Large Language Model Judges

LLM judges increasingly turn verdicts into system commitments. Under mixed evidence (claims with both supporting and refuting sources) this is unsafe: when the schema exposes CONFLICTING as the authorized non-directional verdict, returning SUPPORTS/REFUTES is an unauthorized directional commitment, a failure we name Cherry-pick Override (CCO). We define CCO under an explicit task contract and report it with a same-denominator diagnostic protocol paired with matched-coverage bootstrap and an apples-to-apples random-veto null. On AVeriTeC's Conflicting subset (N_C = 150), three-option judges return a directional verdict on more than 84% of mixed-evidence claims; under the typed schema, three-judge majority voting amplifies direction-on-conflict on AVeriTeC (0.887 vs. 0.840; 95% CI [+0.013, +0.080]) but does not replicate on VitaminC-Mixed. Walking an intervention ladder of common single-channel fixes (typed vocabulary, panel aggregation, confidence thresholding, validator-only filtering), each leaves a distinct residual failure: panel aggregation suppresses single-judge CONFLICTING dissent in 48% of CCO cases; the panel is well-calibrated for direction (ECE = 0.07 on pure-S/R) so confidence cannot operationally separate CCO from correct directional commits; validator-as-classifier nearly halves pure-evidence accuracy. A minimal two-channel reference probe reaches operating points neither single channel reaches; under the random-veto null its promotion to CONFLICTING is structurally targeted on AVeriTeC (empirical p < 1/2001) and weaker but in the same direction on VitaminC-Mixed, a selectivity result rather than a magnitude one. We argue for an external commitment-control layer that separates verdict generation from commitment authorization, using structural evidence and confidence as orthogonal channels and NO-COMMIT as a routed controller state.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.

LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators. These pipelines typically assume that judgments are stable properties of fixed inputs. We show that this assumption does not hold under interaction. We study post-decision manipulability: the extent to which an evaluation outcome can be altered through subsequent conversation with the judge after an initial decision has been made. Across controlled experiments on MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, we find that LLM judges are highly stable under repeated and neutral reevaluation, yet become substantially reversible under targeted post-decision challenge. An anti-baseline challenge protocol shows that stable judgments can be overturned through motivated interaction, while a counterbalanced target-validation protocol separates this reversibility from net target-directed steering. These reversals have practical consequences: they can degrade agreement with human preferences, shift benchmark rankings, and produce harmful evaluation changes despite high self-reported confidence. Authority framing is especially destabilizing, and revised judgments are often accompanied by low-overlap justifications, suggesting post hoc rationalization rather than reliable error correction. We introduce the Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS) to quantify interactional robustness by combining reversal susceptibility with counterbalanced directional effects. Our findings identify post-decision interaction as a distinct failure mode for LLM-as-judge evaluation and motivate evaluation protocols that measure not only static agreement, but robustness under challenge.

Large language model (LLM) agents have shown promise in automating complex data-analysis workflows, but their reliable deployment remains challenging in high-stakes industrial scenarios. Industrial anomaly detection (IAD) is essential for manufacturing quality, safety, and efficiency, yet existing LLM-based IAD agents mainly focus on execution while under-exploiting strategy formulation. Consequently, they struggle to handle heterogeneous modalities in a unified and cost-effective manner. Inspired by the DMAIC quality-management framework, we propose DMAIC-IAD (DMAIC-inspired Agentic Industrial Anomaly Detection), a "Plan First, Judge Later" multi-agent system that aligns LLM agents with structured industrial problem-solving. DMAIC-IAD distills heterogeneous references into standardized operating procedures (SOPs) before strategy generation, and introduces a pre-trained execution-free judge model to rank candidate strategies without costly runtime trials. Extensive experiments across four modalities show that DMAIC-IAD improves average detection performance over applicable agentic baselines by 37.76%.

The growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have led to the saturation of many benchmarks and training datasets used to improve them. Motivated by this, we investigate whether questions solved with perfect empirical accuracy can nevertheless be used to improve downstream performance. To do so, we replace binary correctness with two sources of more fine-grained quality signals: (1) pairwise LLM self-judgments, in which the model evaluates the relative quality of its own solutions, and (2) token-level entropy, where token-level uncertainty is used as a proxy for solution quality. We incorporate these signals into several training algorithms and evaluate them on Qwen3-1.7B-Base. When training exclusively on a simple arithmetic task, quality-based signals improve performance by up to $18.6\%$ over the base model, substantially outperforming SFT. On GSM8K, however, gains are more modest and depend strongly on the quality signal. For instance, self-judgments show poor agreement with a stronger external judge and can even degrade performance below the base model. Overall, our results suggest that quality-based training can extract useful signal from saturated questions for base models, but that applying such signals to more complex tasks requires careful calibration and further study.

