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:2608. 14684v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM judges increasingly evaluate responses against fine-grained rubric checklists.
By Dingyao Yu, Tong Zhang, Yutao Mou, Yunxiao Zhang, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang
arXiv:2605. 25240v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs.
By Russell Yang, Ruishi Chen, Pierce Kelaita, Riya Ranjan, Sibo Ma, Charles Dickens, Matthew Guillod, Megan Ma, Julian Nyarko
The paper introduces ReVeR, a pointwise rubric reward model that derives hard rules and graded principles directly from instructions, avoiding response-induced bias. It employs tool-augmented judges and label‑blind distillation to create ReVeR‑Traces, a large dataset of rubric reasoning and judging trajectories. Experiments show ReVeR surpasses pairwise rubric models in preference accuracy, especially for instruction following, and reveal that higher preference accuracy does not always lead to better downstream policies.
arXiv:2603. 05659v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) have driven strong gains in domains with clear correctness signals and even in subjective domains by synthesizing evaluation criteria from ideal reference answers.
By Wisdom Ikezogwo, Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Ranjay Krishna, Karim Bouyarmane
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...
By Yuzheng Xu, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno, Yoshitaka Ushiku
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.
By Qi Cao, Kangning Liu, Xuan Kan, Shunwen Tan, Yang Pei, Dake Chen, Yatai Ji, Zixuan Ye, Yuanpeng Tu, Daniel Li, Junbiao Tang, Pengtao Xie, Zihao He
arXiv:2602.13576v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-langu...
By Ruomeng Ding, Yifei Pang, He Sun, Yizhong Wang, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Zhun Deng
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
GAUGE is a new offline protocol that evaluates whether the common practice of using an LLM-as-a-judge to rank task‑oriented agents actually aligns with a verifiable reward. Across 25 agents from six providers on two benchmarks, GAUGE finds that user satisfaction scores are largely uncorrelated with task success, and that the judge’s ranking loses precision when agents are closely matched in performance. The study highlights a gap between ranking validity and construct validity in current evaluation practices.
By Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei
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.
By Arther Tian, Alex Ding, Simon Wu, Aaron Chan
arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.
By Darragh Quinn, David Dylan, Roisin Healy, Fionn Carroll, Maeve Donnelly, Cormac Sheehan