Beyond correlation: The impact of human uncertainty in measuring the effectiveness of automatic evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge
Aparna Elangovan, Lei Xu, Jongwoo Ko, Mahsa Elyasi, Ling Liu, Sravan Babu Bodapati, Dan Roth
Abstract
The effectiveness of automatic evaluation of generative models is typically measured by comparing the labels generated via automation with labels by humans using correlation metrics. However, metrics like Krippendorff's α and Randolph's κ were originally designed to measure the reliability of human labeling, thus make assumptions about typical human labeling behavior, and these assumptions may not be applicable to machine generated labels. In this paper, we show how relying on a single aggregate correlation score can obscure fundamental differences between human labels and those from automatic evaluation, including LLM-asa-Judge. Specifically, we demonstrate that when the proportion of samples with variation or uncertainty in human assigned labels is relatively high, machine labels (generated by automatic evaluation methods) may superficially appear to have similar or better correlation with the human majority label compared to the human-to-human (HH) correlation. This can create the illusion that labels from automatic evaluation approximates the human majority label. However, as the proportion of samples with consistent human labels increases, the correlation between machine and human labels fall well below HH correlation. Based on these findings, we first propose stratifying data by human label uncertainty to provide a more robust analysis of automatic evaluation performance. Second, recognizing that uncertainty and variation are inherent in perception-based human evaluations, such as those involving attitudes or preferences, we introduce a new metric -binned Jensen-Shannon Divergence for perception for such scenarios to better measure the effectiveness of automatic evaluations. Third, we present visualization techniques -perception charts, to contextualize correlation measures appropriately and to show the strengths and limitations of automatic evaluation. We have open-sourced our analysis and visualization tools at https://github.com/amazon-science/BeyondCorrelation .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers5
- From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgeDawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi et al.EMNLP 2025 · 37 citations
- Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating IndeterminacyLuke Guerdan, Solon Barocas, Kenneth Holstein, Hanna M. Wallach et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 31 citations
- Doubly-Robust LLM-as-a-Judge: Externally Valid Estimation with Imperfect PersonasLuke Guerdan, Justin Whitehouse, Kimberly Truong, Ken Holstein et al.ICLR 2026 · 8 citations
- Distributional LLM-as-a-JudgeLuyu Chen, Zeyu Zhang, Haoran Tan, Quanyu Dai et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 4 citations
- MPCG: Multi-Round Persona-Conditioned Generation for Modeling the Evolution of Misinformation with LLMsJun Rong Brian Chong, Yixuan Tang, Anthony Kum Hoe TungEMNLP 2025
Builds on10
- BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
- G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human AlignmentYang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 549 citations
- Prometheus: Inducing Fine-Grained Evaluation Capability in Language ModelsSeungone Kim, Jamin Shin, Yejin Choi, Joel Jang et al.ICLR 2024 · 468 citations
- Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of SummariesAlex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, Mike LewisACL 2020 · 317 citations
- Learning to summarize with human feedbackNisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 124 citations
Related papers
- Addressing Pitfalls in the Evaluation of Uncertainty Estimation Methods for Natural Language GenerationMykyta Ielanskyi, Kajetan Schweighofer, Lukas Aichberger, Sepp HochreiterICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-JudgeXin Sun, Di Wu, Sijing Qin, Isao Echizen et al.ACL 2026 · 2 citations
- Measuring Annotator Agreement Generally across Complex Structured, Multi-object, and Free-text Annotation TasksAlexander Braylan, Omar Alonso, Matthew LeaseWWW 2022 · 34 citations
- Toward Verifiable and Reproducible Human Evaluation for Text-to-Image GenerationMayu Otani, Riku Togashi, Yu Sawai, Ryosuke Ishigami et al.CVPR 2023
- HypoEval: Hypothesis-Guided Evaluation for Natural Language GenerationMingxuan Li, Hanchen Li, Chenhao TanACL 2026 · 1 citation
