LLM-as-a-Judge

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

60 papers in the last four weeks, up 76% on the four weeks before. 0.6% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 362

Apr 6, 2026cs.CL

Multilingual Prompt Localization for Agent-as-a-Judge: Language and Backbone Sensitivity in Requirement-Level Evaluation

Evaluation language is typically treated as a fixed English default in agentic code benchmarks, yet we show that changing the judge's language can invert backbone rankings. We localize the Agent-as-a-Judge prompt stack to five typologically diverse languages (English, Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, Hindi) and evaluate 55 DevAI development tasks across three developer-agent frameworks and six judge backbones, totaling 4950 judge runs. The central finding is that backbone and language interact: GPT-4o achieves the highest satisfaction in English (44.72%), while Gemini leads in Arabic (51.72%,

p<0.001

vs.\ GPT-4o) and Hindi (53.22%). No single backbone dominates across all languages, and inter-backbone agreement on individual requirement judgments is modest (Fleiss'

κ\leq 0.231

). A controlled ablation further shows that localizing judge-side instructions, not just benchmark content, can be decisive: Hindi satisfaction drops from 42.8% to 23.2% under partial localization. These results indicate that language should be treated as an explicit evaluation variable in agentic benchmarks. Full requirement-level judgments and runtime statistics are released for reproducibility.

Alhasan Mahmood, Samir Abdaljalil, Hasan Kurban

Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar · Texas A&M University, College Station, TX USA

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge AI Agent Benchmarks

Mar 17, 2026cs.CL

Mediocrity is the key for LLM as a Judge Anchor Selection

The ``LLM-as-a-judge'' paradigm has become a standard method for evaluating open-ended generation. To address the quadratic scalability costs of pairwise comparisons, popular benchmarks like Arena-Hard and AlpacaEval compare all models against a single anchor. However, despite its widespread use, the impact of anchor selection on the reliability of the results remains largely unexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate the effect of anchor selection by evaluating 22 different anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset. We find that the choice of anchor is critical: a poor anchor can dramatically reduce correlation with human rankings. We identify that common anchor choices (best-performing and worst-performing models) make poor anchors. Because these extreme anchors are consistently better or worse than all other models, they are seldom indicative of the relative ranking of the models. We further quantify the effect size of anchor selection, showing it is comparable to the selection of a judge model. We conclude with actionable recommendations. First, we conduct a power analysis, and compute sufficient benchmark sizes for anchor-based evaluation, finding that standard benchmark sizes are insufficient for pairwise evaluation and fail to distinguish between competitive models reliably. Second, we provide guidelines for selecting informative anchors to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation practices.

Shachar Don-Yehiya, Asaf Yehudai, Leshem Choshen +1

1The Hebrew University of Jerusalem · 2IBM Research · 3MIT +1

LLM-as-a-Judge Pairwise Preference Evaluation Human Preference Evaluation

Mar 16, 2026physics.ed-ph

LLM-as-a-judge validity in physics assessment depends more on the task than the model

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for automated assessment and feedback, understanding when LLM marking is valid is essential. We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across three physics assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific plots - comparing GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini Pro 3, and committee aggregations against human markers under blind, solution-provided, false-solution, and anchored conditions. We distinguish absolute accuracy from rank-order agreement, since a marking system can match the distribution of human marks while failing to order responses by quality. Across task types, performance is sharply task-dependent. For blind university exam questions (

n=771

) and secondary and university structured questions (

n=1151

), models show robust rank-order agreement with human markers (Spearman

ρ> 0.6

), with official solutions reducing error and strengthening agreement. False solutions degrade absolute accuracy, showing that models defer to provided references, but leave rank-ordering intact. Essay marking behaves fundamentally differently. Across

n=55

scripts (

n=275

essays), blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking and adding a mark scheme does not improve rank-order agreement. Anchored exemplars shift the AI mean close to the human mean and compress variance below the human standard deviation, but rank-order agreement remains near-zero. For code-based plot elements (

n=1400

), models achieve high rank-order agreement (

ρ> 0.84

) with near-linear calibration. Across all task types, validity tracks the structure of the assessment task - the extent to which marks can be mapped to explicit, observable grading features - and the reliability of the human benchmark, rather than raw model capability.

