The study evaluates a label‑free rubric‑clarification procedure that rewrites only the most contested sub‑criteria of a rubric, aiming to reduce disagreement among large‑language‑model (LLM) judges. Across six rubric conditions and three datasets (SummEval, HealthBench, USR Topical‑Chat), the method increased inter‑judge agreement on SummEval by 0.069 Krippendorff’s α, but did not improve agreement with human expert ratings. In other datasets, neither inter‑judge nor human agreement met the preregistered effect criteria, and human agreement was actually lower after editing contested clauses compared to random edits.
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
The paper introduces a two‑dimensional construct validity framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as judges, defining invariance (S) and sensitivity (R) to construct‑preserving and construct‑changing edits. Experiments across seven judges and four domains reveal high invariance (average S = 0.945) but low sensitivity (average R = 0.319), with sensitivity varying by edit type. Audits of public label sets show that surface‑only predictors can reproduce a substantial portion of labels, underscoring that high agreement does not guarantee construct validity.
arXiv:2606.07834v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evidence-grounded fact verification increasingly uses LLM judges to turn evidence into terminal verdicts. Many task contracts deliberately in...
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.
arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...
The paper investigates whether consensus among large language model (LLM) judges truly reflects human alignment. By treating each judge’s scores as vectors, the authors measure spread, effective rank, and angles to human scores across 42 judges on Indic benchmarks, revealing that inter‑judge agreement often mirrors shared blind spots rather than human judgments. They find that while judges agree as much as humans, they only reach 58‑66% of human agreement and frequently focus on axes humans do not weight, indicating that ensemble agreement alone is insufficient evidence of alignment.
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.
arXiv:2608. 07813v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An LLM judge deployed inside a reasoning pipeline does not merely measure quality, it decides which answer ships.
arXiv:2609.40103v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automated judges for AI-generated content, yet a single judge is unreliable and even a panel...
arXiv:2610.07570v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In clinical practice, agreement among independent experts is treated as evidence of reliability, and multi-round consensus has become a core mechanism...
arXiv:2608.29517v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educ...
The paper investigates whether widely used evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) implement a defense called commit‑first judging, which requires a judge to solve a task itself before accepting a candidate answer. Across 24 configurations in eight popular frameworks, none use the full commit‑first method; nine use a weaker variant that is ineffective. In controlled experiments, the weaker variant allowed systems to game the judge, while the full commit‑first approach eliminated this vulnerability but sometimes worsened evaluation when the judge’s own answer was incorrect.