arXiv preprint ·
Adapting LLM Judges to Observed Human Annotation Policy through Soft Prompt Tuning
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated judges for evaluating chatbot responses. While proprietary models can achieve high agreement with human annotators, they remain costly and difficult to deploy in practical settings. Lightweight open-source LLM judges provide an attractive alternative but typically exhibit lower agreement with human ratings. In this paper, we investigate whether soft prompt tuning can align open-source LLM judges more closely with human annotation policy. We train soft prompts on the FairBotBench benchmark and evaluate the adapted judges across the dimensions of bias, toxicity, and personalization. Our findings demonstrate that hybrid soft-prompt tuning, which combines textual prompts with learned continuous prompt embeddings, consistently improves agreement with human annotations over the corresponding untuned baselines. For Qwen 3.5 9B, the adapted judges surpass both hosted reference judges across all three evaluation dimensions.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
HyFlash: A Prefix-Memory Prior for On-Device Speculative Decoding
Phonological Knowledge of Chinese Characters in Language Models
Encoding and Propagation of Grammatical Number in Large Language Models
Matching the Training-Time Weight Rule in Inference-Time Expert Deactivation
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.