Will Yeadon, Tom Hardy, Paul Mackay +1

Department of Physics, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

LLM-as-a-Judge Educational Assessment Automated Essay Scoring Automated Grading

Mar 11, 2026stat.ML

MultiwayPAM: Multiway Partitioning Around Medoids for LLM-as-a-Judge Score Analysis

LLM-as-a-Judge is a flexible framework for text evaluation, which allows us to obtain scores for the quality of a given text from various perspectives by changing the prompt template. Two main challenges in using LLM-as-a-Judge are computational cost of inference using a large language model (LLM), especially when evaluating a large number of instances, and inherent bias of an LLM evaluator. To address these issues and reveal the structure of score bias caused by an LLM evaluator, we propose to apply a tensor clustering method to a given LLM-as-a-Judge score tensor, whose entries are the scores for different combinations of questions, answerers, and evaluators. Specifically, we develop a new tensor clustering method MultiwayPAM, with which we can simultaneously estimate the cluster membership and the medoids for each mode of a given data tensor. By observing the medoids obtained by MultiwayPAM, we can gain knowledge about the membership of each question/answerer/evaluator cluster. We experimentally show the effectiveness of MultiwayPAM by applying it to the score tensors for two practical datasets.

Chihiro Watanabe, Jingyu Sun

NTT Computer and Data Science Laboratories, 3-9-11, Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, Japan

LLM-as-a-Judge Clustering Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Mar 9, 2026cs.CL

Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization

Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM-based judges. However, existing studies typically investigate limited biases under a single judge formulation, either generative or discriminative, lacking a comprehensive evaluation. To bridge this gap, we propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges. JudgeBiasBench defines a taxonomy of judgment biases across 4 dimensions, and constructs bias-augmented evaluation instances through a controlled bias injection pipeline, covering 12 representative bias types. We conduct extensive experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns that often compromise the reliability of automated evaluation. To mitigate judgment bias, we propose bias-aware training that explicitly incorporates bias-related attributes into the training process, encouraging judges to disentangle task-relevant quality from bias-correlated cues. By adopting reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges, our methods effectively reduce judgment biases while largely preserving general evaluation capability.

Hongli Zhou, Hui Huang, Rui Zhang +5

Faculty of Computing, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China

LLM-as-a-Judge Social Bias in Language Models Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Automated Evaluation

Feb 28, 2026cs.AI

Advancing Multimodal Judge Models through a Capability-Oriented Benchmark and MCTS-Driven Data Generation

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.

Zeyu Chen, Huanjin Yao, Ziwang Zhao +1

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Synthetic Data Generation Multimodal Large Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Feb 24, 2026cs.LG

QEDBENCH: Quantifying the Alignment Gap in Automated Evaluation of University-Level Mathematical Proofs

As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic Alignment Gap when applied to upper-undergraduate to early graduate level mathematics. To quantify this, we introduce QEDBench, the first large-scale dual-rubric alignment benchmark to systematically measure alignment with human experts on university-level math proofs by contrasting course-specific rubrics against expert common knowledge criteria. By deploying a dual-evaluation matrix (7 judges x 5 solvers) against 1,000+ hours of human evaluation, we reveal that certain frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias (up to +0.18, +0.20, +0.30, +0.36 mean score inflation, respectively). Furthermore, we uncover a critical reasoning gap in the discrete domain: while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves state-of-the-art performance (0.91 average human evaluation score), other reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 see their performance significantly degrade in discrete domains. Specifically, their average human evaluation scores drop to 0.72 and 0.63 in Discrete Math, and to 0.74 and 0.50 in Graph Theory. In addition to these research results, we also release QEDBench as a public benchmark for evaluating and improving AI judges. Our benchmark is publicly published at https://github.com/qqliu/Yale-QEDBench.

