The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
arXiv:2512. 03019v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level, and common aggregation rules (majority vote, soft self-consistency, or instruction-based self-aggregation) are inconsistent when ties are allowed.
arXiv:2601. 21816v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) from human preference data is crucial for obtaining LLM leaderboards.
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
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.