arXiv:2607. 22561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the standard for automated evaluation, but it suffers from high cost, significant latency, and opaque decisions -- limitations that undermine its scalability and reliability.
arXiv:2609.26550v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge scales evaluation, but reasoning judges are slow and costly. We study JEV-as-a-Judge: evaluation with JEV, a decision-only judge tha...
arXiv:2608. 12585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Improving reasoning LLMs requires the ability to judge the quality of long reasoning traces for effective reasoning data curation, strong training signals during reinforcement learning, and an in-depth understanding of reasoning behaviors during model performance evaluation.
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.
arXiv:2608.29168v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, single-model judges are limited by their inherent model...
arXiv:2606. 14581v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High-throughput experimentation can evaluate many reaction conditions, yet combinatorial condition spaces still exceed the available experiment budget.
JudgeStealer is a query‑efficient framework that extracts the judging capabilities of large language models across pointwise scoring, pairwise comparison, and listwise ranking protocols. It leverages cross‑protocol agreement to convert pointwise scores into higher‑order supervision, dynamically selects informative inputs, and applies score smoothing and multi‑protocol review to preserve ordinal structure and avoid catastrophic forgetting. Experiments show it outperforms existing baselines, achieving up to 73.3% accuracy on pointwise, 87.0% on pairwise, and 71.6% on listwise evaluation, while remaining robust against common extraction defenses.
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.
The paper investigates two strategies for improving large language model (LLM) evaluation: specialized judge weights and rule‑based deferral policies. Experiments on nearly 100,000 rubric‑conditioned samples show that correct rubrics boost accuracy, while incorrect ones hurt it, and that splitting training data into criterion‑specific experts can severely degrade performance unless the experts are warm‑started from a unified model. The authors demonstrate that lightweight deferral cascades can match or exceed the accuracy of larger standalone judges at a fraction of the compute cost, and they provide practical design rules for building efficient, reliable LLM evaluators.
arXiv:2607. 28609v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Computer-using agents (CUAs) are advancing rapidly across the digital world.
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.
The paper evaluates using large language model (LLM) juries to review code generated from natural language queries, focusing on MySQL text-to-SQL tasks. It benchmarks 15 open models, selects the top six, and constructs unanimous committees of varying sizes to accept a query only when all members agree. The study finds that single-model judges are inconsistent, while small unanimous committees of strong models can reduce false accepts without discarding many correct queries, and that committee composition significantly influences performance.
arXiv:2607. 23263v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deciding whether a trajectory actually fulfills its instruction governs how we measure computer-use agents on long-horizon graphical-user-interface tasks and how we train them with reinforcement learning.