We study when LLM judge panels should be calibrated with low-dimensional stackers versus joint output tables under finite human-label budgets. Low-dimensional stackers have small estimation cost but miss interactions, whereas joint-table calibrators can represent interactions but pay for cell counts and unseen patterns. We cast this tradeoff as a finite-calibration regime map and instantiate it as Finite-Calibration Panel Selection, a deployable validation selector over judge path, prefix size, and aggregator family with table and parametric estimation diagnostics. On RewardBench, LLMBar, SummEval, and Arena100K with a seven-judge pool including DeepSeek V4 Flash, scalar/reliability aggregation wins 16 of 20 real dataset--budget cells, indicating that current judge outputs are often additive or redundant. Controlled calibration-growth data show the complementary regime: additive labels remain scalar-favored, whereas a six-way interaction selects a larger joint table and its test MSE drops from 0.224 to 0.061 once unseen mass vanishes. Thus the practical question is not ``how many judges?'' but whether the next judge's information is estimable under the available human labels.

We evaluate the consistency of automated judges in conducting a multi-dimensional safety evaluation in a reference-free setup. Our results indicate that Large Language Models are unreliable judges in identifying safety issues related to machine-generated advice in regulated domains such as finance, although they are more reliable at identifying more overt forms of unsafe/harmful content such as violence. The degree of inconsistency in a model's judgments can vary significantly by the chosen safety criteria and can be impacted by the language of the content and its linguistic style as well. Finally, there is high disagreement among different judges for the same output, across domains, safety criteria, and languages. These findings provide new insights on the practice of using LLMs as evaluators and offer several recommendations for practitioners on how to use automated judges in practical scenarios.

We present BlueFin, a benchmark that tasks large language model (LLM) agents with synthesis, manipulation, and comprehension tasks over spreadsheet workbooks in the professional finance domain. Though estimates of the global population of paying users of spreadsheet software range in the hundreds of millions -- an order of magnitude more than the estimated global population of professional developers -- comparatively fewer resources have been devoted to exploring and expanding LLM capabilities in the spreadsheet domain, with fewer still dedicated to mirroring real occupational tasks encountered by those in professional finance roles. In response, we curate a set of 131 challenging, complex tasks with real-world relevance in the domain, containing 3,225 granular rubric criteria; notably, our rubric criteria and LM judge evaluations are validated by a team of expert human annotators, resulting in high-quality, granular evaluations of complex tasks that are difficult to verify programmatically but can be reliably evaluated by an LM judge agent. Our judge achieves parity with expert consensus ($α=0.826$) with a macro-F1 score of 0.839. Frontier LLMs demonstrate poor performance on the challenging benchmark, with the strongest LLMs achieving less than 50% average scores across tasks -- models exhibit particular weaknesses in dynamic correctness. Our contributions include a dataset of examples across three categories of spreadsheet tasks, an open source harness and agentic evaluation framework, and a characterization of existing frontier models' performance on our benchmark.

Multi-stakeholder tasks require one output to satisfy users with conflicting preferences. Holistic LLM judges conflate utility estimation and utility aggregation, yielding unstable implicit weights. We show empirically and theoretically that this aggregation-specific \emph{weighting noise} can create large score shifts when stakeholder satisfaction is dispersed; in our experiments, these weight-induced shifts also increase with stakeholder count. We propose \textsc{DecompR}: counterfactual-calibrated weights are fixed from query structure before candidate scoring, while per-role utilities are estimated independently, removing candidate-dependent weight drift and reducing estimation noise.

Customizing an LLM judge to a specific problem or domain often involves optimizing its prompt across multiple evaluation criteria simultaneously. Textual gradient methods automate this for a single judge criterion, however they produce natural-language critiques, not numerical vectors. Thus, the conflict-resolution toolkit of multi-task learning (PCGrad, MGDA) does not apply to this multi-objective textual gradient setting. We extend TextGrad to the multi-objective setting and test four decomposition modes of textual gradient optimizers by varying how much cross-objective information the loss, gradient and optimizer LLMs share. We find the gradient's task-focus drops by 59% (9.0 to 3.7 out of 10) when the gradient LLM must provide feedback on multiple criteria jointly. Separately, we observe that naively combining single-objective optimized instructions into a single prompt degrades Spearman rho from 0.305 to 0.220 (-0.085). These results identify two separable failure modes: optimization-time gradient dilution and inference-time instruction interference, which together constrain the design space for multi-objective judge optimization using textual feedback.

Free-form legal essay evaluation in NLP treats expert inter-rater stability as a single ceiling number, and treats LLM-judge agreement with that ceiling as evidence of judge stability. We test both assumptions on the Thai bar examination through an identical-inputs protocol: three Bar Council-trained examiners (A, B, C) and a 26-LLM judge panel score the same 15 cross-graded answers from the same four inputs (question, official Bar Council grading regulation, gold answer, candidate answer). The headline finding is asymmetric. On 10 of 15 cells where the rubric prescribes both axes, all 29 raters converge in a tight band: panel agreement is universal. On the remaining 5 cells where the rubric does not prescribe how to grade a correct final answer that omits a decisive statutory citation, the human panel splits between two coherent readings (B/C majority at the upper rubric band, score 6-8; A minority at the lower band, score 1-2). The LLM judge population does not split symmetrically: 22 of 26 LLMs score in or near B/C's contested band, 3 sit in the regulation-silent middle gap, and only 1 (GPT-5.4 Nano) approaches A's band without consistently scoring within it. Zero LLMs in our 26-judge panel reproduce the minority human reading on the contested cells. The B/C-direction cluster spans every model size, vendor, and price tier we tested. An instrumented three-LLM anchor sub-panel (Claude 4.6 Opus, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4 Pro) carries determinism probes, input ablations, and bootstrap CIs, and reaches anchor panel $α= 0.77$ on the 15 cells against human-panel $α= 0.36$. The high LLM-panel $α$ reflects systematic convergence on the majority reading rather than balanced reproduction of both readings; a benchmark that selects its LLM judge by maximising agreement with a human reference panel will inherit this asymmetry by construction.

