Jasmina Gajcin

Hyo Jin Do, Zahra Ashktorab, Jasmina Gajcin et al.

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm enables flexible, user-defined evaluation, but its effectiveness is often limited by the scarcity of diverse, representative data for refining criteria. We present a tool that integrates synthetic data generation into the LLM-as-a-judge workflow, empowering users to create tailored and challenging test cases with configurable domains, personas, lengths, and desired outcomes, including borderline cases. The tool also supports AI-assisted inline editing of existing test cases. To enhance transparency and interpretability, it reveals the prompts and explanations behind each generation. In a user study (N=24), 83% of participants preferred the tool over manually creating or selecting test cases, as it allowed them to rapidly generate diverse synthetic data without additional workload. The generated synthetic data proved as effective as hand-crafted data for both refining evaluation criteria and aligning with human preferences. These findings highlight synthetic data as a promising alternative, particularly in contexts where efficiency and scalability are critical.

Srishti Yadav, Jasmina Gajcin, Erik Miehling et al.

Understanding how different stakeholders perceive risks in AI systems is essential for their responsible deployment. This paper presents a framework for stakeholder-grounded risk assessment by using LLMs, acting as judges to predict and explain risks. Using the Risk Atlas Nexus and GloVE explanation method, our framework generates stakeholder-specific, interpretable policies that shows how different stakeholders agree or disagree about the same risks. We demonstrate our method using three real-world AI use cases of medical AI, autonomous vehicles, and fraud detection domain. We further propose an interactive visualization that reveals how and why conflicts emerge across stakeholder perspectives, enhancing transparency in conflict reasoning. Our results show that stakeholder perspectives significantly influence risk perception and conflict patterns. Our work emphasizes the importance of these stakeholder-aware explanations needed to make LLM-based evaluations more transparent, interpretable, and aligned with human-centered AI governance goals.

Jasmina Gajcin, Erik Miehling, Rahul Nair et al.

Using LLMs to evaluate text, that is, LLM-as-a-judge, is increasingly being used at scale to augment or even replace human annotations. As such, it is imperative that we understand the potential biases and risks of doing so. In this work, we propose an approach for extracting high-level concept-based global policies from LLM-as-a-Judge. Our approach consists of two algorithms: 1) CLoVE (Contrastive Local Verifiable Explanations), which generates verifiable, concept-based, contrastive local explanations and 2) GloVE (Global Verifiable Explanations), which uses iterative clustering, summarization and verification to condense local rules into a global policy. We evaluate GloVE on seven standard benchmarking datasets for content harm detection. We find that the extracted global policies are highly faithful to decisions of the LLM-as-a-Judge. Additionally, we evaluated the robustness of global policies to text perturbations and adversarial attacks. Finally, we conducted a user study to evaluate user understanding and satisfaction with global policies.