The paper investigates the reliability of ranking tables produced by small-sample evaluations of large language models (LLMs). Using LLM‑inferred prompt structure across eight model variants, the authors find that prompt‑structure recovery is highly unstable, with only the bottom of the ranking consistently reproducible. They demonstrate that standard evaluation practices can misrepresent model performance and propose reporting practices to improve transparency.
By Dipankar Sarkar
arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.
By Ning Liu
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.
By Abel Yagubyan
arXiv:2608. 14617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recurring proposal in legal AI is to improve case-outcome prediction by fusing uncertainty tools (evidence graphs with belief propagation, sequential Bayesian odds updating, Dempster-Shafer combination, and conformal prediction) into one pipeline.
By Surya Saka
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:2609.39229v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Automatic evaluation of faithfulness increasingly relies on a large language model acting as a judge, yet the most reliable judges are proprietary fr...
By Elia Onofri, Roberto Di Pietro
arXiv:2610.01471v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models now generate code, documentation, and analyses, and are increasingly used to review such output. We ask when a second review by...
By Tae-Eun Song
arXiv:2609.22512v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Consensus among LLM judges is often taken as strong evidence that a decision is correct. This assumes that judges make their errors independently. In p...
By Elias Hossain, Niloofar Yousefi, Ser-Nam Lim
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
arXiv:2607. 23386v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We document a failure class in frontier large language models -- exception chain collapse -- observed in eligibility evaluation under nested conditional rules of the form "A is required UNLESS B applies, UNLESS C overrides B".
By Paul Simpson, John Kozak, Lisa Doake
The paper argues that verbalized confidence—once viewed as overconfident and coarse—has become the preferred soft‑scoring method for LLM‑as‑a‑Judge on top‑tier proprietary models released after 2025. Experiments on SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2 across up to 18 LLMs show that log‑probabilities are no longer the best signal, and that adding an overconfidence advisory and self‑debate further improves calibration and robustness. The authors note that these enhancements incur little accuracy loss on post‑2025 models but do affect pre‑2025 ones, highlighting a compatibility shift in how confidence should be measured.
By Yu-Chung Hsiao
arXiv:2609.07944v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Existing causal-inference benchmarks for LLMs mostly score method descriptions or whether generated code runs, not whether the executed workflow recove...
By Yonghong Zhang, Ricardo Correia, Isabel M. Parra, Yong Xie