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.

The known stylistic biases in LLM judges, such as a preference for verbosity or specific sentence structures, present an underexplored security vulnerability. In this work, we introduce BITE (BIas exploraTion and Exploitation), a black-box adversarial framework that learns semantics-preserving edits to mislead an LLM judge and artificially inflate the scores it assigns. We cast the selection of stylistic edits as a contextual bandit problem and use a LinUCB policy to adaptively choose edits that maximize the judge's score without access to model parameters or gradients. Empirically, we test BITE across a diverse range of LLM judges and tasks, including both pointwise and pairwise comparisons on chatbot leaderboards and AI-reviewer benchmarks. BITE achieves an attack success rate exceeding 65% and raises scores by 1-2 points on a 9-point scale, all while preserving semantic equivalence. We further assess the attack's stealthiness, showing that BITE evades standard style-control methods and several detection baselines. Our findings expose a fundamental weakness in the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm and motivate robust, attack-aware evaluation. Our code is available at https://github.com/xianglinyang/llm-as-a-judge-attack.

Evaluating large language models increasingly relies on LLM-as-a-judge protocols, but such evaluations remain costly: different judges have different prices and reliabilities, and the difficulty of each prompt-response pair can vary substantially. This raises a basic allocation question: under a fixed budget, how should one distribute evaluation queries across heterogeneous judges and instances to obtain the most accurate score estimates? We formalize this question as budgeted heteroskedastic multi-judge estimation. Given $K$ prompt-response pairs, $J$ judges with known costs, and unknown query-judge variances, the goal is to estimate a bounded score vector while minimizing an $\ell_p$-error. Our first contribution is to analyze the inverse-variance weighted estimator (IVWE) and to derive the oracle allocation that minimizes its error rate. Since this allocation depends on the unknown variances, we then address the practical unknown-variance setting by proposing EST-IVWE, an adaptive algorithm that constructs and leverages optimistically biased variance estimates to stabilize the empirical allocation. We prove that EST-IVWE matches the oracle IVWE rate up to lower-order terms in the budget. Our second and central theoretical contribution is a matching local minimax lower bound, which establishes the instance-optimality of the proposed algorithms. A key technical insight is that Fano-type high-probability arguments are too coarse for this problem: their packing construction loses the local variance structure that governs the optimal allocation. We instead use an Assouad-type in-expectation argument, based on local perturbations, which preserves this structure and yields the sharp allocation-dependent lower bound. Finally, we numerically validate the superiority of our approach over naïve uniform allocation on synthetic and HelpSteer2 datasets.

Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation. We ask whether the polarity of prior conversation history biases subsequent judgments, an effect we call the accumulated message effect on LLM judgments (AMEL). Across 84,088 API calls to 12 models from 5 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative evaluations. Models shift toward the conversation's prevailing polarity (d = -0.17, p < 10^-53). The effect concentrates on items where the model is genuinely uncertain at baseline (d = -0.36 for high-entropy items, vs d = -0.15 when the baseline is deterministic). Bias does not grow with context length: 5 prior turns and 50 produce the same shift (Spearman |r| < 0.01; OLS slope p = 0.80). And there is a negativity asymmetry: paired per item, negative histories induce 1.52x more bias than positive (t = 13.03, p < 10^-36, n = 2,733). Scaling helps but does not solve it (Anthropic: Haiku -0.22 to Opus -0.17; OpenAI: Nano -0.34 to GPT-5.2 -0.17). Three follow-ups narrow the mechanism. The token probability distribution shifts continuously, not at a threshold. The negativity asymmetry has both token-level and semantic components, though attributing the balance is exploratory at our sample sizes. Position does not matter: five biased turns anywhere in a 50-turn history produce the same shift. The simplest fix for evaluation pipelines is a fresh context per item; when batching is unavoidable, balancing the history helps.

