arXiv Computation and Language
JudgeMoE: Distributional Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 10
When the Judge Changes, So Does the Measurement: Auditing LLM-as-Judge Reliability
arXiv:2607. 08535v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An LLM-as-judge score can move even when the candidate responses stay fixed, simply because the evaluator has changed.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14
Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration
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.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 21
JudgeSense: A Benchmark for Prompt Sensitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems
JudgeSense is a benchmark comprising 880 items from human‑labelled corpora, each presented under two differently worded instructions that ask the same question. The study evaluates 25 judges from six providers across four tasks, measuring how rewording affects agreement with the judge’s own verdicts. Results show that rewording reduces agreement on all tasks, with significant effects on two, and that stability varies across tasks and is not predicted by parameter count.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25
JEV vs. LLMs as Rubric Judges: Cheaper, Faster, and Wrong in the Same Places
The study investigates whether Jev, a typed classifier that outputs probabilities over allowed answers without generating text, can replace large language model (LLM) rubric judges. Across nine panels from seven benchmarks, Jev’s accuracy differed significantly from LLM judges in only 8 of 27 paired comparisons, performing best on binary criteria and worse only on graded ones, while most other comparisons were inconclusive. In terms of cost and speed, Jev was 29 to 325 times cheaper and 30 to 220 times faster than the flash‑tier LLM judges, and a cascade approach that defers uncertain Jev verdicts to an LLM yielded only modest gains. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that a lightweight classifier like Jev can serve as an efficient first‑stage evaluator, potentially reducing the reliance on expensive and slow LLM judges in automated grading pipelines."
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24
JEV vs. LLMs as Rubric Judges: Cheaper, Faster, and Wrong in the Same Places
The study compares Jev, a typed classifier that outputs probabilities over allowed answers, with three flash-tier LLM rubric judges across nine panels from seven benchmarks. Jev’s accuracy differs significantly from an LLM judge in only 8 of 27 paired comparisons, performing best on binary criteria and worse only on graded ones, while most other comparisons are inconclusive. In terms of cost and speed, Jev is 29 to 325 times cheaper and 30 to 220 times faster than the LLM judges, and a cascade that defers uncertain Jev verdicts to an LLM yields only modest gains of up to 2.0 points over the best single judge.
arXiv AI
6d ago
The First Token Is Not the Verdict: Hidden Costs of Reading LLM Judges Without Generating
The paper demonstrates that reading a large language model (LLM) judge’s verdict from the logits of its first generated token—an approach used in constrained decoding and likelihood‑scoring evaluation—introduces a significant distortion in position bias. Because judges do not always start with a verdict token (12–49% of cases for Qwen3 judges and <3% for Llama‑3.1‑8B and Phi‑3.5‑mini), this readout often returns the first response rather than a true judgment, inflating position bias by up to 42 points while barely affecting judge accuracy. The authors recommend reporting the frequency with which a judge leads with a verdict token to provide a more accurate assessment of position bias.