arXiv:2610.14029v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge evaluation commonly aggregates multiple judges' decisions into a majority vote, yet this panel decision process does not guarantee tha...
By Yang Ba, Michelle V. Mancenido, Rong Pan
The paper argues that the current LLM-as-a-judge evaluation method, which compensates for systematic measurement bias by increasing the number of comparisons, is statistically unsound and computationally wasteful. It identifies that treating LLM judges as neutral ignores documented biases such as position bias, verbosity bias, judge severity, and self‑enhancement. The authors propose a unified latent variable framework that jointly models pairwise and ordinal data while explicitly correcting for these confounders, enabling reliable rankings with far fewer comparisons and negligible additional compute.
By Harshita Katoch, David Antony Selby, Gerrit Gro{\ss}mann, Sebastian Vollmer
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
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:2606.19544v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for language models, but judge validation in practice relies on exact-match agreement, a...
By Justin D. Norman, Michael U. Rivera, D. Alex Hughes
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