Text-to-image models now generate graphic design at production scale, yet their supervision still comes primarily from photo-style preference datasets with a single overall verdict per comparison. Designers evaluate designs along several distinct axes (e.g., typography, layout, color harmony) that a single preference label collapses. We release \emph{TASTE} \textit{(Typography, Aesthetics, Spatial, Tone, Etc.)}, a multi-dimensional preference dataset in which two disjoint cohorts of five professional designers each ranked outputs from four current text-to-image models across nine criteria along with per-image hallucination flags. We pair the dataset with two contributions. First, a criterion-agnostic signal-validation framework based on Kendall's $τ$, majority-vote probability, and Condorcet cycles against exact iid-uniform nulls; the analysis reveals significant but moderate designer agreement, with every TASTE criterion rejecting the random-rater null. Second, we benchmark preference models on TASTE and find that off-the-shelf VLM judges and dedicated T2I scorers fail to reach majority agreement with the designer panel, while a small MLP head trained directly on TASTE substantially narrows the gap to the single-rater ceiling, setting a baseline for future TASTE-trained preference models.

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges to evaluate the strength of arguments. As this role expands, their legitimacy depends on consistency, transparency, and the ability to separate argumentative structure from rhetorical appeal. However, we show that holistic judging - a common LLM-as-a-Judge practice where a model provides a global verdict on a debate - suffers from substantial inter-model disagreement. We argue that this instability arises from collapsing a debate's complex interaction structure into a single opaque score. To address this, we propose GRASP (Gradual Ranking with Attacks and Support Propagation), a deterministic framework that aggregates stable local interaction judgments into a global ranking via a convergent attack--defense propagation operator. We show that local interaction judgments are more reproducible than holistic rankings in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, allowing GRASP to produce more consistent global rankings. We further show that GRASP scores do not correlate with human "convincingness" labels, highlighting a vital sociotechnical distinction: GRASP does not measure persuasion, factuality, or rhetorical appeal, but structural sufficiency - a defense-aware notion of argument robustness over the explicit interaction graph. Overall, GRASP offers a transparent and auditable alternative to holistic LLM judging.

Recent video generative models have greatly improved the realism of AI-generated videos, yet their outputs still exhibit artifacts such as temporal inconsistencies, structural distortions, and semantic incoherence. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show strong visual understanding capabilities, their ability to perceive and reason about such artifacts remains unclear. Existing benchmarks often lack systematic evaluation of artifact-aware perception and fine-grained diagnostic reasoning, especially across diverse AI-generated video domains beyond photorealistic content. To address this gap, we introduce Artifact-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating MLLMs on AI-generated video artifact detection and analysis. We first establish a three-level hierarchical taxonomy of realism artifacts, covering photorealistic, animated, and CG-style videos. Based on this taxonomy, Artifact-Bench defines three complementary tasks: real vs. AI-generated video classification, pairwise realism comparison, and fine-grained artifact identification. Experiments on 19 leading MLLMs reveal substantial limitations in artifact perception and reasoning, with many models approaching random or even below-random performance in challenging settings. We further observe significant misalignment between MLLM judgments and human perceptual preferences, highlighting their limited reliability as general evaluators for AI-generated video realism.

Issues faced when using software are reported in the form of bug reports. However, many bug reports are invalid, meaning they do not require code changes, and are resolved with a no-code fix. Manually determining the root cause of the invalid bug reports and providing actionable resolutions by the customer support causes a serious waste of resources. Our goal is to introduce a standardized taxonomy for root-cause oriented invalid bug report subclassification, and perform experiments to test the accuracy of various approaches on invalid subclassification and no-code fix generation. We study how different configurations perform on a gold-standard benchmark we have created. Using a manually curated benchmark for higher quality analysis, we experimented with vanilla LLMs, Retrieval Augmented Generation, and agentic web search to identify invalid subclasses and generate no-code fixes. We evaluated the results against manually labeled ground truth data that includes the invalid subclass and no-code fixes from the original bug reports. We measured subclass detection performance with weighted F1-Score, and assessed no-code fix suggestions using BERTScore and Judge LLM success rates. For subclassification, retrieval augmented generation achieves the highest overall performance with 0.66 weighted F1, slightly outperforming vanilla LLMs at 0.65 and agentic web search at 0.64. At the subclass level, performance peaks at 0.85 F1 for Non-reproducibility and 0.79 for Feature Request and Question, while Wrong Version remains the most challenging with scores between 0.00 and 0.29. For no-code fix generation, agentic web search achieves the highest overall Judge LLM success rate at 68.9%, compared to 64.4% for RAG applications and 64.9% for vanilla LLMs, with subclass-level peaks of 87.4% for Working as Designed and 72.2% for Question.

