Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-ag...
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
arXiv:2609.40103v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automated judges for AI-generated content, yet a single judge is unreliable and even a panel...
The paper investigates whether consensus among large language model (LLM) judges truly reflects human alignment. By treating each judge’s scores as vectors, the authors measure spread, effective rank, and angles to human scores across 42 judges on Indic benchmarks, revealing that inter‑judge agreement often mirrors shared blind spots rather than human judgments. They find that while judges agree as much as humans, they only reach 58‑66% of human agreement and frequently focus on axes humans do not weight, indicating that ensemble agreement alone is insufficient evidence of alignment.
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.
arXiv:2609.38964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) is often used to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning, but sequential debate is rarely a neutral aggregator of agents'...
arXiv:2606. 30887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric.
arXiv:2510. 10002v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential.
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:2610.15788v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed as teams, yet they fail in characteristically social ways: information holders stay silent,...
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.
The study evaluates multi‑agent debate (MAD) in small language models, testing whether cognitive diversity—via personas, sampling temperature, or model identity—drives performance gains. Across 23 models, five tasks, and over 5,500 runs, MAD consistently outperforms single‑model inference but, when matched for generation budget, it ties or falls behind self‑consistency sampling, with persona prompting actually reducing accuracy. The authors find that MAD’s benefits largely stem from the first answer exchange and that many reported gains are due to ensemble‑sampling effects rather than true diversity, highlighting the need for budget‑matched, contamination‑checked baselines. whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that MAD’s perceived advantages may be overestimated and that future debate mechanisms must be evaluated against rigorous, budget‑matched baselines to ensure genuine performance improvements."