arXiv:2606. 17312v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning.
By Baishali Chaudhury, Mengdie Flora Wang, Hyunji Hayley Park, Rahul Ghosh, Sungmin Hong, Jae Oh Woo
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
Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.
By Bruno Brocai, Maria Becker
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
By Zejun Xie, Xintong Li, Guang Wang, Desheng Zhang
Agent evaluations increasingly benchmark LLMs, but rankings can be swayed by evaluation conditions such as scaffolds or tasks, making reliability claim‑dependent. A Bayesian variance‑decomposition framework applied to 22 benchmarks shows that reliability varies with the measurement goal: fixed model‑scaffold systems rank reliably, while underlying‑model rankings are less stable. Scaffold choice can alter conclusions, and adding more tasks only modestly improves reliability when scaffold coverage is limited; however, pooling diverse benchmarks can substantially raise cross‑task ranking reliability and reduce cost.
By Michael Hardy, Ruhana Azam, Anka Reuel, Mykel Kochenderfer, Sanmi Koyejo
Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features.