arXiv:2606. 30931v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The LLM Jury, a Panel of LLM Evaluators (PoLL) reporting consensus scores, has become a practical alternative to single-judge LLM evaluation, yet its statistical behavior remains poorly understood.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2608. 06940v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap.
arXiv:2608. 06422v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Giving an LLM judge more compute does not necessarily make it check more requirements.
arXiv:2608. 12645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges have become central infrastructure for model evaluations, online grading, and reward modeling.
arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.
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.
arXiv:2606. 15474v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down.