How Trustworthy Are LLM-as-Judge Ratings for Interpretive Responses? Implications for Qualitative Research Workflows

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faster and cheaper than human evaluation. However, a judge may produce consistent scores without necessarily agreeing with human evaluators. In this work, we study this issue using two local open-weight LLM judges, LLaMA-3-8B and Qwen2.5-7B. We evaluate 300 responses generated by an instruction-tuned GPT-2 (124M) model for 100 questions covering five categories: factual knowledge, instruction following, mathematics, reasoning, and writing. Each response is scored by nine human annotators and is evaluated three times by each LLM judge using the same rubric. We compare the judge scores with the average human scores using Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, mean absolute error (MAE), signed bias, and self-consistency. LLaMA-3-8B shows a Pearson correlation of 0.275 with human scores, while Qwen2.5-7B achieves 0.340. Their MAEs are 27.71 and 18.64, respectively. Despite this limited agreement, both judges show high self-consistency, with exact consistency rates of 97.3% for LLaMA-3-8B and 92.3% for Qwen2.5-7B. These results show that high self-consistency does not necessarily indicate high agreement with human judgments. Our findings highlight the need to evaluate both consistency and human alignment when using local LLMs as automatic judges.

Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design these judges. Typically, researchers choose the prompt, rating scale, and model intuitively. If these choices change the judge's verdicts, two studies can reach different conclusions about the same facts. To address this risk and to provide an empirical basis for judge designs, we evaluate 10 reasoning models across multiple designs on two tasks: a scalar rating of sentence sentiment and toxicity (over 500 items per category), as well as a binary accuracy classification of question-answer pairs (n=600). For the rating tasks, despite judges showing significant disagreements with the human ground truth, the practical size of differences is small enough to consider most judges reliable (mean absolute deviation of 0.11 points on a 1 - 7 scale); toxicity judges even outperform standard classifiers. Judges are also highly accurate on average (96.5%) for the accuracy classification task. However, design choices can produce shifts: changing the rating scale alone can shift measured bias by up to 0.93 points (rating task), and while accuracy levels are rarely impacted, design choices consistently impact judge leniency (classification task; leniency drop of 28.9 percentage points when using detailed prompts, and up to 56.1 percentage points when switching models). Counterintuitively, lower reasoning effort affects neither accuracy nor leniency. Across both tasks, model identity is the dominant source of variance. These findings suggest that while LLM judges are broadly trustworthy in aggregate, design choices can be meaningful sources of variance. Given the growing reliance on automated evaluation in LLM research, we intend this study as a methodological reference for designing more robust and replicable LLM-as-a-judge pipelines.

A Large Language Model (LLM) as judge evaluates the quality of victim Machine Learning (ML) models, specifically LLMs, by analyzing their outputs. An LLM as judge is the combination of one model and one specifically engineered judge prompt that contains the criteria for the analysis. The resulting automation of the analysis scales up the complex evaluation of the victim models' free-form text outputs by faster and more consistent judgments compared to human reviewers. Thus, quality and security assessments of LLMs can cover a wide range of the victim models' use cases. Being a comparably new technique, LLMs as judges lack a thorough investigation for their reliability and agreement to human judgment. Our work evaluates the applicability of LLMs as automated quality assessors of victim LLMs. We test the efficacy of 37 differently sized conversational LLMs in combination with 5 different judge prompts, the concept of a second-level judge, and 5 models fine-tuned for the task as assessors. As assessment objective, we curate datasets for eight different categories of judgment tasks and the corresponding ground-truth labels based on human assessments. Our empirical results show a high correlation of LLMs as judges with human assessments, when combined with a suitable prompt, in particular for GPT-4o, several open-source models with $\geqslant$ 32B parameters, and a few smaller models like Qwen2.5 14B.