Santiago Gonzalez, Alireza Amiri Bavandpour, Peter Ye +48

Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Bias Evaluation Automated Grading

Feb 14, 2026cs.CR

Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Ruomeng Ding, Yifei Pang, He Sun +3

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · 2Carnegie Mellon University · 3Yale University +1

LLM Alignment LLM-as-a-Judge Adversarial Attacks on LLMs Rubric-Based Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Feb 13, 2026cs.CL

CLASE: A Hybrid Method for Chinese Legalese Stylistic Evaluation

Legal text generated by large language models (LLMs) can usually achieve reasonable factual accuracy, but it frequently fails to adhere to the specialised stylistic norms and linguistic conventions of legal writing. In order to improve stylistic quality, a crucial first step is to establish a reliable evaluation method. However, having legal experts manually develop such a metric is impractical, as the implicit stylistic requirements in legal writing practice are difficult to formalise into explicit rubrics. Meanwhile, existing automatic evaluation methods also fall short: reference-based metrics conflate semantic accuracy with stylistic fidelity, and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations suffer from opacity and inconsistency. To address these challenges, we introduce CLASE (Chinese LegAlese Stylistic Evaluation), a hybrid evaluation method that focuses on the stylistic performance of legal text. The method incorporates a hybrid scoring mechanism that combines 1) linguistic feature-based scores and 2) experience-guided LLM-as-a-judge scores. Both the feature coefficients and the LLM scoring experiences are learned from contrastive pairs of authentic legal documents and their LLM-restored counterparts. This hybrid design captures both surface-level features and implicit stylistic norms in a transparent, reference-free manner. Experiments on 200 Chinese legal documents show that CLASE achieves substantially higher alignment with human judgments than traditional metrics and pure LLM-as-a-judge methods. Beyond improved alignment, CLASE provides interpretable score breakdowns and suggestions for improvements, offering a scalable and practical solution for professional stylistic evaluation in legal text generation (Code and data for CLASE is available at: https://github.com/rexera/CLASE).

Yiran Rex Ma, Yuxiao Ye, Huiyuan Xie

School of Foreign Languages, Peking University · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University

Automated Evaluation Legal NLP Stylometry Text Generation LLM-as-a-Judge

Feb 9, 2026cs.LG

CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation

LLM-as-a-judge ensembles are the standard paradigm for scalable evaluation, but their aggregation mechanisms suffer from a fundamental flaw: they implicitly assume that judges provide independent estimates of true quality. However, in practice, LLM judges exhibit correlated errors caused by shared latent confounders -- such as verbosity, stylistic preferences, or training artifacts -- causing standard aggregation rules like majority vote or averaging to provide little gain or even amplify systematic mistakes. To address this, we introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework that explicitly models LLM judge scores as arising from both a latent true-quality signal and shared confounding factors. Rather than heuristically re-weighting judges, CARE separates quality from confounders without access to ground-truth labels. We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders, and we quantify the systematic bias incurred when aggregation models omit confounding latent factors. Across 12 public benchmarks spanning continuous scoring, binary classification, and pairwise preference settings, CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8%. Code is released in https://github.com/SprocketLab/CARE.

Jitian Zhao, Changho Shin, Tzu-Heng Huang +2

Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA · Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA.

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Language Model Ensembles

Feb 6, 2026cs.CL

FairJudge: An Adaptive, Debiased, and Consistent LLM-as-a-Judge

Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model provenance, and evaluation inconsistency that leads to contradictory judgments across different evaluation modes (e.g., pointwise versus pairwise). To address these issues, we propose FairJudge, an adaptive, debiased, and consistent LLM-as-a-Judge. Unlike prior approaches that treat the judge as a static evaluator, FairJudge models judging behavior itself as a learnable and regularized policy. From a data-centric perspective, we construct a high-information-density judging dataset that explicitly injects supervision signals aligned with evaluation behavior. Building on this dataset, we adopt a curriculum-style SFT-DPO-GRPO training paradigm that progressively aligns rubric adherence, bias mitigation, and cross-mode consistency, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Experimental results on multiple internal and public benchmarks show that FairJudge consistently improves agreement and F1, reduces non-semantic biases, and outperforms substantially larger instruction-tuned LLMs. All resources will be publicly released after acceptance to facilitate future research.

