arXiv:2606. 19714v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for open-ended generation, as large-scale human evaluation is often expensive and difficult to scale, yet their preferences remain imperfect proxies for human judgment.
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...
arXiv:2606. 19057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for scalable evaluation, yet such LLM--as--a--Judge systems exhibit systematic biases that are decoupled from semantic quality, most notably verbosity bias.
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.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.
arXiv:2603. 00546v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as judges to achieve precise and consistent evaluations has gradually become an emerging paradigm across various domains.
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.
The paper introduces UPHELD, a large benchmark of human-to-human dialogues written by professional script writers, featuring realistic turn densities and over 36,000 per-turn human annotations. It evaluates existing automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge methods, finding them unreliable against expert human judgment. Using UPHELD, the authors develop a Mixture-of-Judges framework that improves correlation with human assessments by about 30%.
The paper introduces AgentAuditor, a method that improves multi-agent large language model (LLM) reasoning by structuring agent outputs into a Reasoning Tree that captures agreements and divergences, rather than relying on simple majority voting. AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing evidence at key divergence points, enabling efficient localized verification. The authors also propose Anti-Consensus Preference Optimization (ACPO) to train the adjudicator with evidence-verified supervision, reducing reliance on misleading majority cues. Across four MAS frameworks and multiple reasoning benchmarks, AgentAuditor consistently outperforms majority voting, achieving up to 5% absolute accuracy gains while remaining token‑efficient.
The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.
arXiv:2601. 16398v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Algorithmic audits are essential tools for examining systems for properties required by regulators or desired by operators.
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.
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.