches or outperforms reasoning-based methods. Experiments on downstream applications, such as data selection and emotional understanding, further show the generalization of LAGER.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Beyond Surface Judgments: Human-Grounded Risk Evaluation of LLM-Generated Disinformation
Large language models (LLMs) can generate persuasive narratives at scale, raising concerns about their potential use in disinformation campaigns. Assessing this risk ultimately requires understanding how readers receive …
Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation
Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-agent agreement does n…
Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges
Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recogni…
Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges
Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, th…
TriviaQADesigning a Robust LLM-Based Evaluation System for Agentic AI in Drug Discovery Through Human Alignment
Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. Reference-based met…
Drug Discovery