Bo Yang, Lanfei Feng, Yunkui Chen +3

College of Computer Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · School of Software Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Feb 6, 2026cs.AI

JADE: Expert-Grounded Dynamic Evaluation for Open-Ended Professional Tasks

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to HealthBench and DR.BENCH, covering medical and 10-domain professional evaluation settings. Code and data are available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Lanbo Lin, Jiayao Liu, Tianyuan Yang +5

Alibaba International Digital Commerce Group · Zhejiang University · Peking University

LLM-as-a-Judge AI Agent Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation

Feb 3, 2026cs.AI

MAS-ProVe: Understanding the Process Verification of Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit high variance in their reasoning trajectories. Process verification, which evaluates intermediate steps in trajectories, has shown promise in general reasoning settings, and has been suggested as a potential tool for guiding coordination of MAS; however, its actual effectiveness in MAS remains unclear. To fill this gap, we present MAS-ProVe, a systematic empirical study of process verification for multi-agent systems (MAS). Our study spans three verification paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reward models, and process reward models), evaluated across two levels of verification granularity (agent-level and iteration-level). We further examine five representative verifiers and four context management strategies, and conduct experiments over six diverse MAS frameworks on multiple reasoning benchmarks. We find that process-level verification does not consistently improve performance and frequently exhibits high variance, highlighting the difficulty of reliably evaluating partial multi-agent trajectories. Among the methods studied, LLM-as-a-Judge generally outperforms reward-based approaches, with trained judges surpassing general-purpose LLMs. We further observe a small performance gap between LLMs acting as judges and as single agents, and identify a context-length-performance trade-off in verification. Overall, our results suggest that effective and robust process verification for MAS remains an open challenge, requiring further advances beyond current paradigms. Code is available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/MAS-ProVe.

Vishal Venkataramani, Haizhou Shi, Zixuan Ke +6

1Rutgers University · 2Salesforce AI Research

Multi-Agent LLM Systems LLM-as-a-Judge Process Reward Models LLM Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Systems

Feb 2, 2026cs.CL

Am I More Pointwise or Pairwise? Revealing Position Bias in Rubric-Based LLM-as-a-Judge

Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examined point-wise or pair-wise evaluation protocols; in contrast, our focus is on rubric-based evaluation, which has been attracting increasing attention owing to its utility for training models in domains where verification is otherwise difficult. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multiple-choice setting and therefore exhibits position bias: LLMs tend to prefer score options that appear at specific positions within the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate that this position bias is consistent. Its direction, however, is model-specific: some judges favor the first option, while others favor the last. We further identify a second, orthogonal axis of bias: when a prompt scores several criteria simultaneously, the ordering of the criteria itself shifts the resulting scores. We additionally explore permuting the order of the rubric options as a means of mitigating position bias, and find that although the bias can be attenuated, improvements in the correlation between model judgments and human annotations are obtained primarily for models that exhibit strong bias. Our results recast rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge as a multiple-choice problem with measurable, model-specific position bias, and we further confirm that only a small number of random order permutations are sufficient to reduce the error introduced by this bias for the majority of models.