Voice agents increasingly require reliable tool use from speech, whereas prominent tool-calling benchmarks remain text-based. We study whether verified text benchmarks can be converted into controlled audio-based tool calling evaluations without re-annotating the tool schema and gold labels. Our dataset-agnostic framework uses text-to-speech, speaker variation, and environmental noise to create paired text-audio instances while preserving the original dataset annotations. Based on extensive evaluation of 7 omni-modal models on audio-converted versions of Confetti and When2Call, our framework demonstrates that the performance is strongly model- and task-dependent: Gemini-3.1-Flash-Live obtains the highest Confetti score (70.4), whereas GPT-Realtime-1.5 performs best on When2Call (71.9). On Confetti, the text-to-voice gap ranges from 1.8 points for Qwen3-Omni to 4.8 points for GPT-Realtime-1.5. A targeted analysis of failure cases demonstrates that degradations most often reflect misunderstandings of argument values in the speech. Considering real-world deployment scenarios, we further report text-only results, an ambiguity-based reformulation stress test, and a reference-free LLM-as-judge protocol validated against human preferences. Notably, we find that open-source Qwen3 judges with at least 8B parameters exceed 80% agreement with proprietary judges, supporting privacy-preserving evaluation. Overall, our framework provides a verifiable and reproducible first-stage diagnostic that complements purpose-built audio corpora.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for summarization and dialogue evaluation. Prior work has documented biases such as position, verbosity, and style preferences, but largely focuses on outcomes, leaving judge explanations underexplored. We instead ask whether LLM judges are cue-invariant, i.e., whether their rankings and explanations remain stable when non-evidential cues are perturbed while holding the underlying texts fixed. We introduce a suite of cue interventions (Blind, Truth, Flip, Placebo, Reveal-After) and tie-aware metrics that quantify outcome anchoring and rationale anchoring, including label-aligned rhetoric and explanation drift, alongside consistency and stereotype-intrusion checks. We design anchoring attacks using verbosity and confidence cues, and compare two mitigations: structured chain-of-thought prompting and PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE (evidence lock, score, rank). Using a new dataset of 1,000 summaries from traditional extractive models and LLMs, we find substantial cue-anchored rationalization under label and placebo perturbations, while PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE markedly improves cue invariance over baselines.

LLM-as-Judge systems are widely deployed for automated evaluation, yet practitioners lack reliable methods to know when a judge's verdict should be trusted. Token log-probabilities, the standard post-hoc confidence signal, are unavailable for many commercial LLMs and, even when accessible, saturate above 0.999 with structured JSON output. We introduce VERDI (VERification-Decomposed Inference), a method that extracts confidence from the reasoning trace a structured judge already produces, with no additional inference calls. VERDI decomposes each verification-style evaluation into sub-checks and derives three structural signals: Step-Verdict Alignment, Claim-Level Margin, and Evidence Grounding Score. We combine them with Platt-scaled logistic regression. On three public benchmarks, VERDI achieves AUROC 0.72-0.91 on GPT-4.1-mini and 0.66-0.80 on GPT-5.4-mini. On Qwen3.5-4B/9B/27B, where answer-token logprobs are anti-calibrated (higher confidence on errors, AUROC 0.32-0.49), VERDI achieves 0.56-0.70. We additionally validate on a production system with eight rubrics (AUROC 0.73-0.88 on factual rubrics), demonstrate cross-model transfer (AUROC 0.66-0.69), and show that a 33M-parameter NLI (Natural Language Inference) model provides a scalable alternative to regex extraction.

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.

Large language model (LLM) agents now execute long, tool-using tasks where final outcome checks can arrive too late for intervention. Online warning requires lightweight prefix monitors over heterogeneous traces, but hand-authored event schemas are brittle and deployment-time LLM judging is costly. We introduce PrefixGuard, a trace-to-monitor framework with an offline StepView induction step followed by supervised monitor training. StepView induces deterministic typed-step adapters from raw trace samples, and the monitor learns an event abstraction and prefix-risk scorer from terminal outcomes. Across WebArena, $τ^2$-Bench, SkillsBench, and TerminalBench, the strongest PrefixGuard monitors reach 0.900/0.710/0.533/0.557 AUPRC. Using the strongest backend within each representation, they improve over raw-text controls by an average of +0.137 AUPRC. LLM judges remain substantially weaker under the same prefix-warning protocol. We also derive an observability ceiling on score-based area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) that separates monitor error from failures lacking evidence in the observed prefix. For finite-state audit, post-hoc deterministic finite automaton (DFA) extraction remains compact on WebArena and $τ^2$-Bench (29 and 20 states) but expands to 151 and 187 states on SkillsBench and TerminalBench. Finally, first-alert diagnostics show that strong ranking does not imply deployment utility: WebArena ranks well yet fails to support low-false-alarm alerts, whereas $τ^2$-Bench and TerminalBench retain more actionable early alerts. Together, these results position PrefixGuard as a practical monitor-synthesis recipe with explicit diagnostics for when prefix warnings translate into actionable interventions.

Agentic artificial intelligence systems produce outputs through sequences of interdependent autonomous decisions, yet standard evaluation assesses outputs alone and cannot diagnose the underlying process. We develop a behavioral evaluation methodology that complements output-level testing by scoring the intermediate decision process itself. Behavioral traces logged at each autonomous decision point are grouped into five-day episodes and scored along six domain-specific dimensions (regime detection, routing, adaptation, risk calibration, strategy coherence, error recovery) by an ensemble of three large language model (LLM) judges. A perturbation procedure that corrupts one dimension while leaving the other five intact confirms dimension specificity; cross-model agreement reaches Krippendorff's alpha = 0.85. The composite behavioral score correlates at Spearman rho = 0.72 with realized 20-day Sharpe ratio. Closing the loop, the framework converts deficient per-dimension scores into a credit-assigned penalty added to the Soft Actor-Critic reward. Three fine-tuning cycles, confined to validation data, reduce one-day MAPE from 0.61% to 0.54% (11.5% relative; p<0.001, d=0.31) on the held-out 2017 to 2025 test period, significant under Diebold-Mariano and localized by Giacomini-White to the high-volatility regime. The methodology is application-agnostic and applies to any agentic system whose intermediate decisions can be logged.

