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.
By Sangdo Han, Moonsoo Kim
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.
By Zongyou Yang, Yinghan Hou, Xiaokun Yang
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.
By Wenqi Li, Bin Liu, Mindi Ruan, Chuanbo Hu, Minglei Yin, Xin Li
arXiv:2610.05094v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design...
By Laur\`ene Vaugrante, Thilo Hagendorff
arXiv:2606. 05384v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators.
By Srimonti Dutta, Akshata Kishore Moharir
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.
By Idil Gozel
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.
By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal
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...
By Veerendra Kumar Sunkavalli
The paper introduces the Wiggle Framework, a unified stress test for assessing epistemic stability in large language model (LLM) judges. It evaluates judge robustness across three dimensions—Mechanical Consistency, Single-turn Conviction, and Multi-turn Persistence—using 9 frontier models on 14 judging tasks related to safety, toxicity, AI writing detection, and political-response evaluation. Results show significant instability, with verdict flips ranging from 25–71% under static pushback and 62–91% when challenged by an adversarial LLM, and highlight that successful pressure often misaligns with ground truth.
By Justin Zhao, Himaghna Bhattacharjee, Hannah Korevaar, Bhaktipriya Radharapu, Khalid El-Arini
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.
By Rohith Reddy Bellibatlu, Edward Raff, Wenbin Zhang
The article examines how classical test theory statistics—Kuder‑Richardson coefficient, dependability index, and Livingston‑Lewis accuracy—can mislead when applied to large language model (LLM) judges that are evaluated with a single prompt and no gold labels. Using Claude Haiku 4.5 on 210 short‑answer items, the authors show that these metrics fail to isolate the judge’s performance because the judge’s single administration provides no variance component. They argue that reliable statements about an LLM judge require gold labels or varied scorer facets, and that bank design heavily influences reliability estimates.
By Louis Yiven Zhu
arXiv:2606. 25487v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Almost every paper on LLM jailbreaks and prompt injection reports an attack-success rate (ASR), and that number is assigned not by people but by an automated judge: either a safety classifier trained for the task, or a general chat model prompted to grade.
By Yang Gao (Veyon Solutions)