Yuzheng Xu, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno +1

OMRON SINIC X · NexaScience

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Bias Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Position Bias

Jan 30, 2026cs.CL

Rethinking LLM-as-a-Judge: Representation-as-a-Judge with Small Language Models via Semantic Capacity Asymmetry

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design. In this work, we investigate whether smaller models can serve as efficient evaluators by leveraging internal representations instead of surface generation. We uncover a consistent empirical pattern: small LMs, despite with weak generative ability, encode rich evaluative signals in their hidden states. This motivates us to propose the Semantic Capacity Asymmetry Hypothesis: evaluation requires significantly less semantic capacity than generation and can be grounded in intermediate representations, suggesting that evaluation does not necessarily need to rely on large-scale generative models but can instead leverage latent features from smaller ones. Our findings motivate a paradigm shift from LLM-as-a-Judge to Representation-as-a-Judge, a decoding-free evaluation strategy that probes internal model structure rather than relying on prompted output. We instantiate this paradigm through INSPECTOR, a probing-based framework that predicts aspect-level evaluation scores from small model representations. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH, GPQA) show that INSPECTOR substantially outperforms prompting-based small LMs and closely approximates full LLM judges, while offering a more efficient, reliable, and interpretable alternative for scalable evaluation. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/zhuochunli/Representation-as-a-judge

Zhuochun Li, Yong Zhang, Ming Li +8

Ping An Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. · University of Pittsburgh · University of Maryland, College Park +1

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Small Language Models Language Model Probing

Jan 30, 2026cs.CL

Are LLM Evaluators Really Narcissists? Sanity Checking Self-Preference Evaluations

Recent research has shown that large language models (LLMs) favor their own outputs when acting as judges, undermining the integrity of automated post-training and evaluation workflows. However, it is difficult to disentangle which behaviors are explained by narcissism versus experimental confounds. Specifically, LLM evaluators may deliver self-preferring verdicts when comparing responses to questions they fail on; these verdicts may not depend on the identity of the author, but on evaluator quality. We correct this by directly comparing the judge's voting distribution in cases where it evaluates itself versus another model. This evaluator quality baseline reveals that only 51% of examples in previous findings retain statistical significance against this null hypothesis, covering 89.6% of total self-preference probability mass. Finally, we compare the entropy of voting distributions, suggesting uncertainty-driven overlap, and show that our procedure enables more careful documentation against the backdrop of judge-bias research.

Dani Roytburg, Matthew Bozoukov, Matthew Nguyen +3

Department of Machine Learning, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA · Apart Research, San Francisco, California, USA · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA +2

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Language Model Self-Assessment Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Jan 27, 2026cs.CL

ReportLogic: Evaluating Logical Quality in Deep Research Reports

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

Jujia Zhao, Zhaoxin Huan, Zihan Wang +4

1Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University · 2Ant Group · 3CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security

LLM-as-a-Judge Automated Evaluation Language Model Robustness

Jan 13, 2026cs.CL

From Rubrics to Reliable Scores: Evidence-Grounded Text Evaluation with LLM Judges

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.

Yihan Hong, Huaiyuan Yao, Bolin Shen +3

Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA · Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA · Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

LLM-as-a-Judge Rubric-Based Evaluation

Jan 7, 2026cs.CL

Gavel: Agent Meets Checklist for Evaluating LLMs on Long-Context Legal Summarization

Large language models (LLMs) now support contexts of up to 1M tokens, but their strengths and weaknesses on complex long-context tasks remain unclear. To study this, we focus on multi-document legal case summarization, where a single case often spans many documents exceeding 100K tokens. We systematically evaluate 12 frontier LLMs with Gavel, which consists of Gavel-Ref, a reference-based evaluation framework with checklist, residual-fact, and writing-style evaluations, and Gavel-Agent, a reference-free agent for evaluating factual coverage directly from source documents. Our results show that current models are more prone to omitting key information than hallucinating. They all perform well on simple checklist items, such as filing date, but struggle with rare and complex items, such as settlements. Performance also declines as case length increases. To meta-evaluate Gavel, we collect 160 hours of human annotations. Gavel-Agent reduces token usage by at least 36% compared to end-to-end and chunk-by-chunk methods while achieving competitive performance. Gavel-Agent also generalizes to the medical domain, performing the best with at least 77% fewer tokens.

