Hui Huang

Hui Huang, Xuanxin Wu, Muyun Yang et al.

This paper presents the first systematic comparison investigating whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are superior judge to non-reasoning LLMs. Our empirical analysis yields four key findings: 1) LRMs outperform non-reasoning LLMs in terms of judgment accuracy, particularly on reasoning-intensive tasks; 2) LRMs demonstrate superior instruction-following capabilities in evaluation contexts; 3) LRMs exhibit enhanced robustness against adversarial attacks targeting judgment tasks; 4) However, LRMs still exhibit strong biases in superficial quality. To improve the robustness against biases, we propose PlanJudge, an evaluation strategy that prompts the model to generate an explicit evaluation plan before execution. Despite its simplicity, our experiments demonstrate that PlanJudge significantly mitigates biases in both LRMs and standard LLMs.

Hui Huang, Muyun Yang, Yuki Arase

Despite the significant advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs), their factuality remains a critical challenge, fueling growing interest in factuality verification. Existing research on factuality verification primarily conducts binary judgments (e.g., correct or incorrect), which fails to distinguish varying degrees of error severity. This limits its utility for applications such as fine-grained evaluation and preference optimization. To bridge this gap, we propose the Agentic Discriminative Verifier (DiVA), a hybrid framework that synergizes the agentic search capabilities of generative models with the precise scoring aptitude of discriminative models. We also construct a new benchmark, FGVeriBench, as a robust testbed for fine-grained factuality verification. Experimental results on FGVeriBench demonstrate that our DiVA significantly outperforms existing methods on factuality verification for both general and multi-hop questions.