Tamer Soliman

Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Qian Qian, Xiaofeng Lin et al.

Large Language Models exhibit strong reasoning and semantic understanding capabilities but often hallucinate in domains that require expert knowledge, among which fabrications, the generation of factually incorrect yet fluent statements, pose the greatest risk in medical contexts. Existing medical hallucination datasets inadequately capture fabrication phenomena due to limited fabrication coverage, stylistic disparities between human and LLM-authored texts, and distributional drift during hallucinated sample synthesis. To address this, we propose a data-centric pipeline to generate realistic and word-level fabrications that preserve syntactic and stylistic fidelity while introducing subtle factual deviations, resulting in MedFabric. Building upon this dataset, we introduce ETHER, a modular word-level fabrication detector integrating Text2Table Decomposition, Word Masking and Filling and Hybrid Sentence Pair Evaluation to enhance factual alignment. Empirical results demonstrate that MedFabric outperforms state-of-the-art detectors by over 15% on word-level fabrication benchmarks while maintaining consistent performance across structural similarities, offering a comprehensive framework for reliable and domain-specific factuality detection.

Evangelia Spiliopoulou, Riccardo Fogliato, Hanna Burnsky et al.

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as judges that offer rapid and reliable assessments of other LLM outputs. However, models may systematically assign overly favorable ratings to their own outputs, a phenomenon known as self-bias, which can distort evaluations of true model performance. Previous studies often conflate genuine differences in model quality with bias or incorrectly assume that evaluations from LLMs and humans follow the same rating distributions. In this work, we present a statistical framework that explicitly formalizes assumptions under which self-bias can be identified and estimated. Our method models the difference in the scoring distribution that LLM-as-a-judge assigns to its own completions compared to other models, while accounting for the underlying quality of the completions provided by an independent, third-party judge (e.g., humans). Our method reliably isolates and quantifies self-bias, even when models vary in ability, ensuring that genuine performance differences are not mistaken for self-bias. We conduct an empirical analysis of self-bias on a large dataset (>5000 prompt-completion pairs) consisting of expert human annotations and judgments from nine different LLM judges. We find that some models, such as GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, systematically assign higher scores to their own outputs. These models also display family-bias; systematically assigning higher ratings to outputs produced by other models of the same family. Our findings highlight potential pitfalls of using LLM judges and offer practical guidance to mitigate biases when interpreting automated evaluations.

Jinghan Jia, Abi Komma, Timothy Leffel et al.

In task-oriented conversational AI evaluation, unsupervised methods poorly correlate with human judgments, and supervised approaches lack generalization. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show robust zeroshot and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. This paper explores using LLMs for automated dialogue quality evaluation, experimenting with various configurations on public and proprietary datasets. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine "chain-of-thought" (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results show that (1) larger models yield more accurate dialogue labels; (2) algorithmic selection of in-context examples outperforms random selection; (3) CoT reasoning where an LLM is asked to provide justifications before outputting final labels improves performance; and (4) fine-tuned LLMs outperform out-of-the-box ones. Our results indicate that LLMs that are suitably fine-tuned and have sufficient reasoning capabilities can be leveraged for automated dialogue evaluation.