We present our winning system for TaskB (generation with reference passages) in SemEval-2026 Task8: MTRAGEval. Our method is a heterogeneous ensemble of seven LLMs with two prompting variants, where a GPT-4o-mini judge selects the best candidate per instance. We ranked 1st out of 26 teams, achieving a conditioned harmonic mean of 0.7827 and outperforming the strongest baseline (gpt-oss-120b, 0.6390). Ablations show that diversity in model families, scales, and prompting strategies is essential, with the ensemble consistently beating any single model. We also introduce Meno-Lite-0.1, a 7B domain-adapted model with a strong cost--performance trade-off, and analyse MTRAGEval, highlighting annotation limitations and directions for improvement. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/RaguTeam/ragu_mtrag_semeval

Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.

Evaluating automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems is a classical but difficult and still open problem, which often boils down to focusing only on the word error rate (WER). However, this metric suffers from many limitations and does not allow an in-depth analysis of automatic transcription errors. In this paper, we propose to study and understand the impact of rescoring using language models in ASR systems by means of several metrics often used in other natural language processing (NLP) tasks in addition to the WER. In particular, we introduce two measures related to morpho-syntactic and semantic aspects of transcribed words: 1) the POSER (Part-of-speech Error Rate), which should highlight the grammatical aspects, and 2) the EmbER (Embedding Error Rate), a measurement that modifies the WER by providing a weighting according to the semantic distance of the wrongly transcribed words. These metrics illustrate the linguistic contributions of the language models that are applied during a posterior rescoring step on transcription hypotheses.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges for multimodal systems, yet their scores provide no indication of reliability. We study this problem through conformal prediction, a distribution-free framework that converts a judge's point score into a calibrated prediction interval using only score-token log-probabilities, with no retraining. We present the first systematic analysis of conformal prediction for VLM-as-a-Judge across 3 judges and 14 visual task categories. Our results show that evaluation uncertainty is strongly task-dependent: intervals cover ~40% of the score range for aesthetics and natural images but expand to ~70% for chart and mathematical reasoning, yielding a quantitative reliability map for multimodal evaluation. We further identify a failure mode not captured by standard evaluation metrics, ranking-scoring decoupling, where judges achieve high ranking correlation while producing wide, uninformative intervals, correctly ordering responses but failing to assign reliable absolute scores. Finally, we show that interval width is driven primarily by task difficulty and annotation quality, i.e., the same judge and method yield 4.5x narrower intervals on a clean, multi-annotator captioning benchmark. Code: https://github.com/divake/VLM-Judge-Uncertainty

LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on. However, the scalability and trustworthiness of this approach can be substantially distorted by Self-Preference Bias (SPB), which is a directional evaluative deviation in which LLMs systematically favor or disfavor their own generated outputs during evaluation. Existing measurements rely on costly human annotations and conflate generative capability with evaluative stance, and thus are impractical for large-scale deployment in real-world systems. To address this issue, we introduce a fully automated framework to quantifying and mitigating SPB, which constructs equal-quality pairs of responses with negligible quality differences, enabling statistical disentanglement of discriminability from bias propensity without human gold standards. Empirical analysis across 20 mainstream LLMs reveals that advanced capabilities are often uncorrelated, or even negatively correlated, with low SPB. To mitigate this bias, we propose a structured multi-dimensional evaluation strategy grounded in cognitive load decomposition, which reduces SPB by 31.5% on average.

LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized. We study repeated identical evaluations on 29 tasks spanning 10 categories using two OpenAI judge models (GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4.1-mini), with 50 pairwise trials and 50 pointwise trials per question, supplemented by temperature and prompt-sensitivity ablations. Across judges, pairwise preferences flip on average 13.6% of the time, with 28% of questions exceeding a 20% flip rate and one question reaching 56%. GPT-4o-mini also exhibits a significant first-position bias (72% A-majority, p = 0.024). At the same time, mean pointwise score gaps are small (0.19--0.36 on a 10-point scale) and not statistically significant in aggregate, producing a pairwise--pointwise gap: judges frequently choose a winner even when their own scalar scores provide little evidence of a meaningful quality difference. Beyond within-judge instability, cross-judge agreement is only 76% ($κ= 0.51$), semantically equivalent prompt templates change majority outcomes in 25% of tested cases, and deterministic decoding reduces but does not eliminate inconsistency. A reliability curve analysis shows that, in our dataset, 11 repeated trials are needed for a majority vote to recover the 50-trial reference verdict with 95% probability on average, rising to 15 for high-variance questions. These findings suggest that single-trial LLM judging is often too noisy for high-stakes evaluation, and that multi-trial aggregation, position randomization, and explicit uncertainty reporting should be standard practice. Because both judges are from a single provider, cross-provider replication remains an important next step.

