Agreement Without Alignment: Label-Free Rubric Clarification Increases LLM-Judge Consensus but Not Agreement with Humans

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge relies on a critical assumption, namely that high inter-evaluator agreement indicates reliable and objective evaluation. We present two complementary findings that challenge this assumption. First, we demonstrate that this consensus is frequently illusory. We identify and formalize Evaluation Illusion, a phenomenon where LLM judges generate sophisticated critiques yet anchor scores on shared surface heuristics rather than substantive quality. Through a large-scale study of 105,600 evaluation instances (32 LLMs $\times$ 3 frontier judges $\times$ 100 tasks $\times$ 11 temperatures), we show that model-level agreement (Spearman $ρ= 0.99$) masks fragile sample-level agreement (Pearson $\bar{r} = 0.72$; absolute agreement ICC $= 0.67$), that merely sharing rubric structure restores 62% of total agreement, and that high-quality outputs paradoxically receive the least consistent evaluations. Second, we demonstrate that dynamically generating evaluation rubrics grounded in domain knowledge produces more meaningful assessment. We introduce MERG (Metacognitive Enhanced Rubric Generation), a knowledge-driven rubric generation framework whose domain-selective effects confirm this. Agreement increases in codified domains (Education +22%, Academic +27%) where knowledge anchors evaluators on shared standards, while it decreases in subjective domains where genuine evaluative pluralism emerges. These findings suggest that evaluation rubrics should be dynamically enriched with expert knowledge rather than relying on generic criteria, with implications for reward modeling in RLAIF.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automated judges for AI-generated content, yet a single judge is unreliable and even a panel of judges leaves a hard residue: when judges disagree, majority voting discards the conflict instead of resolving it. We present JuryFlow, a disagreement-guided, human-in-the-loop multi-agent evaluation framework that treats inter-judge disagreement not as noise to be averaged away, but as a precise, claim-level signal indicating where an evaluation is uncertain. JuryFlow decomposes each candidate response into atomic claims, has a panel of heterogeneous judges assign per-claim verdicts, and builds a disagreement graph whose nodes are scored by verdict entropy and whose edges encode structural similarity between claims. A human acts as a structural guide, selecting which disagreement to resolve through a single, minimal intervention rather than re-labeling the response, after which the focal claim is re-evaluated, the correction propagates along graph edges and to historically similar cases, and is crystallized into reusable rubric entries that all judges inherit, making the evaluator progressively self-refining. To enable large-scale, reproducible benchmarking without human studies, we evaluate JuryFlow in an automatic configuration in which focal selection is made by entropy ranking. On MT-Bench and LLMBar, JuryFlow improves agreement with gold labels over single-judge and majority-vote panel baselines, and ablations isolate the contributions of disagreement-targeted re-evaluation, propagation, and rubric induction. We contribute (1) a human-in-the-loop paradigm that recasts the human from labeler to structural guide, (2) the JuryFlow framework operationalizing it through a disagreement graph, focal re-evaluation, and closed-loop rubric induction, and (3) an evaluation protocol with ablations that isolate where the gains originate.