arXiv AI
The Format is the Filter: Scoring Format Fixes What an LLM Judge Can Express
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
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 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."
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8
Conditional Accuracy Profiles: Diagnosing LLM Judges across Deployment Conditions
The paper introduces Conditional Accuracy Profiling (CAP), a diagnostic framework that breaks down LLM‑judge accuracy into eight deployment conditions covering content sensitivity, robustness, and rationale quality. CAP is benchmark‑agnostic and can be applied directly when annotations are available, via task‑subset proxies, or through controlled augmentation. Applied to seven judges across six benchmarks, CAP reveals that aggregate accuracy masks important differences—for example, judges highly sensitive to omitted qualifications rank poorly on a Hard‑Constructed subset, and Position Robustness is generally stable but can degrade sharply under adversarial stress.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 7
JudgeMoE: Distributional Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge
arXiv:2610.07109v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When an LLM judge scores an output, its score distribution retains uncertainty and disagreement information that is lost after scalar compression. We i...
arXiv AI
Oct 2
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.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 17
Safety-Flag: A Unified Benchmark for the Reliability and Calibration of LLM Content Moderators
Safety-Flag is a unified benchmark that consolidates seven popular safety datasets into a single balanced flag/do‑not‑flag protocol, providing item‑level decisions and confidence scores for multiple large language models and dedicated guards. The benchmark evaluates moderator reliability across three dimensions—error direction, probability calibration, and confidence‑based error ranking—revealing that aggregate accuracy masks significant differences, such as one model flagging 85% of benign content while another misses 54% of harmful content. The study shows that general‑purpose models are overconfident, but temperature tuning can substantially improve calibration, and confidence‑based abstention can reduce selective risk, though performance varies with how well confidence ranks errors.