JudgmentBench: Comparing Rubric and Preference Evaluation for Quality Assessment

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

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.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from $65.0\%$ to $68.6\%$, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from $46.4\%$ to $36.0\%$ with little change in inter-judge agreement ($α{=}.531\to.519$).