Abstract
Evaluating and improving domain-specific LLM responses requires high-quality reference data and rubrics, yet expert authoring is slow and expensive, and synthetic datasets may fail to capture practitioner preferences unless they are grounded in expert judgment. We present SME-C (Subject Matter Expert Critique), a human-AI workflow that captures expertise through lightweight critiques of candidate responses and complements it with LLM-driven analysis and refinement to iteratively curate response datasets and evaluation rubrics. We validate SME-C in the domain of financial business briefs, collecting 3,853 critiques from 411 finance professionals on 520 queries across two survey rounds. We evaluate two LLM-driven refinement strategies: one guided by the experts' written critiques and one that infers critique solely from their preference votes. In a blind validation survey with 100 additional professionals, we found that both strategies significantly improved quality over the experts' top-ranked baseline responses. The gains were concentrated among weaker original responses, and the two strategies excelled in different ways: critique-based refinement produced more domain-grounded improvements, whereas vote-based refinement was more effective at identifying and removing irrelevant content. The resulting rubrics and refined dataset support reproducible offline evaluation and benchmarking of LLMs, suggesting that structured expert critique is a viable alternative to expert authoring for building high-quality, domain-specific evaluation resources more quickly, at scale, and at lower cost.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05749
