*-PLUIE: Personalisable metric with Llm Used for Improved Evaluation

LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines are increasingly used to evaluate AI-generated text, based on the assumption that judgments arise from reasoning over candidate responses with respect to a rubric. We show that this assumption warrants further scrutiny. Classifiers trained only on rubric text, without access to any evaluated response, achieve nontrivial predictive performance on judge outputs. This suggests that rubric formulations encode recoverable evaluative signals, allowing scores to be partially anticipated independently of model outputs. Finally, counterfactual perturbations reveal that judges often fail to reliably update their decisions when either the candidate response or the rubric criterion is reversed. Our findings raise concerns about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation and highlight the need for further methodological study of automated evaluation via LLMs.

Meta-evaluation of text generation metrics and LLM-judges is primarily conducted using metric-human correlations. However, prior work has shown that correlation is not an appropriate estimate of a metric's evaluation capability and can be unstable across evaluation settings, such as different datasets or languages. Therefore, we propose a regression-based meta-evaluation of metrics that learns on calibrated metric outputs to predict human ratings. We ground this measurement relative to a trivial constant-mean baseline and human agreements to provide a comparable measure of metric capability across evaluation settings. To test our meta-evaluation framework, we developed a large-scale multi-lingual style-personalized text generation (SPTG) benchmark, collecting multiple annotations across 10 topologically diverse languages and four evaluation dimensions, each with varying degrees of subjectivity. We meta-evaluated 32 metrics from three style evaluation paradigms (string-based, embedding-based, and LLM-judges) and their ensembles over these 40 evaluation settings. Our analysis revealed that even simple string- and embedding-based measurements can match strong LLM-judges when calibrated to human ratings. We also identified characteristics of human annotations that determine metric performance, as well as conditions under which a metric ensemble outperforms its individual constituents.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as automated judges for evaluating generated text, their outputs are often costly, and highly sensitive to prompt design, language, and aggregation strategies, severely, which limits reproducibility. To address these challenges, we propose OmniScore, a family of complementary, deterministic learned metrics developed using small size ($<$1B) parameter models. OmniScore approximates LLM-judge behavior while preserving the low latency and consistency of traditional model-based scoring. We trained the models large-scale synthetic supervision ($\sim$564k instances, in 107 languages) and evaluated using 8,617 manually annotated instances. The OmniScore family supports reliable, multi-dimensional scores across a variety of settings, including reference-based, source-grounded, and hybrid evaluations. We evaluate these models across question answering (QA), translation, and summarization in 6 languages. Our results demonstrate that lightweight, deterministic learned metrics provide a highly practical and scalable alternative to frontier LLMs. Our models and datasets can be found at https://huggingface.co/collections/QCRI/omniscore