Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own output? We find that the ability is largely present before any targeted training: prompted few-shot, a base model already predicts an external judge's multi-attribute quality scores on open-ended responses well above chance across three benchmarks.
arXiv:2606.05122v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own ou...
arXiv:2608.30005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubric-based reinforcement learning extends RL beyond tasks with exact answers or rule-based verifiers by scoring responses against instance-specific c...
LLM-as-judge is essential for evaluating open-ended text and steering post-training, yet improving the judge itself typically relies on expensive annotations, reward models, or distillation from stron...
The paper investigates how the design of LLM-as-a-Judge protocols influences both the intrinsic quality of judgments and their downstream utility in open-ended tasks. By varying verdict granularity, critique usage, and evaluation batching, and by applying Judge guidance to test-time inference methods such as Best-of-N selection, revision, and beam search, the authors find that judgment quality and downstream performance do not always align and that protocol choices significantly affect outcomes. The study highlights the need for comprehensive evaluation of LLM Judges that considers both judgment quality and practical utility.
The paper examines LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to assess AI-generated text, questioning the assumption that judgments are derived from reasoning over responses and rubrics. It finds that classifiers trained solely on rubric text can predict judge outputs, indicating that rubrics contain recoverable evaluative signals independent of the responses. Counterfactual experiments show judges often fail to adjust decisions when either the response or rubric criterion is reversed, raising doubts about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation.
The paper introduces JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark that systematically quantifies judgment biases in large language model (LLM)-based judges across four dimensions and 12 bias types. It evaluates both generative and discriminative judges, revealing significant bias patterns that undermine reliability. The authors propose bias-aware training—reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges—to reduce these biases while maintaining evaluation performance.
arXiv:2606. 28050v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation.
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:2604. 06996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs.
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
arXiv:2607. 20083v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Post-training with evaluator feedback on policy-induced samples serves as a major mechanism for improving large language models.
JudgeProfile is a framework that analyzes the subjectivity of large language model (LLM) judges by separating evaluation into perception—how judges compare responses on attributes such as clarity, correctness, and detail—and prioritization—how much each attribute influences the final decision. Using the curated SubjectiveSet dataset of 50,013 response pairs evaluated by 21 judges across 87 attributes, the study finds that judges often agree on attribute judgments even when their overall choices differ. By estimating and adjusting attribute weights, the authors improve agreement with reference labels from 66.48% to 71.97%, outperforming fine‑tuning and rubric prompting.