arXiv:2609.24128v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Judge-specific sensitivity is useful for aggregating pairwise LLM evaluations, but its interpretation depends on which systematic presentation effect...
arXiv:2609.35815v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers across academia increasingly base significance claims on LLM judge scores and small-sample AI evaluations. Yet without well-calibrated co...
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.
The study investigates how prior scores influence large language model (LLM) judgments in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. By testing three prompt conditions—no metadata, revision framing, and anchored metadata containing prior scores—the authors find that prior scores systematically bias evaluations, shifting ratings toward those scores across 192,000 attempts. The bias also affects categorical decisions, blocking 48% of error corrections and flipping 10.18% of correct judgments, and is not mitigated by Chain-of-Thought or a warning, underscoring the need for careful context engineering.
arXiv:2602.02219v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examin...
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. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
The paper investigates how benchmark contamination—leakage of test items into training data—affects large language model (LLM) leaderboards. By comparing original test items with semantically equivalent paraphrases, the authors measure contamination as a violation of anchor-item invariance and find that it inflates absolute scores but rarely changes model rankings. Across 47 public models and 74 finetuned models on four benchmarks, the rank correlation between standard and paraphrase-controlled leaderboards is 0.997, with only a handful of cases showing differential contamination that could alter rankings.
arXiv:2608.22432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual LLM judges produce different evaluator-backbone rankings depending on the prompt language: on an eight-language Agent-as-a-Judge benchma...
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
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...
JudgeStealer is a query‑efficient framework that extracts the judging capabilities of large language models across pointwise scoring, pairwise comparison, and listwise ranking protocols. It leverages cross‑protocol agreement to convert pointwise scores into higher‑order supervision, dynamically selects informative inputs, and applies score smoothing and multi‑protocol review to preserve ordinal structure and avoid catastrophic forgetting. Experiments show it outperforms existing baselines, achieving up to 73.3% accuracy on pointwise, 87.0% on pairwise, and 71.6% on listwise evaluation, while remaining robust against common extraction defenses.