Vladana Perlić

Nadezhda Chirkova, Tunde Oluwaseyi Ajayi, Seth Aycock et al.

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical scores as main outputs. In this work, we propose LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge, an LLM-based evaluation approach with the main output being a structured report of common issue types in the NLG system outputs. Our approach is targeted at providing developers with meaningful insights on what improvements can be done to a given NLG system and consists of two main steps, namely open-ended per-instance issue analysis and clustering of the discovered issues using an intuitive cumulative algorithm. We also introduce a strategy for evaluating the proposed approach, coupled with ~300 annotations of issues in instances from 12 NLG datasets. Our results show that instance-specific issues output by LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge match those annotated by humans in 2/3 cases, and that LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge is capable of producing error type reports resembling the reports composed by human annotators. We also demonstrate in a case study how the use of LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge can substantially improve NLG systems performance. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/tunde-ajayi/llm-as-a-qualitative-judge.

Marco Aruta, Francesco Improta, Vadim Malvone et al.

A rigorous formalization of system requirements is a fundamental prerequisite for the verification of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). However, writing correct formal specifications is well known as an error-prone, time-consuming, and expertise-intensive task. This difficulty is further accentuated in MAS, where requirements must capture strategic abilities and temporal objectives. At present, there is no established methodology for deriving MAS specifications from natural language. We present a framework for translating Natural Language descriptions of strategic requirements into well-formed ATL/ATL* formulas using Large Language Models (LLMs). Since no available dataset supports supervised learning for the NL-to-ATL/ATL* translation task, we create and curate a novel expert-validated dataset, employed for training and evaluating fine-tuned models. On a held-out test set, evaluated under the LLM judge that best agrees with expert annotations, in-domain fine-tuning of small open-weight models (3 - 7B parameters) matches strong few-shot proprietary API baselines. Our best fine-tuned system reaches 0.84 semantic accuracy, statistically on par with 0.86 for the strongest few-shot proprietary baseline, while keeping requirements on-premises. We further find that judge reliability is inverse to generator strength. The open-weight Llama-3.3-70B tracks human verdicts most closely, whereas the strongest proprietary models are the least reliable judges, over-rejecting faithful paraphrases of the reference. To assess the practical applicability of the generated specifications, we embed our tool to an existing strategic logics model checker, enabling non-expert users to specify strategic properties in natural language.