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.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
The paper introduces a two‑dimensional construct validity framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as judges, defining invariance (S) and sensitivity (R) to construct‑preserving and construct‑changing edits. Experiments across seven judges and four domains reveal high invariance (average S = 0.945) but low sensitivity (average R = 0.319), with sensitivity varying by edit type. Audits of public label sets show that surface‑only predictors can reproduce a substantial portion of labels, underscoring that high agreement does not guarantee construct validity.
The paper evaluates a production text‑to‑SQL pipeline that uses an LLM as a judge, finding that the deployed gpt‑4o‑mini judge agrees with human annotators only weakly (Cohen’s kappa 0.04 on a disagreement‑enriched set and 0.42 on a random spot‑check). The authors identify a specific failure mode, GRADE‑HALLUCINATION, responsible for most over‑flags, and demonstrate that a self‑hosted Qwen3.6‑27B model achieves substantially higher agreement (kappa 0.72) at a much lower cost. They also show that ensembling judges does not improve performance, and that their audit method flags a significant portion of out‑of‑domain SQLs as potential issues.
arXiv:2609.22599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) judges provide a flexible and scalable method for evaluating model and agent outputs, but their verdicts can be sensitive to...
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.
The paper introduces a risk‑controlled framework for using large language models (LLMs) as judges in tasks without reference answers. By calibrating uncertainty thresholds on a held‑out set, the method ensures that the false discovery rate of accepted verdicts stays below a user‑specified level α with high probability, using finite‑sample Clopper–Pearson intervals. When the parametric judge lacks confidence, the instance is routed to a retrieval‑augmented mode with a second calibrated threshold, preserving the error guarantee while achieving higher coverage than single‑mode baselines.
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.