Yao Dou, Benjamin Mamut, Wei Xu

Georgia Institute of Technology

Legal NLP LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Long-Context Language Model Evaluation Factual Consistency Evaluation Text Summarization+1

Nov 28, 2025cs.SD

ORCA: Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment for Audio Question Answering

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.

Šimon Sedláček, Sara Barahona, Bolaji Yusuf +9

AUDIAS, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain · University of Buenos Aires, Argentina · Tufts University, USA +1

Audio-Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Audio QA LLM-as-a-Judge Audio Understanding Audio-Language Models+1

Oct 28, 2025cs.CL

Idea2Plan: Exploring AI-Powered Research Planning

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential to accelerate scientific discovery as valuable tools for analyzing data, generating hypotheses, and supporting innovative approaches in various scientific fields. In this work, we investigate how LLMs can handle the transition from conceptual research ideas to well-structured research plans. Effective research planning not only supports scientists in advancing their research but also represents a crucial capability for the development of autonomous research agents. Despite its importance, the field lacks a systematic understanding of LLMs' research planning capability. To rigorously measure this capability, we introduce the Idea2Plan task and Idea2Plan Bench, a set of benchmarks built from ICML 2025 and Nature Mental Health papers released after major LLM training cutoffs. Each benchmark instance includes a research idea and a grading rubric capturing the key components of valid plans. We further propose Idea2Plan JudgeEval, a complementary benchmark to assess the reliability of LLM-based judges against expert annotations. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves the strongest performance on the benchmark, though substantial headroom remains for improvement. Our study provides new insights into LLMs' capability for research planning and lays the groundwork for future progress.

Jin Huang, Silviu Cucerzan, Sujay Kumar Jauhar +1

University of Michigan · Microsoft Research

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Planning AI-Assisted Scientific Research

Oct 23, 2025cs.CL

User Perceptions vs. Proxy LLM Judges: Privacy and Helpfulness in LLM Responses to Privacy-Sensitive Scenarios

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.

Xiaoyuan Wu, Roshni Kaushik, Wenkai Li +2

Fujitsu Research of America, Inc. · Carnegie Mellon University

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Privacy-Preserving Language Models Privacy Leakage in Language Models

Sep 3, 2025cs.CL

Breaking the Mirror: Activation-Based Mitigation of Self-Preference in LLM Evaluators

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as automated evaluators, yet they suffer from "self-preference bias": a tendency to favor their own outputs over those of other models. This bias undermines fairness and reliability in evaluation pipelines, particularly for tasks like preference tuning and model routing. We investigate whether lightweight steering vectors can mitigate this problem at inference time without retraining. We introduce a curated dataset that distinguishes self-preference bias into justified examples of self-preference and unjustified examples of self-preference, and we construct steering vectors using two methods: Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA) and an optimization-based approach. Our results show that steering vectors can reduce unjustified self-preference bias by up to 97%, substantially outperforming prompting and direct preference optimization baselines. Yet steering vectors are unstable on legitimate self-preference and unbiased agreement, implying self-preference spans multiple or nonlinear directions. This underscores both their promise and limits as safeguards for LLM-as-judges and motivates more robust interventions.

Dani Roytburg, Matthew Bozoukov, Matthew Nguyen +3

School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 · Martian Research San Francisco, CA, 94105

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Steering Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Aug 11, 2025cs.CL

Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation

Expert domain writing, such as scientific writing, typically demands extensive domain knowledge. Although large language models (LLMs) show promising potential in this task, evaluating the quality of automatically generated scientific writing is a crucial open issue, as it requires knowledge of domain-specific criteria and the ability to discern expert preferences. Conventional automatic evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-judge systems, primarily designed for mainstream NLP tasks, are insufficient to grasp expert preferences and domain-specific quality standards. To address this gap and support realistic human-AI collaborative writing, we focus on related work generation, one of the most challenging scientific tasks, as an exemplar. We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences. GREP decomposes the evaluation into smaller fine-grained dimensions. This localized evaluation is further augmented with contrastive examples to provide detailed contextual guidance for the evaluation dimensions. Empirical investigation reveals that GREP is able to assess the quality of related work sections in a much more robust manner compared to standard LLM judges, reflects natural scenarios of scientific writing, and bears a strong correlation with the assessment of human experts. We also observe that generations from state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to satisfy validation constraints of a suitable related work section.

