arXiv:2608. 19802v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM evaluation pipelines often have many candidate judges: general LLM-as-a-judge prompts, reward models, safety classifiers, confidence variants, and task-specific verifiers.
The paper investigates two strategies for improving large language model (LLM) evaluation: specialized judge weights and rule‑based deferral policies. Experiments on nearly 100,000 rubric‑conditioned samples show that correct rubrics boost accuracy, while incorrect ones hurt it, and that splitting training data into criterion‑specific experts can severely degrade performance unless the experts are warm‑started from a unified model. The authors demonstrate that lightweight deferral cascades can match or exceed the accuracy of larger standalone judges at a fraction of the compute cost, and they provide practical design rules for building efficient, reliable LLM evaluators.
Agentic systems have widened the gap between producing candidate outputs and reviewing them. This paper asks a practical architectural question: should domain specialization be built into an evaluator's weights, or into the rule that decides when its judgment can be trusted?
arXiv:2607. 07097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety evaluations of multi-agent LLM systems often compare a direct prompt with a planner-executor pipeline and report the difference as a single "pipeline effect.
arXiv:2607. 22561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the standard for automated evaluation, but it suffers from high cost, significant latency, and opaque decisions -- limitations that undermine its scalability and reliability.
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.
arXiv:2607. 27083v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure.
arXiv:2607. 08535v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An LLM-as-judge score can move even when the candidate responses stay fixed, simply because the evaluator has changed.
arXiv:2608. 06422v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Giving an LLM judge more compute does not necessarily make it check more requirements.
The paper introduces a risk‑controlled framework for using large language models (LLMs) as judges in tasks without reference answers. By calibrating uncertainty thresholds on a held‑out set, the method ensures that the false discovery rate of accepted verdicts stays below a user‑specified level α with high probability, using finite‑sample Clopper–Pearson intervals. When the parametric judge lacks confidence, the instance is routed to a retrieval‑augmented mode with a second calibrated threshold, preserving the error guarantee while achieving higher coverage than single‑mode baselines.
arXiv:2606. 01034v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Deploying an LLM judge panel spends human labels on fitting a calibrator, constructing candidate judge paths, and validating which candidate to deploy.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.