Organizations: St. Petersburg State University, University emb., 7/9, St. Petersburg, Russia · ITMO University, Kronverkskiy av., 49, St. Petersburg, Russia
Effective evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical bottleneck, as conventional direct scoring often yields inconsistent and opaque judgments. In this work, we adapt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to LLM-based evaluation and, more importantly, propose a confidence-aware Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) extension that models epistemic uncertainty via triangular fuzzy numbers modulated by LLM-generated confidence scores. Systematically validated on JudgeBench, our structured approach decomposes assessments into explicit criteria and incorporates uncertainty-aware aggregation, producing more calibrated judgments. Extensive experiments demonstrate that both crisp and fuzzy AHP consistently outperform direct scoring across model scales and dataset splits, with FAHP showing superior stability in uncertain comparison scenarios. Building on these insights, we propose DualJudge, a hybrid framework inspired by Dual-Process Theory that adaptively fuses holistic direct scores with structured AHP outputs via consistency-aware weighting. DualJudge achieves state-of-the-art performance, underscoring the complementary strengths of intuitive and deliberative evaluation paradigms. These results establish uncertainty-aware structured reasoning as a principled pathway toward more reliable LLM assessment. Code is available at https://github.com/hreyulog/AHP_llm_judge.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed hybrid AHP-based evaluation framework. The pipeline integrates direct scoring, crisp AHP, and fuzzy AHP through consistency checking, weight derivation, and result aggregation.
Source
Categories
GPT
Claude
LiveBench
livebench-math
56
34
livebench-reasoning
98
51
livecodebench
42
31
MMLU-Pro
14 disciplines (math, physics, CS, law, etc.)
154
154
Total
17 categories
350
270
Table 1: Category distribution of JudgeBench subsets by source and evaluation split. MMLU-Pro categories are aggregated for brevity.
Figure 2: Despite a tie in direct scoring, the structured AHP-based evaluations (crisp and fuzzy) consistently favor Response A.
Model
Scale
Count
Direct
AHP
DualJudge
(Baseline)
Crisp
Fuzzy
D+C
D+F
gpt-oss-20b
1–10
620
69.83%
74.52%
75.35%
76.95%
77.60%
1–5
620
71.77%
75.48%
76.45%
78.06%
78.55%
gpt-oss-120b
1–10
620
75.81%
80.49%
80.97%
82.10%
82.10%
1–5
620
75.00%
78.06%
78.23%
78.87%
78.71%
qwen3.5-9b
1–10
620
82.70%
81.44%
83.55%
84.07%
84.03%
Table 2: Overall performance comparison across models and settings (Merged GPT/Claude splits)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for open-ended generation, as large-scale human evaluation is often expensive and difficult to scale, yet their preferences remain imperfect proxies for human judgment. Existing auditing pipelines often assume that a reliable subset of examples or clean supervision signals are available beforehand, for example from human annotation, heuristic filtering, or the outputs of strong judges. In LLM evaluation, this assumption is fragile: the initial split may inherit judge bias, while human verification is typically too scarce to define stable groups at scale. We propose AURA, an adaptive uncertainty--aware refinement framework for auditing pairwise LLM--as--a--judge decisions under selected human verification. AURA iteratively learns a human-consistency signal, propagates reliable evidence, and prioritizes uncertain comparisons for human review. The key idea is to treat trust in a judge as a latent quantity that is progressively refined as evidence accumulates. We provide a compact formulation, a stable refinement procedure, and a comprehensive evaluation on both synthetic and real pairwise LLM-answer data.
Zilong Zhang, Yi-Ting Hung, Weiyi He +3
Department of Mathematics and Statistics Georgia State University · Department of Probability and Statistics Department of Computer Science and Engineering Michigan State University · Department of Mathematics and Statistics Concordia University +1
Using LLMs as judges has become standard practice for evaluating model outputs at scale. This is particularly common for subjective, open-ended tasks such as assessing helpfulness or alignment, where no single reference answer exists. However, objective tasks introduce a distinct reliability challenge for reference-free LLM judging. In the absence of a reference answer, the judge evaluates factual correctness either through its parametric knowledge or through tool augmentation. Although the former enables efficient evaluation, the judge may hallucinate or lack sufficient evidence for its verdict. Conversely, tool augmentation can provide additional evidence but introduces extra computational cost and requires an appropriate mechanism to determine when and how that evidence should be used reliably. More importantly, neither approach alone provides formal control over the risk of accepted verdicts or guarantees their reliability at a specified level. We propose a risk-controlled framework that calibrates uncertainty thresholds on a held-out set so that the false discovery rate among accepted verdicts remains below a user-specified level~α with high probability, using finite-sample Clopper--Pearson intervals. When the parametric mode is not sufficiently confident, the instance is routed to a retrieval-augmented mode, where the judge gathers web evidence and re-evaluates the instance under a second calibrated threshold. The finite-sample guarantee carries over to this two-threshold routing without additional assumptions. Across open-domain QA benchmarks and judges of varying scales, the framework maintains the target error rate while achieving substantially higher coverage than single-mode baselines.
Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad
Dalhousie University · New York University Abu Dhabi · Emory University
Rubric-based evaluation is widely used to assess large language model (LLM) outputs by decomposing quality into multiple criteria and assigning each a binary judgment from an LLM verifier. However, judgment certainty varies substantially across criteria. Existing methods uniformly aggregate these judgments into a final score, implicitly treating every criterion as equally certain and overlooking this heterogeneity. As a result, uncertain judgments remain incorporated into reward estimation without distinction, potentially yielding misleading training signals for downstream reinforcement learning (RL). To address this limitation, we propose Uncertainty-aware Rubric Weighting (URW), a training-free framework that quantifies criterion-level judgment uncertainty via conformal calibration. Specifically, URW elicits a soft uncertainty signal from a fixed pool of paraphrased judgment templates and converts it into a per-criterion weight using split-conformal p-values with provable coverage guarantees. Extensive experiments demonstrate that URW consistently improves pairwise preference accuracy and delivers stronger downstream RL alignment.
Licheng Pan, Haocheng Yang, Haoxuan Li +7
Zhejiang University · Xiaohongshu Inc · National University of Singapore +3