arXiv:2608.29168v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, single-model judges are limited by their inherent model...
arXiv:2608. 12585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Improving reasoning LLMs requires the ability to judge the quality of long reasoning traces for effective reasoning data curation, strong training signals during reinforcement learning, and an in-depth understanding of reasoning behaviors during model performance evaluation.
MABPD (Multi‑Agent Bias Probing & Detection) is a training‑free pipeline that uses three specialized large language model agents to analyze news articles from complementary perspectives and resolve disagreements via a Structured Argument Debate (SAD) protocol. SAD imposes an asymmetric burden of proof—biased claims lacking grounded textual evidence receive zero weight—along with role‑weighted voting and post‑consensus verification, replacing task‑specific supervised decision boundaries. Ablation studies show that the debate module alone accounts for up to a 10.6‑point F1 gain, and on the BABE benchmark MABPD attains 83.4% macro F1, within 0.7 percentage points of the supervised state‑of‑the‑art, while achieving 75.0% zero‑shot accuracy on the SemEval 2019 HyperPartisan corpus.
The paper introduces RuVerBench, a benchmark with 2,458 instances for evaluating the reliability of Large Language Models acting as judges (LaaJ) in verifying rubric compliance within agentic scenarios such as deep research and agentic coding. It systematically meta‑evaluates frontier LLMs, revealing that even the most advanced models perform well yet still produce substantial noise. The study also examines how prompt design, batching, and majority voting affect verification accuracy, noting that weaker models are more prompt‑sensitive, batched verification trades accuracy for efficiency, and majority voting offers diminishing returns.
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.
AgentJudgeBench is a new benchmark that evaluates the reliability of large language model (LLM) judges on agentic tool‑calling tasks involving workflow directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). It contains 3,808 instances across six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, tested with five generators (3B–70B open‑weight models and GPT‑5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under both paired‑with‑and‑without‑ground‑truth conditions. The study finds that judge alignment degrades with task difficulty, ground‑truth exposure can sometimes hurt alignment, and structured evaluation rubrics provide modest improvements, revealing a structural ceiling that model capacity alone cannot surpass.
arXiv:2608.30373v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. Howev...
The paper introduces Tasks over Application Manuals (TAM), a benchmark designed to test long‑horizon procedural reasoning in large language models. TAM uses real‑world tasks from ICD‑10‑CM clinical coding and U.S. federal sentencing, requiring models to follow extensive, rule‑based manuals and perform interdependent steps to produce exact answers. Experiments with GPT‑5 and various prompting strategies show very low exact‑match accuracy—1% for coding and 15.5% for sentencing—highlighting a gap between current benchmarks and the ability to reliably follow complex procedures.
JudgeSense is a benchmark comprising 880 items from human‑labelled corpora, each presented under two differently worded instructions that ask the same question. The study evaluates 25 judges from six providers across four tasks, measuring how rewording affects agreement with the judge’s own verdicts. Results show that rewording reduces agreement on all tasks, with significant effects on two, and that stability varies across tasks and is not predicted by parameter count.