arXiv AI

Graph-Structured Rubrics: Compiling Rubrics into Typed Evaluation Graphs for LLM Judges

arXiv:2608. 12097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubric-based evaluators commonly treat rubrics as prompt context or flat criteria: they specify what to judge but leave criterion composition implicit, even when natural-language rules state it.

arXiv AI
Sep 4

Judging LLM-as-a-Judge: Concerning Rubric Artifacts in LLM-based Automated Text Generation Evaluation

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.

By Anshul Bagaria, Sowmya S Sundaram, Gokul S Krishnan, Balaraman Ravindran
arXiv AI
Aug 20

SESSE: Sketch, Expand, Sort, Summarize, Evaluate -- LLM-as-Judge Evaluation via Structured Decomposition

The paper introduces SESSE, a training‑free framework that breaks down LLM‑as‑judge evaluations into five steps—Sketch, Expand, Sort, Summarize, Evaluate—by mining sub‑questions from the judge’s own error cases. It requires no oracle responses, task‑specific rubrics, or fine‑tuning, yet on RewardBench it matches the performance of chain‑of‑thought baselines and rivals a fine‑tuned specialist (RISE‑Judge‑32B). SESSE provides per‑criterion vote evidence, offering an interpretable audit trail that can diagnose label ambiguity and judge failure modes that a single holistic output token cannot reveal.

By Dae Lee, Mihai Delgeanu, Adel Youssef
Hugging Face Trending Papers
2d ago

GraphDecide: Benchmarking System One Models on Graph Tasks

GraphDecide is a model‑independent benchmark designed to evaluate System One models—such as Jev—that make decisions directly from supplied options on graph‑related tasks. The benchmark combines structural task profiles, matched graph‑text input contrasts, and heuristic‑proposal controls to diagnose graph decision performance. In testing fourteen model‑interface configurations, GraphDecide shows that accurate adjacency recognition does not guarantee broader structural correctness, joint graph‑text input does not consistently improve prediction, and feasible construction does not ensure high solution quality.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 3

Can LLM-as-a-Judge Reliably Verify Rubrics in Agentic Scenarios?

The paper introduces RuVerBench, a benchmark with 2,458 instances for evaluating the reliability of Large Language Models acting as judges (LaaJ) in verifying rubric compliance within agentic scenarios such as deep research and agentic coding. It systematically meta‑evaluates frontier LLMs, revealing that even the most advanced models perform well yet still produce substantial noise. The study also examines how prompt design, batching, and majority voting affect verification accuracy, noting that weaker models are more prompt‑sensitive, batched verification trades accuracy for efficiency, and majority voting offers diminishing returns.

By Yangda Peng, Yunjia Qi, Haotian Xia, Guanzhong He, Xintong Shi, Richeng Xuan, Songyuanyi Lu, Yixian Liu, Zhichao Hu, Yuhong Liu, Hao Peng
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 2

Many Voices, One Reward: Multi-Role Rubric Generation for LLM Judging and Reward Modeling

Reliable reward and preference signals are critical for evaluating and optimizing large language models on open-ended tasks. Rubric-based judges offer a transparent way to decompose such judgments into explicit evaluation criteria, but existing annotation-free rubric generators typically rely on a single generic evaluator.