arXiv subjects

Tamer Soliman

Publications and source records attributed to Tamer Soliman.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

MedFabric: Gold Evidence Hides the Difficulty of Word-Level Medical Fabrication Detection

Large language models fabricate in medicine, producing fluent statements that are factually wrong, so reliable fabrication detection is a prerequisite for clinical deployment. Reported progress on this task is inflated by two evaluation artifacts: an authorship-style shortcut, where human-written ground truths are paired with LLM-written hallucinations so detectors key on writing style rather than facts, and the provision of gold evidence at test time. A benchmark that tests factual reasoning must therefore remove the style shortcut, ground every fabrication in a real retrievable passage, and score detectors across the range of evidence quality faced in deployment. We build MedFabric to these requirements, a benchmark of 646 word-level medical fabrications, each paired with a ground truth that shares its LLM authorship and near-identical surface form (median ROUGE-L 0.95). On MedFabric the task is unsolved: expert clinicians reach only 53.3% macro F1 and no detector family clears about 60% without gold evidence. Our central finding is that detection is governed by evidence correctness rather than fabrication subtlety, since a strong LLM scores 91% with the gold passage but falls to 35%, below its own no-evidence baseline, under a wrong one, a pattern that holds on two benchmarks at two model scales. The failure is actionable: a retrieval-confidence gate that abstains on low-confidence evidence raises macro F1 from 61% to 74%, and we release MedFabric, all code, and every baseline.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as judges that offer rapid and reliable assessments of other LLM outputs. However, models may systematically assign overly favorable ratings to their own outputs, a phenomenon known as self-bias, which can distort evaluations of true model performance. Previous studies often conflate genuine differences in model quality with bias or incorrectly assume that evaluations from LLMs and humans follow the same rating distributions. In this work, we present a statistical framework that explicitly formalizes assumptions under which self-bias can be identified and estimated. Our method models the difference in the scoring distribution that LLM-as-a-judge assigns to its own completions compared to other models, while accounting for the underlying quality of the completions provided by an independent, third-party judge (e.g., humans). Our method reliably isolates and quantifies self-bias, even when models vary in ability, ensuring that genuine performance differences are not mistaken for self-bias. We conduct an empirical analysis of self-bias on a large dataset (>5000 prompt-completion pairs) consisting of expert human annotations and judgments from nine different LLM judges. We find that some models, such as GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, systematically assign higher scores to their own outputs. These models also display family-bias; systematically assigning higher ratings to outputs produced by other models of the same family. Our findings highlight potential pitfalls of using LLM judges and offer practical guidance to mitigate biases when interpreting automated evaluations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Leveraging LLMs for Dialogue Quality Measurement

In task-oriented conversational AI evaluation, unsupervised methods poorly correlate with human judgments, and supervised approaches lack generalization. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show robust zeroshot and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. This paper explores using LLMs for automated dialogue quality evaluation, experimenting with various configurations on public and proprietary datasets. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine "chain-of-thought" (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results show that (1) larger models yield more accurate dialogue labels; (2) algorithmic selection of in-context examples outperforms random selection; (3) CoT reasoning where an LLM is asked to provide justifications before outputting final labels improves performance; and (4) fine-tuned LLMs outperform out-of-the-box ones. Our results indicate that LLMs that are suitably fine-tuned and have sufficient reasoning capabilities can be leveraged for automated dialogue evaluation.

cs.CL↗