CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation

Validating an LLM judge against human annotations usually means reporting several agreement statistics: accuracy, precision, recall, $F_1$, Cohen's $κ$, and one or more rank correlations. A survey of 24 recent LLM-as-judge papers finds metric choice entangled with the judgment scale, tie handling, invalid outputs, and abstention handling, and those choices rarely stated. For binary criteria -- the common case in rubric-based evaluation, where each criterion is graded MET or UNMET -- most of the reported numbers are redundant: Pearson's $r$, Spearman's $ρ$, Kendall's $τ_b$, the phi coefficient $φ$, and the Matthews Correlation Coefficient all reduce to a single number on non-degenerate binary data, so reporting several of them only creates an illusion of corroborating evidence. Cohen's $κ$ is the one agreement coefficient that adds information: it shares $φ$'s numerator but normalizes differently, and the gap between them measures how far the judge's positive-label rate has drifted from the human's. We then trace what changes when a judge may abstain with a CANNOT_ASSESS verdict: the three common ways of handling abstentions are not interchangeable preprocessing choices but answer different questions, and they break the binary equivalences. The same equivalences reappear, up to a negligible finite-sample correction, for multi-judge ensembles scored with Fleiss' $κ$ or Krippendorff's $α$. We close with a reporting checklist that names the judgment scale, the abstention and tie handling mode, coverage, the confusion matrix, and the aggregation level alongside any scalar agreement coefficient.

LLMs are increasingly used as automated judges for model training and evaluation, yet individual judges exhibit systematic biases that undermine reliability. Much of prior work has studied biases in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge settings; in this paper, we focus on absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use cases. Across four benchmarks and six models (36 judge-examinee pairs), we show that a model's task accuracy strongly predicts its judging accuracy (Pearson $r \geq 0.90$ on most models) and inversely predicts its directional bias ($r \leq -0.83$), but that accuracy alone does not ensure fair evaluation: more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges ($r \geq 0.83$). To address this, we propose calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV), an ensemble evaluation method that aggregates multiple LLM judges weighted by online estimates of their false-positive and false-negative rates. We introduce a disagreement-based estimator that derives these error rates purely from inter-judge agreement patterns, requiring no ground-truth labels or task metadata. In a simulated experiment with shifting task distributions, our label-free WMV tracks an oracle with perfect error-rate knowledge to within 0.5 percentage points on average, outperforming both individual judges and unweighted majority voting. These results demonstrate that principled multi-judge calibration can simultaneously improve accuracy and correct for systematic leniency without requiring labeled data, offering a scalable path to reliable automated evaluation as model capabilities increase.

LLM-as-a-judge panels aggregate votes from multiple models, with the expectation that diverse models yield more reliable evaluations. We develop a framework to measure the true informational value of such panels and quantify how far their reliability falls short of the independent-voting ideal. Testing a panel of 9 frontier LLMs from 7 model families on three natural language inference datasets (each with 100 human annotations per item), we find that the 9 judges effectively provide only about 2 independent votes' worth of information. Roughly three-quarters of the panel's nominal independence is lost because the models make the same mistakes on the same items. The consequences are stark: the panel's actual accuracy falls 8-22 percentage points short of what independent voting would achieve, and the best single judge matches or outperforms the full panel across all conditions. Neither adding more judges nor using smarter aggregation algorithms helps -- established methods close at most 11% of this gap, even with access to the correct answers. We quantify these findings using the Kish effective sample size (n_eff) and a Condorcet null model, and show the deficit is robust across prompt variants, temperatures, chain-of-thought reasoning, and a pairwise preference task (RewardBench). The bottleneck is correlated judges, not the aggregation algorithm, implying that scaling up panels cannot substitute for genuinely independent evaluation.