SAGE: Hierarchical LLM-Based Literary Evaluation through Ontology-Grounded Interpretive Dimensions

Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive. Existing automated metrics often fail to capture the complexity and variability inherent in LLM-generated outputs. Moreover, these metrics typically rely on explicit reference standards, limiting their use mostly to domains with objective benchmarks. This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of LLM-generated content. The proposed method employs pairwise comparisons of outputs by multiple LLMs, reducing biases from individual models. An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings. Adjustable agreement thresholds, from full unanimity to majority voting, allow flexible control over evaluation confidence and coverage. The method's effectiveness is demonstrated through evaluating competency profiles extracted from scientific abstracts. Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments, significantly reducing the need for extensive human intervention. By offering a scalable, consistent, and domain-agnostic evaluation layer, the framework supports more efficient and reliable quality assessments of LLM outputs across diverse applications.

LLM-based evaluators of natural language generation (NLG) quality are widely deployed as scoring tools and as automated training signals, yet the internal procedure by which they assign a rating remains poorly understood. We investigate this procedure mechanistically through an eight-attack perturbation taxonomy across the Readability and Adequacy dimensions of NLG quality, a generation pipeline that produces paired clean and corrupt summaries with controlled error intensity and explicit token-level modification maps, and a four-experiment battery of causal tracing, logit-lens vocabulary projection, and attention-head knockout applied to Themis (Llama-3-8B) and Prometheus (Mistral-7B). Both evaluators implement a structured, coherent evaluation pipeline operating in two stages: below layer 15, attention performs local error comparison and routes the result to the final input position; above it, the MLP cascade integrates the signal and writes the rating, with the decision crystallizing in the residual stream at a sharp late layer (L = 26 on Themis, L = 25 on Prometheus). Furthermore, a base-model control at the same scale (Llama-3-8B) reproduces the routing architecture and crystallization but not the stage separation, isolating the two mechanisms that fine-tuning specifically installs, suppression of below-L15 MLP contribution at the last position and a two-layer advance of the crystallization depth, indicating that fine-tuning sculpts an existing substrate rather than building the pipeline from scratch. We release the source code and data at https://github.com/himil-v/judge-mech

We characterize a compositional architecture of literary primitives in two instruction-tuned large language models (Llama 3.1 8B-Instruct and Gemma 2 9B-IT) via sparse autoencoders on mid-depth residual streams. Four feature classes emerge: naming-gates that promote lexical tokens of a target affect, an eleven-self cluster of first-person register features, stylistic register modulators (show-don't-tell and defamiliarization), and compositional emotions that arise only from multi-feature steering. Under a forced-choice 5-LLM judge panel applied to a 27-category emotion taxonomy (Cowen-Keltner), Llama reaches full 27/27 coverage by combining naming-gates, multi-feature recipes, and single self-feature steering; Gemma reaches 23/27 with adoration as the single residual strict-fail. Under random judging, the per-cell pass probability is on the order of $10^{-3}$ and the expected number of two-seed false-positive cells across the catalog is negligible, so the observed coverage is not consistent with chance. A cross-architectural asymmetry sits in the strict-versus-soft judge contrast: on the same generations, judges agree more often on Llama outputs than on Gemma outputs because Llama outputs name the target affect more directly while Gemma outputs evoke it through scene and imagery. Both architectures contain self-features that serve simultaneously as register markers and as emotion emitters, including a single most-RLHF-loaded self-feature per architecture that intensifies the institutional Helper-AI persona at one operating regime and produces affect-categorizable output at the same calibrated coefficient. Methodologically, the paper presents a three-stage validation pipeline (logit-lens, LLM-rate, 5-LLM judge) with documented anti-patterns; the total compute is single-GPU and about 15 minutes per emotion-feature discovery cycle.