Attune is presented, a mixed-initiative system for steerable LLM-powered scoring that performs pairwise comparisons across records to develop a global understanding first, and then resolves these comparisons into consistent score assignments-deriving scoring criteria and rules bottom-up in the process.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to score text records at scale (e.g., rating candidate resumes on a 1-5 scale). However, existing LLM-powered approaches do not account for the fact that effective scoring requires both holistic understanding of records and locally consistent judgments across similar ones. We present Attune, a mixed-initiative system for steerable LLM-powered scoring. Given a task description and scoring range, Attune performs pairwise comparisons across records to develop a global understanding first, and then resolves these comparisons into consistent score assignments-deriving scoring criteria and rules bottom-up in the process. These serve as shared representations of scoring logic that users can inspect and edit. Based on insights from a formative study (n = 12), Attune's interface introduces novel steering interactions that allow users to deterministically refine scoring logic. Users can provide examples, directly edit criteria, rules, or target distributions, and give natural language feedback-with all refinements compiling into constraints that guide re-scoring. We validate our approach through a technical evaluation across three workloads and a user study with domain experts (n = 8) in healthcare, law, education, and AI evaluation.
It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al.· 1 citation
A logit-based energy scoring method is proposed that evaluates hypotheses using a language model's intrinsic confidence rather than comparative judgment, and intrinsic model confidence shows potential for scientific hypothesis evaluation.
A consensus-based evaluation framework that measures relative preference among model-generated responses rather than absolute correctness rather than absolute correctness is introduced, offering an alternative perspective on response quality in scenarios where multiple valid answers exist.
ConsensusGrade provides a diagnostic framework for interpreting automated scores relative to observed human variability; inside-envelope rates should not be interpreted as stand-alone measures of grading accuracy.
Cătălin Anghel, A. Anghel, Mihai Vlase et al.· Applied System Innovation· 0 citations
The cluster loop yields the strongest held-out rubric on both evaluator tasks from a commercial search vertical, and is the only method robustly positive on both.
Jinyoung Kim, N. Corp, Sun Kim et al.· 0 citations
This work evaluates 21 instruction-tuned LLM runs under a fixed ranked-response protocol, showing that models often locate the correct motivational region while ranking close alternatives unstably, and motivates value-recognition evaluation that combines exact accuracy, ranked recovery, and directed error analysis.
A. Chetvergov, S. Ukolov, Timofei Sivoraksha et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.