Evaluating Evaluators: Investigating the Performance of LLM Judges in Personalized Writing Style Evaluation
Researchers evaluated the performance of Large Language Model (LLM) judges in personalized writing tasks and found that the quality of judges is weakly correlated with general LLM capabilities measured by MMLU (Pearson’s ρ ≤ 0.2), and their performance is influenced by writing tasks and evaluation criteria (e.g., general helpfulness vs. stylistic personalization). LLM evaluators were more consistent and performed better in pairwise comparisons than in independent scoring responses. The 'strongest' LLM did not reliably replicate human evaluations, possibly due to being overly sensitive to subtle details overlooked by human annotators and weaker LLMs.




