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

The reliability of VLM-as-a-Judge is critical for the automatic evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs). Despite recent progress, our analysis reveals that VLM-as-a-Judge often pays limited attention to the image when making decisions. Instead, they often blindly favor the more informative answer, even when they can recognize it conflicts with the image content. We call this problem informativeness bias, which significantly undermines judge reliability. To address it, we propose BIRCH (Balanced Informativeness and CoRrectness with a Truthful AnCHor), a judging paradigm that first corrects inconsistencies with the image content in candidate answers, and then compares the answers against this corrected version. This shifts the judge's focus from informativeness to image-grounded correctness. Experiments on multiple models and benchmarks show that BIRCH reduces informativeness bias by up to 17%, resulting in performance gains of up to 9.8%. Our work reveals an overlooked but fundamental flaw in current VLM-as-a-Judge systems and highlights the need for more principled designs.

Decentralized LLM inference networks need lightweight, reference-free quality evaluation for Proof of Quality (PoQ). We present PoQ-Judge, a framework that trains dedicated judge models to score query-output pairs without ground-truth references. We study three architectures across the quality-cost tradeoff: a TextCNN judge, a MiniLM cross-encoder, and a DeBERTa judge. Using two-stage training on UltraFeedback plus GPT-labeled in-domain data, the best model reaches 0.747 Pearson correlation with the ground-truth proxy on a held-out test set, outperforming reference-based evaluators from prior work. As a reference-free component in composite scoring, it achieves 0.645 Pearson correlation, matching the best single reference-based evaluator while removing the need for reference answers. We also show that online calibration identifies semantic quality as the dominant dimension and that cascade evaluation reduces cost by 72.7 percent with only modest quality loss. Results are much stronger on QA than summarization, pointing to proxy quality as the main remaining limitation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied as repositories of linguistic knowledge. In this line of work, models are commonly evaluated both as generators of language and as judges of linguistic output, yet these two roles are rarely examined in direct relation to one another. As a result, it remains unclear whether success in one role aligns with success in the other. In this paper, we address this question for pragmatic competence by comparing LLMs' performance as pragmatic listeners, judging the appropriateness of linguistic outputs, and as pragmatic speakers, generating pragmatically appropriate language. We evaluate multiple open-weight and proprietary LLMs across three pragmatic settings. We find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation: many models perform substantially better as listeners than as speakers. Our results suggest that pragmatic judging and pragmatic generation are only weakly aligned in current LLMs, calling for more integrated evaluation practices.

LLM-as-judge frameworks are increasingly used for automatic NLG evaluation, yet their per-instance reliability remains poorly understood. We present a two-pronged diagnostic toolkit applied to SummEval: $\textbf{(1)}$ a transitivity analysis that reveals widespread per-input inconsistency masked by low aggregate violation rates ($\barρ = 0.8$-$4.1\%$), with $33$-$67\%$ of documents exhibiting at least one directed 3-cycle; and $\textbf{(2)}$ split conformal prediction sets over 1-5 Likert scores providing theoretically-guaranteed $\geq(1{-}α)$ coverage, with set width serving as a per-instance reliability indicator ($r_s = {+}0.576$, $N{=}1{,}918$, $p < 10^{-100}$, pooled across all judges). Critically, prediction set width shows consistent cross-judge agreement ($\bar{r} = 0.32$-$0.38$), demonstrating it captures document-level difficulty rather than judge-specific noise. Across four judges and four criteria, both diagnostics converge: criterion matters more than judge, with relevance judged most reliably (avg. set size $\approx 3.0$) and coherence moderately so (avg. set size $\approx 3.9$), while fluency and consistency remain unreliable (avg. set size $\approx 4.9$). We release all code, prompts, and cached results.

Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM Jury, composed of three frontier AI models, for scoring 3334 diagnoses on 300 real-world low- and middle-income country (LMIC) hospital cases. Both LLM- and clinician-generated diagnoses are scored against expert panel diagnoses across four dimensions: diagnosis, differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and negative treatment risk. The LLM Jury scores are compared with expert and independent re-scoring panel scores to assess error metrics, inter-rater agreement, severe-risk errors, and the effect of post hoc calibration using isotonic regression. In our data, we find that: (i) the uncalibrated LLM Jury scores preserve ordinal agreement with the expert clinician panel scores, but are systematically lower; (ii) the probability of severe-risk errors is lower for the LLM Jury than the human expert re-score panels; (iii) the LLM Jury combined with LLM diagnoses can be used to identify diagnoses at high risk of error, enabling targeted expert review and improved panel efficiency; (iv) the calibrated LLM Jury scores and rankings of diagnosing agents show excellent agreement with those of the primary expert panels; (v) LLM Jury models show no self-preference bias, they did not score diagnoses generated by their own underlying model or models from the same vendor more (or less) favourably than those generated by other models. Together, these results provide evidence that a calibrated LLM Jury is a trustworthy and reliable proxy for expert clinician evaluation in medical AI benchmarking. Confirming these findings in other clinical settings is an important direction for future work.

