Calibrate, Don't Curate: Label-Efficient Estimation from Noisy LLM Judges

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.

We study when LLM judge panels should be calibrated with low-dimensional stackers versus joint output tables under finite human-label budgets. Low-dimensional stackers have small estimation cost but miss interactions, whereas joint-table calibrators can represent interactions but pay for cell counts and unseen patterns. We cast this tradeoff as a finite-calibration regime map and instantiate it as Finite-Calibration Panel Selection, a deployable validation selector over judge path, prefix size, and aggregator family with table and parametric estimation diagnostics. On RewardBench, LLMBar, SummEval, and Arena100K with a seven-judge pool including DeepSeek V4 Flash, scalar/reliability aggregation wins 16 of 20 real dataset--budget cells, indicating that current judge outputs are often additive or redundant. Controlled calibration-growth data show the complementary regime: additive labels remain scalar-favored, whereas a six-way interaction selects a larger joint table and its test MSE drops from 0.224 to 0.061 once unseen mass vanishes. Thus the practical question is not ``how many judges?'' but whether the next judge's information is estimable under the available human labels.

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.