Furkan Şahinuç, Subhabrata Dutta, Iryna Gurevych

Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab (UKP Lab) · Department of Computer Science and Hessian Center for AI (hessian.AI) · Technical University of Darmstadt +1

Human Preference Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Rubric-Based Evaluation

Aug 8, 2025cs.CL

Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions

With the surge of large language models (LLMs) and their ability to produce customized output, style-personalized text generation--"write like me"--has become a rapidly growing area of interest. However, style personalization is highly specific, relative to every user, and depends strongly on the pragmatic context, which makes it uniquely challenging. Although prior research has introduced benchmarks and metrics for this area, they tend to be non-standardized and have known limitations (e.g., poor correlation with human subjects). LLMs have been found to not capture author-specific style well, it follows that the metrics themselves must be scrutinized carefully. In this work we critically examine the effectiveness of the most common metrics used in the field, such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLMs-as-judges. We evaluate these metrics using our proposed style discrimination benchmark, which spans eight diverse writing tasks across three evaluation settings: domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized vs non-personalized discrimination. We find strong evidence that employing ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics consistently outperforms single-evaluator methods, and conclude by providing guidance on how to reliably assess style-personalized text generation.

Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan +2

Columbia University, USA · Microsoft, USA · The University of York, UK

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Personalized Text Generation Automated Evaluation Generative AI Evaluation

Jun 28, 2025cs.CL

Structured Prompting and Automated Evaluation in Fixed Synthetic Japanese-Language Counseling Dialogues

Large language models (LLMs) may support counseling training, yet evidence from Japanese-language interactions and automated quality ratings remains limited. We examined 18 fixed Japanese-language counseling transcripts generated through artificial intelligence (AI)-to-AI interactions under three counselor conditions: GPT-minimal (GPT-4-turbo with a minimal role instruction), GPT-SMDP (GPT-4-turbo with the Structured Multi-step Dialogue Prompt [SMDP]), and Claude-SMDP (Claude-3-Opus with SMDP). Fifteen counseling experts rated transcripts on four adapted global scales from the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding manual and an overall-quality item; three newer LLMs independently rated the same transcripts in three iterations. In this fixed stimulus set, SMDP-condition dialogues received higher expert ratings for cultivating change talk, partnership, empathy, and overall quality than GPT-minimal dialogues; the two SMDP counselor models did not differ. LLM ratings were reproducible but generally more lenient than expert-reference ratings, particularly for softening sustain talk and overall quality. Simulated-client naturalness was below the scale midpoint. These findings provide an expert-referenced benchmark for Japanese-language AI counseling simulations and show that reproducible LLM ratings should not be treated as calibrated counseling-quality evidence without expert validation. This study does not test clinical effectiveness or human-client outcomes.

Keita Kiuchi, Yoshikazu Fujimoto, Hideyuki Goto +5

Japan National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Kanagawa, Japan · Kaze To Taiyo, Tokyo, Japan · Saga Occupational Health Association, Saga, Japan +5

Mental Health Counseling LLM-as-a-Judge Emotional Support Conversation LLM Prompting Clinical Language Model Evaluation

