跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-industry.45 · 记录 #1

SAJA: A Simple Approach to Judge Alignment for LLM-as-a-Judge

来源日期(仅到月份) 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 22:08
ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗

摘要

LLM-as-a-Judge systems are increasingly used to evaluate text at scale, yet production deployment demands low latency, minimal cost, and compatibility with closed-source APIs. Current approaches fall short in different ways: some require many LLM calls and per-dataset prompt tuning, others depend on logit access unavailable in commercial APIs, and yet others demand multiple rounds of LLM interaction for iterative feature discovery. We present SAJA (Simple Approach to Judge Alignment), built on the principle that task-specific alignment should reside in a lightweight calibration head, not in elaborate prompts or model internals. SAJA makes exactly one LLM call per item using a fixed structured rubric prompt, extracts a multi-dimensional feature vector, and maps it to a human-aligned score via a calibration head trained on a small number of human labels. No iterative prompt search, no logit access, and no multi-round LLM interaction are needed. Yet SAJA matches far more complex systems across four evaluation paradigms: 86% F1 on MT-Bench pairwise preference (vs. 78% uncalibrated), competitive performance on five classification benchmarks with a single call, and +5.71% F1 over prompt-optimized baselines on proprietary data. Ablations confirm that multi-dimensional rubric features outperform one-dimensional calibration (SummEval \rho improves from 0.60 to 0.74) and that coarse rubric outputs recover the same human alignment as full logit distributions (\rho = 0.36 vs. 0.37), establishing that logit access is unnecessary for calibrated judge alignment. Moreover, SAJA is model-agnostic: a 9B open-source model with SAJA (\rho{=}0.70) surpasses raw GPT-4.1 (\rho{=}0.60). Its single-call design yields up to 4.8\times cost savings over per-question approaches.

论文发现出处

这些页面提供论文线索,不代表同行评审或质量认证。

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

发表信息与关联版本

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化,不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时,按该月或该年首日存档。

记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本

SAJA: A Simple Approach to Judge Alignment for LLM-as-a-Judge

LLM-as-a-Judge systems are increasingly used to evaluate text at scale, yet production deployment demands low latency, minimal cost, and compatibility with closed-source APIs. Current approaches fall short in different ways: some require many LLM calls and per-dataset prompt tuning, others depend on logit access unavailable in commercial APIs, and yet others demand multiple rounds of LLM interaction for iterative feature discovery. We present SAJA (Simple Approach to Judge Alignment), built on the principle that task-specific alignment should reside in a lightweight calibration head, not in elaborate prompts or model internals. SAJA makes exactly one LLM call per item using a fixed structured rubric prompt, extracts a multi-dimensional feature vector, and maps it to a human-aligned score via a calibration head trained on a small number of human labels. No iterative prompt search, no logit access, and no multi-round LLM interaction are needed. Yet SAJA matches far more complex systems across four evaluation paradigms: 86% F1 on MT-Bench pairwise preference (vs. 78% uncalibrated), competitive performance on five classification benchmarks with a single call, and +5.71% F1 over prompt-optimized baselines on proprietary data. Ablations confirm that multi-dimensional rubric features outperform one-dimensional calibration (SummEval \rho improves from 0.60 to 0.74) and that coarse rubric outputs recover the same human alignment as full logit distributions (\rho = 0.36 vs. 0.37), establishing that logit access is unnecessary for calibrated judge alignment. Moreover, SAJA is model-agnostic: a 9B open-source model with SAJA (\rho{=}0.70) surpasses raw GPT-4.1 (\rho{=}0.60). Its single-call design yields up to 4.8\times cost savings over per-question approaches.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