In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these systems have been widely adopted by researchers and practitioners across a broad range of measurement tasks, driven by their strong performance, scalability, and cost-effectiveness relative to human judgment. However, a growing body of work has shown that the use of LLJs raise concerns about their validity and reliability as evaluators. Existing efforts to address these challenges have largely focused on developing bias-mitigation techniques and refining prompting strategies. While these approaches represent an important step forward, they primarily offer technical fixes and leave a more fundamental challenge unaddressed: the lack of standardized, transparent, and reproducible evaluation practices. In this paper, we introduce LLJ Cards, a framework that synthesizes best practices from measurement theory, natural language generation, and machine learning literature into practical guidelines for LLJ-based evaluations. While LLJs offer a promising path toward scalable evaluation, their effective use requires grounding in rigorous evaluation principles to ensure validity, reliability, and reproducibility. LLJ Cards addresses this need by providing a structured framework for applying these principles in the design and reporting of automated evaluations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: This figure presents an overview of [ 1 ] framework applied to LLJ-based evaluation.
Reliable evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is critical as their deployment rapidly expands, particularly in high-stakes domains such as business and finance. The LLM-as-a-Judge framework, which uses prompted LLMs to evaluate response quality, is appealing due to its scalability, low cost, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, it remains unclear how accurately these methods can assess response quality in domains where correctness matters more than style. To address this gap, we introduce the Business and Finance Fundamentals Benchmark (BFF-Bench), a dataset of 160 challenging questions and long-form responses authored by financial professionals. These experts subsequently evaluated the correctness of 1,200 responses generated by a diverse set of LLMs on both BFF-Bench and a challenging subset of MT-Bench. With this expert-annotated dataset of judgments (VERDICTS), we analyze the agreement between a suite of automated grading methods and human experts. While we observe that LLM Judges are more reliable than other grading methods, our findings reveal a clear pattern in LLM Judge performance: when not provided with a correct reference, judges show high agreement with human experts only on questions the judges were able to correctly answer themselves. We demonstrate that providing the judges with expert-written references largely mitigates this issue, highlighting the limits of using LLM-as-a-Judge without any form of human verification.
Michael Krumdick, Charles Lovering, Varshini Reddy +2
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators of AI systems, including in high-stakes applications. In this role, LLMs are used to generate judgments about the quality, appropriateness, or even safety of model outputs. This approach is motivated by practical constraints. Expert human ratings are costly and difficult to scale, whereas LLM ratings can be produced quickly at low cost. However, current approaches to deploying LLM evaluators are ad hoc, typically limited to reporting agreement metrics between human and LLM judges as a justification for substitution of human ratings, and lack a formal basis for study design. This paper (1) shifts the role of the LLM judge from substitutive to auxiliary, and (2) formulates the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm as one of augmenting human evaluation through a two-stage sampling design, where LLM evaluations are measured for all observations at the first stage and human ratings are partially observed for a subsample at the second stage. We propose to use a doubly robust estimator from the missing data literature, which takes advantage of the robustness property against the prediction model, since the missingness model is known by design. Using the asymptotic variance of this estimator, we propose how sample sizes of human and LLM ratings can be determined to achieve a targeted level of power. We also show that a study can be efficiently designed by allocating more human ratings for types of evaluations where the predictability of LLM ratings is not high. To the best of our knowledge, there is very little guidance on how much human oversight should be retained when validating benchmarks.
Jane Paik Kim
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94304
Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design these judges. Typically, researchers choose the prompt, rating scale, and model intuitively. If these choices change the judge's verdicts, two studies can reach different conclusions about the same facts. To address this risk and to provide an empirical basis for judge designs, we evaluate 10 reasoning models across multiple designs on two tasks: a scalar rating of sentence sentiment and toxicity (over 500 items per category), as well as a binary accuracy classification of question-answer pairs (n=600). For the rating tasks, despite judges showing significant disagreements with the human ground truth, the practical size of differences is small enough to consider most judges reliable (mean absolute deviation of 0.11 points on a 1 - 7 scale); toxicity judges even outperform standard classifiers. Judges are also highly accurate on average (96.5%) for the accuracy classification task. However, design choices can produce shifts: changing the rating scale alone can shift measured bias by up to 0.93 points (rating task), and while accuracy levels are rarely impacted, design choices consistently impact judge leniency (classification task; leniency drop of 28.9 percentage points when using detailed prompts, and up to 56.1 percentage points when switching models). Counterintuitively, lower reasoning effort affects neither accuracy nor leniency. Across both tasks, model identity is the dominant source of variance. These findings suggest that while LLM judges are broadly trustworthy in aggregate, design choices can be meaningful sources of variance. Given the growing reliance on automated evaluation in LLM research, we intend this study as a methodological reference for designing more robust and replicable LLM-as-a-judge pipelines.