May 1, 2025cs.CV

Multimodal Language Models as Text-to-Image Model Evaluators

The steady improvements of text-to-image (T2I) generative models lead to slow deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks that rely on static datasets, motivating researchers to seek alternative ways to evaluate T2I progress. We present Multimodal Text-to-Image Eval (MT2IE), an evaluation framework in which a single multimodal large language model (MLLM) acts as an evaluator agent, iteratively generating the evaluation prompts and scoring the resulting images. We show that MT2IE's image-text consistency scores have higher correlation with human judgment than metrics previously introduced in the literature. MT2IE generates prompts that are efficient at probing T2I model performance: closely recovering the official T2I model rankings of three structurally distinct benchmarks from just 20 generated evaluation prompts, 28-105x fewer than the benchmarks' own prompt sets. When compared to existing evaluation metrics such as CLIPScore, VIEScore, and VQAScore, MT2IE's T2I model rankings are more faithful and far more consistent across multiple evaluation seeds when using the same number of prompts. MT2IE can also adapt evaluation to the model being tested: rewriting each prompt based on the model's own measured performance to produce a bespoke per-model benchmark that still recovers the official rankings and keeps the evaluated model in an informative scoring range. We hope that these results will encourage the development of dynamic and interactive evaluation frameworks, and mitigate the deprecation of automatic evaluation benchmarks.

Jiahui Chen, Candace Ross, Reyhane Askari-Hemmat +5

1FAIR at Meta · University of Texas at Austin · ∗Work done at Meta +3

LLM-as-a-Judge Benchmark Design Automated Evaluation Vision-Language Model-as-a-Judge T2I Generation Evaluation

Mar 21, 2025cs.CL

Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English

Automatic text summarization relies on automatic evaluation to quickly determine the quality of summarization models via automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models. However, these techniques require meta-evaluation to ensure that they capture human judgments correctly. In this paper, we explore this meta-evaluation beyond English by generating a new multilingual summary meta-evaluation dataset (BASSE), which comprises human judgments on 2,040 abstractive summaries, generated either manually or by five Large Language Models (LLMs) with four different prompts. For each summary, annotators evaluate five criteria on a 5-point Likert scale: coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H. We then benchmark automatic summarization metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models. Our results show that currently proprietary judge LLMs have the highest correlation with human judgments, followed by criteria-specific automatic metrics, while open-sourced judge LLMs perform poorly.

Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover +1

HiTZ Center, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) · Department of Software and Computing Systems, University of Alicante, Spain · GOI Institute, Basque Summer University (UEU)

Summarization Evaluation Automated Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Text Summarization

Mar 7, 2025cs.CL

No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding

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

Kensho Technologies · MIT

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Finance

Date pendingcs.CR

Who Judges the Judges? A Chinese Safety QA Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Responses and Safety Judges

Safety benchmarks for large language models often assess the risk of a user query, although the outcome of question answering depends on whether the response violates a policy. This distinction is critical in Chinese harmful-content evaluation, where linguistic variation and adversarial transformations can obscure risky intent. We introduce C-SafeQA, a policy-grounded benchmark for response-level Chinese safety evaluation. It comprises 538 base queries and 8,877 adversarial queries answered by four full-model LLM deployments, yielding 37,660 query-response records labeled safe, unsafe, or disputed. Reference labels are generated through agreement-aware multi-model adjudication and blind audits of stratified subsets by three safety experts. C-SafeQA supports both evaluation of target-model safety and auditing of seven automated safety judges against shared reference labels. Unsafe-response rates range from 0.93% to 3.35% on base queries and from 11.68% to 30.05% on adversarial queries. On the adversarial subset, judges show substantial trade-offs between unsafe-response recall and risk-query-conditioned safe-response false positive rate, and no judge dominates all metrics. Both acrostic transformations reduce unsafe recall for all seven judges, revealing mechanism-specific evaluator weaknesses. Dataset records, metadata, verification code, and judge scripts are publicly released to support recomputation, while benchmark construction, target-response generation, and private adjudication remain outside the release boundary.

Rui Yang, Shuang Huang, Junhua Liu +7

Anhui SparkShield Intelligent Technology · iFLYTEK · Peking University +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Safety Evaluation Adversarial Robustness of Language Models LLM Safety Evaluation