Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866910791852097536 |
|---|---|
| author | Bedemariam, Rewina Perez, Natalie Bhaduri, Sreyoshi Kapoor, Satya Gil, Alex Conjar, Elizabeth Itoku, Ikkei Theil, David Chadha, Aman Nayyar, Naumaan |
| author_facet | Bedemariam, Rewina Perez, Natalie Bhaduri, Sreyoshi Kapoor, Satya Gil, Alex Conjar, Elizabeth Itoku, Ikkei Theil, David Chadha, Aman Nayyar, Naumaan |
| contents | Rapid advancements in large language models have unlocked remarkable capabilities when it comes to processing and summarizing unstructured text data. This has implications for the analysis of rich, open-ended datasets, such as survey responses, where LLMs hold the promise of efficiently distilling key themes and sentiments. However, as organizations increasingly turn to these powerful AI systems to make sense of textual feedback, a critical question arises, can we trust LLMs to accurately represent the perspectives contained within these text based datasets? While LLMs excel at generating human-like summaries, there is a risk that their outputs may inadvertently diverge from the true substance of the original responses. Discrepancies between the LLM-generated outputs and the actual themes present in the data could lead to flawed decision-making, with far-reaching consequences for organizations. This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. We utilized an Anthropic Claude model to generate thematic summaries from open-ended survey responses, with Amazon's Titan Express, Nova Pro, and Meta's Llama serving as judges. This LLM-as-judge approach was compared to human evaluations using Cohen's kappa, Spearman's rho, and Krippendorff's alpha, validating a scalable alternative to traditional human centric evaluation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances. Our research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on AI assisted text analysis. Further, we provide recommendations for future research, emphasizing the need for careful consideration when generalizing LLM-as-judge models across various contexts and use cases. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2501_08167 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data Bedemariam, Rewina Perez, Natalie Bhaduri, Sreyoshi Kapoor, Satya Gil, Alex Conjar, Elizabeth Itoku, Ikkei Theil, David Chadha, Aman Nayyar, Naumaan Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Computers and Society Rapid advancements in large language models have unlocked remarkable capabilities when it comes to processing and summarizing unstructured text data. This has implications for the analysis of rich, open-ended datasets, such as survey responses, where LLMs hold the promise of efficiently distilling key themes and sentiments. However, as organizations increasingly turn to these powerful AI systems to make sense of textual feedback, a critical question arises, can we trust LLMs to accurately represent the perspectives contained within these text based datasets? While LLMs excel at generating human-like summaries, there is a risk that their outputs may inadvertently diverge from the true substance of the original responses. Discrepancies between the LLM-generated outputs and the actual themes present in the data could lead to flawed decision-making, with far-reaching consequences for organizations. This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. We utilized an Anthropic Claude model to generate thematic summaries from open-ended survey responses, with Amazon's Titan Express, Nova Pro, and Meta's Llama serving as judges. This LLM-as-judge approach was compared to human evaluations using Cohen's kappa, Spearman's rho, and Krippendorff's alpha, validating a scalable alternative to traditional human centric evaluation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances. Our research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on AI assisted text analysis. Further, we provide recommendations for future research, emphasizing the need for careful consideration when generalizing LLM-as-judge models across various contexts and use cases. |
| title | Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08167 |