arXiv:2602. 13110v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scalable judges in pairwise evaluation, but they remain prone to miscalibration and biases.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv:2509. 03647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as automated evaluators, yet they suffer from "self-preference bias": a tendency to favor their own outputs over those of other models.
arXiv:2604. 22891v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on.
arXiv:2607. 02104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers.
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.
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.
arXiv:2607. 25136v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Research on preference optimization often varies the training objective while holding the data fixed.
arXiv:2512. 03019v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level, and common aggregation rules (majority vote, soft self-consistency, or instruction-based self-aggregation) are inconsistent when ties are allowed.
arXiv:2607. 18960v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Procuring supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data forces a buyer to decide, before any downstream training, whether a candidate corpus is worth acquiring.
arXiv:2608. 11947v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge.
Using LLMs as judges has become standard practice for evaluating model outputs at scale. This is particularly common for subjective, open-ended tasks such as assessing helpfulness or alignment, where no single reference answer exists.
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.