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.
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.
arXiv:2606. 13685v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized.
arXiv:2609.31857v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Validating an LLM-as-a-judge requires estimating its agreement with humans, yet annotation budgets rarely allow every item to be multiply labeled....
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 deployment question...
The paper introduces Conditional Accuracy Profiling (CAP), a diagnostic framework that breaks down LLM‑judge accuracy into eight deployment conditions covering content sensitivity, robustness, and rationale quality. CAP is benchmark‑agnostic and can be applied directly when annotations are available, via task‑subset proxies, or through controlled augmentation. Applied to seven judges across six benchmarks, CAP reveals that aggregate accuracy masks important differences—for example, judges highly sensitive to omitted qualifications rank poorly on a Hard‑Constructed subset, and Position Robustness is generally stable but can degrade sharply under adversarial stress.
arXiv:2606.19544v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for language models, but judge validation in practice relies on exact-match agreement, a...
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. 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.
arXiv:2610.07109v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When an LLM judge scores an output, its score distribution retains uncertainty and disagreement information that is lost after scalar compression. We i...
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...
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.