Rigorous evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies on comparing models by the prevalence of desirable or undesirable behaviors, such as task pass rates or policy violations. These prevalence estimates are produced by a classifier, either an LLM-as-a-judge or human annotators, making the choice of classifier central to trustworthy evaluation. Common metrics used for this choice, such as Accuracy, Precision, and F1, are sensitive to class imbalance and to arbitrary choices of positive class, and can favor judges that distort prevalence estimates. We show that Youden’s J statistic is theoretically aligned with choosing the best judge to compare models, and that Balanced Accuracy is an equivalent linear transformation of J. Through both analytical arguments and empirical examples and simulations, we demonstrate how selecting judges using Balanced Accuracy leads to better, more robust classifier selection.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, evaluating them remains a persistent challenge. Many recent evaluations use LLMs as judges to score outputs from other LLMs, often relying on a single large model like GPT-4o. However, using a single LLM judge is prone to intra-model bias, and many tasks – such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, and persuasiveness – may be too subjective for a single model to judge fairly. We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other’s responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion. Unlike previous approaches that focus on reducing cost or bias by using a panel of smaller models, our work examines the benefits and nuances of a fully inclusive LLM evaluation system. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge. Using all LLMs for judging can be costly, however, so we use Monte Carlo simulations and hand-curated sub-councils to study hypothetical council compositions and discuss the value of the incremental LLM judge.

One of the biggest challenges of natural language generation (NLG) is the proper handling of named entities. Named entities are a common source of grammar mistakes such as wrong prepositions, wrong article handling, or incorrect entity inflection. Without factoring linguistic representation, such errors are often underrepresented when evaluating on a small set of arbitrarily picked argument values, or when translating a dataset from a linguistically simpler language, like English, to a linguistically complex language, like Russian. However, for some applications, broadly precise grammatical correctness is critical – native speakers may find entity-related grammar errors silly, jarring, or even offensive. To enable the creation of more linguistically diverse NLG datasets, we release a Corpus of Linguistically Significant Entities (CLSE) annotated by linguist experts. The corpus includes 34 languages and covers 74 different semantic types to support various applications from airline ticketing to video games. To demonstrate one possible use of CLSE, we produce an augmented version of the Schema-Guided Dialog Dataset, SGD-CLSE. Using the CLSE’s entities and a small number of human translations, we create a linguistically representative NLG evaluation benchmark in three languages: French (high-resource), Marathi (low-resource), and Russian (highly inflected language). We establish quality baselines for neural, template-based, and hybrid NLG systems and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.