Stopping and Routing LLM Judge Panels

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.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, single-model judges are limited by their inherent model biases, while multi-agent evaluation protocols that mitigate this through diverse deliberation are prohibitively expensive at inference time. To this end, we propose \textbf{\modelname}, which equips a compact \underline{Judge} model with multi-agent \underline{Panel} deliberation capability. Specifically, we first train on panel deliberation traces from an ensemble of strong evaluators, capturing structured patterns of discussion, disagreement, and resolution. To further improve judgment quality beyond SFT, we introduce \textit{AdaReward}, an adaptive multi-reward RL algorithm that dynamically rebalances reward component weights as different objectives saturate at different rates during RL training. For practical deployment, we further design a lightweight domain specialization module for rapid adaptation to new evaluation domains with few hundred labeled samples. As a result, (i) \textit{Novel}: the first framework to equip a single compact judge with multi-agent panel deliberation capability at single-model inference cost; (ii) \textit{Effective & Reliable}: JudgePanel with a 14B backbone outperforms judge-specialized models up to 70B across four evaluation benchmarks, demonstrates strong position consistency, and rapidly specializes to new domains with few hundred samples.

Validating an LLM-as-a-judge requires estimating its agreement with humans, yet annotation budgets rarely allow every item to be multiply labeled. We prove that this overlap sparsity is the first-order determinant of wrong deployment decisions: at 5% pairwise overlap, wrong-decision rates reach 25% and the probability of selecting the wrong best judge among ten candidates is 65%. The two actionable levers are overlap quantity and allocation. For quantity, we derive a minimum-overlap formula showing $ρ\geq 0.25$ suffices for non-borderline judges while borderline cases remain fundamentally hard. For allocation, a zero-cost stratified scheme halves false-rejection rates relative to random sampling when strata are informative. We validate on 10 LLM judges across four evaluation matrices spanning visual assessment, causal reasoning, and summarization.