A Finite-Calibration Regime Map for LLM Judge Panels

Multi-judge evaluation is increasingly used to assess LLMs and reward models, and the prevailing heuristic is to curate: keep the most accurate judges and discard weaker ones. We show that this heuristic can reverse when the target is not point accuracy, but calibrated probabilistic evaluation from a labeled calibration set. Holding the aggregation and calibration procedures fixed, we compare accuracy-ranked top-$k$ judge selection with using the full judge panel. Across four labeled pairwise-evaluation benchmarks spanning LLM-as-judge and reward-model settings, the calibrated full panel consistently outperforms accuracy-based selection. On RewardBench2, retaining all judges achieves negative log-likelihood (NLL) of $0.006$ versus $0.013$ under top-5 selection, halving the calibration error. This advantage persists after judge-family deduplication and against stronger same-pipeline subset search. We explain this reversal with oracle analyses showing that the optimal calibrated risk under proper scoring rules cannot increase when additional judge signals are made available, and that even below-chance judges can be useful when their biases are learnable and their signals are non-redundant. The resulting operating principle is simple: in multi-judge evaluation with labeled calibration data, do not discard weak judges by accuracy alone; keep them when they are parseable, non-redundant, and calibratable.

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.

Who the judge is can affect an LLM-as-judge result, but measuring that effect without confusing it with candidate quality is difficult. We study four open-weight families (Llama 3.1, Qwen 2.5, Gemma 2, and Yi 1.5) in a fully crossed pairwise design with 9,312 judgments. A common per-family statistic is strongly confounded with candidate quality and correlates with Bradley-Terry ability at r = 0.95. We derive a corrected estimator that holds the candidate family fixed and compares judges. All four families then show a positive same-family lift (3.4-8.4 percentage points), with global FPS 0.067 (95% CI [0.053, 0.084], permutation p = 0.0002). The effect remains under panel-based quality controls, an independent human-consensus anchor, and a float16 judging replication. Judge-side likelihood is closely related to the effect: adding likelihood advantage reduces the controlled coefficient by 61%, which we treat as descriptive attenuation rather than causal mediation. Position is a separate failure mode. Across the panel, 55.4% of AB/BA pairs reverse, and reversal above 50% is incompatible with a simple independent content-noise model. Relative to a family-balanced reference, panel composition changes 18.5% of pairwise outcomes. A complete reproducibility archive has been prepared for public release.