Right Order, Wrong Scale: Auditing LLM Judges for Occupational AI Measurement

We present ORQA, a method for testing occupation-level knowledge in large language models. Prior methods either map abstract LLM skills to occupations via task definitions or utilize expert knowledge which is difficult to obtain at scale and expensive. ORQA complements both of these methods by connecting O*NET occupations to trusted occupation-specific websites (such as regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, professional organizations, and government publications) and converting these into source-traceable question-answer pairs. A combination of an automated pipeline and human review produces a set of high quality questions about occupations. The question set created via our method covers 116 occupations from all 21 major groups in the SOC, with 480 questions sourced from 187 different websites. Each question is designed to probe a real-world skill question that is relevant to the occupation in question. We test 15 state-of-the-art frontier and open-weight models via this method. Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 all perform the best at approximately 58-62% while smaller open-weight models achieve approximately 33-41% performance. Performance varies significantly across occupations. Healthcare-related occupations achieve the highest performance (78%) while Office and Administrative Support achieve approximately 40%. Performance on individual occupations (e.g. Sheet Metal Workers and Fish and Game Wardens) is essentially zero. We also find that open-ended questions and weighting by wage bill do not significantly affect the ranking of models on this benchmark. We believe that leveraging existing trusted occupation-specific information to test LLM knowledge in professional domains may be a scalable and useful method for evaluating occupation-level AI performance in the future. Results and data are available at orqabench.org.

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 widely used to evaluate agentic tool-calling systems, yet their reliability on structured, dependency-driven workflows remains largely unexamined. We present AgentJudgeBench, the first benchmark to systematically study LLM-as-a-judge reliability for agentic tool-calling over workflow DAGs, as distinct from the broader LLM-as-a-judge task of open-ended text or preference evaluation. The benchmark comprises 3,808 instances spanning six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, evaluated with five generators (3B-70B open-weight models and GPT-5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under paired with- and without-ground-truth conditions. Judge alignment degrades monotonically with task difficulty, 1.5x faster without ground truth, and on hard queries without ground truth all six judges converge to a narrow 77-82% band regardless of scale, revealing a structural ceiling driven primarily by task difficulty, though its height is partly prompt-dependent for weaker generators, that model capacity alone cannot overcome. Ground-truth exposure is not uniformly beneficial: it reduces alignment for GPT-5.4 (1.5 pp) and Gemini-2.5-Pro (3.9 pp), consistent with over-anchoring. Among mitigation strategies, chain-of-thought reasoning and judge temperature both have negligible effect, while structured evaluation rubrics improve alignment by up to 6.5 pp but do not generalize uniformly across judge-generator pairs. With ground truth, QwQ-32B best matches the programmatic reference, while a human validation study identifies GPT-OSS-120B as the most human-aligned judge; without it, frontier judges lead only marginally within the shared ceiling. These results expose fundamental limitations of current LLM judges and yield practical guidelines for reliable evaluation in agentic systems.