We present PopResume, a population-representative resume dataset for causal fairness auditing of LLM- and VLM-based resume screening systems. Unlike existing benchmarks that rely on manually injected demographic information and outcome-level disparities, PopResume is grounded in population statistics and preserves natural attribute relationships, enabling path-specific effect (PSE)-based fairness evaluation. We decompose the effect of a protected attribute on resume scores into two paths: the business necessity path, mediated by job-relevant qualifications, and the redlining path, mediated by demographic proxies. This distinction allows auditors to separate legally permissible from impermissible sources of disparity. Evaluating four LLMs and four VLMs on PopResume's 60.8K resumes across five occupations, we identify five representative discrimination patterns that aggregate metrics fail to capture. Our results demonstrate that PSE-based evaluation reveals fairness issues masked by outcome-level measures, underscoring the need for causally-grounded auditing frameworks in AI-assisted hiring.

Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as judges to achieve precise and consistent evaluations has gradually become an emerging paradigm across various domains. Evaluating the capability and reliability of MLLM-as-a-judge systems is therefore essential for ensuring trustworthy assessment. Existing judge benchmarks categorize samples by task types but fail to capture the fundamental judgment capabilities required for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce M-JudgeBench, a ten-dimensional capability-oriented benchmark designed to comprehensively assess the judgment abilities of MLLMs. Our benchmark decomposes evaluation into pairwise Chain-of-Thought (CoT) comparison, length bias avoidance, and process error detection tasks, jointly covering ten fine-grained subtasks. This design enables diagnosis of model reliability across reasoning styles, response lengths, and cross-model variations. Systematic evaluation uncovers the systematic weaknesses in existing MLLM-as-a-judge systems. To address this issue, we further propose Judge-MCTS, a data construction framework generating pairwise reasoning trajectories with various correctness and length. Using Judge-MCTS, we construct an MCTS-augmented dataset and train M-Judger, a series of strong judge models. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of M-Judger on existing judge benchmarks as well as M-JudgeBench. Overall, our work establishes a more principled foundation for evaluating MLLM-as-a-judge through M-JudgeBench and Judge-MCTS framework, paving the way for future research on judge model evaluation and capability-driven judge training.

Digital video is central to communication, education, and entertainment, but without audio description (AD), blind and low-vision users are excluded. While crowdsourced platforms and vision-language models (VLMs) expand AD production, quality is rarely checked systematically. Existing evaluations rely on NLP metrics and short-clip guidelines, leaving open the question of how to assess long-form AD quality at scale. To address this, we developed a methodological workflow using Item Response Theory to evaluate VLM and human rater proficiency against expert-established ground truth. Evaluations were based on a six-dimensional framework, grounded in professional guidelines and shaped by insights from our accessibility experts and blind consultants. Findings suggest that top-performing VLMs can approximate ground-truth ratings at levels comparable to human raters. However, qualitative analysis reveals that VLM reasoning is less reliable and actionable than that of human respondents. These insights underscore the potential of hybrid evaluation systems that leverage VLMs alongside human oversight, offering a path toward scalable AD quality control.

Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted for tasks like drafting emails, summarizing meetings, and answering health questions. In these settings, users may need to share private information (e.g., contact details, health records). To evaluate LLMs' ability to identify and redact such information, prior work introduced real-life, scenario-based benchmarks (e.g., ConfAIde, PrivacyLens) and found that LLMs can leak private information in complex scenarios. However, these evaluations relied on proxy LLMs to judge the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses, rather than directly measuring users' perceptions. To understand how users perceive the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses to privacy-sensitive scenarios, we conducted a user study ($n=94$) using 90 PrivacyLens scenarios. We found that users had low agreement with each other when evaluating identical LLM responses. In contrast, five proxy LLMs reached high agreement, yet each proxy LLM had low correlation with users' evaluations. These results indicate that proxy LLMs cannot accurately estimate users' wide range of perceptions of utility and privacy in privacy-sensitive scenarios. We discuss the need for more user-centered studies to measure LLMs' ability to help users while preserving privacy, and for improving alignment between LLMs and users in estimating perceived privacy and utility.

An LLM judge evaluates outputs at scale. Experts should label only where it is least sure. Its natural escalation signal conflates two uncertainties: aleatoric, real disagreement in the expert pool, which labels cannot reduce, and epistemic, the judge's ignorance, which labels do reduce. A small Bayesian model separates them: a regression on labels already collected learns how far to trust a black-box judge's prediction. Both components follow as simple formulas, with no sampling or further judge calls. The components isolate on a real LLM judge against exactly known truth, and stated confidence is no guide to its actual error. On real human disagreement (ChaosNLI) the epistemic ranking removes 83% more error than total uncertainty for the same expert labels, though simply escalating the least-labelled items does as well there. We demonstrate we can estimate where a judge is ignorant rather than where experts genuinely disagree, and propose using this to direct expert labelling. Code and data are available at https://github.com/composo-ai/judge-uncertainty-decomposition.