Daily Papers

Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.

LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation. However, the reliability of these judges depends critically on their alignment with human raters -- a property that itself depends on costly human annotations. In this work, we develop a method (Metric Match) for estimating correlation-based reliability metrics of LLM judges from limited annotations. Metric Match selects a subset of samples for human annotation such that the subset matches the population reliability metric with respect to acquired synthetic labels. We empirically show that Metric Match achieves a win-rate of 0.838 against random subset selection across four different correlation metrics and 15 datasets, with an 18.7% decrease in average estimation error and reduces annotation needs by 32.5%. We provide a cost model and highlight a medical case study where our method saves $1,041.67 compared to random selection for expert annotation. Further, we shift our task from reliability estimation to reliability classification of whether a given judge is above a deployment threshold, outperforming random selection with Metric Match. All project code is publicly available, and we additionally provide an installable package for ease of use.

Rubric-based scoring has become a widely used paradigm in model evaluation, typically with LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) for rubric scoring. However, the reliability of LaaJ for rubric scoring remains underexplored. This concern is especially pronounced in agentic scenarios, where long, complex outputs further challenge reliable scoring. To address this, we conduct a systematic meta-evaluation of LaaJ reliability for rubric verification. We introduce RuVerBench, the first benchmark for assessing LaaJ reliability in rubric verification for agentic scenarios. RuVerBench covers two prevalent agentic domains, deep research and agentic coding, with 2,458 instances, each containing a model-generated output, a rubric, and a human-annotated label indicating whether the output satisfies the rubric. Using RuVerBench, we evaluate numerous frontier LLMs and find that even the most advanced models achieve strong performance but still exhibit substantial noise. We further analyze the impact of key LaaJ strategies, including prompt design, batching, and majority voting, on rubric verification. We find that weaker models are more sensitive to prompt variations, batched verification presents a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, and majority voting yields effective but diminishing returns. We have released our dataset and code to facilitate future research: https://github.com/THU-KEG/RuVerBench.

Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in {yes, partial, no}, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.

We present a novel framework that improves the reliability of LLM judges by selectively augmenting LLM with auxiliary evaluation dimensions. Existing LLM judges often miss crucial evaluation dimensions because they fail to recognize the implicit standards underlying human assessments. To address this challenge, we propose the Auto-Prompt Ensemble (APE), an adaptive framework that automatically learns evaluation dimensions from its failure cases. APE incorporates a confidence-based ensemble mechanism to decide when to adopt the judgments from additional evaluation dimensions through a novel confidence estimation approach called Collective Confidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that APE improves the reliability of LLM Judge across diverse standard benchmarks. For instance, APE enhances GPT-4o agreement rate on Reward Bench from 87.2% to 90.5% in the zero-shot setting. Overall, APE provides a principled approach for LLM Judge to leverage test-time computation, and bridge the evaluation gap between human and LLM judges.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. A critical but under-modeled issue is that judge LLMs differ substantially in reliability; treating all judges equally can yield biased leaderboards and misleading uncertainty estimates. More data can make evaluation more confidently wrong under misspecified aggregation. We propose a judge-aware ranking framework that extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by introducing judge-specific discrimination parameters, jointly estimating latent model quality and judge reliability from pairwise comparisons without reference labels. We establish identifiability up to natural normalizations and prove consistency and asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator, enabling confidence intervals for score differences and rank comparisons. Across multiple public benchmarks and a newly collected dataset, our method improves agreement with human preferences, achieves higher data efficiency than unweighted baselines, and produces calibrated uncertainty quantification for LLM rankings.

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.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

Benchmarks are important tools to track progress in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet inaccuracies in datasets and evaluation methods consistently undermine their effectiveness. Here, we present Omni-MATH-2, a manually revised version of the Omni-MATH dataset comprising a clean, exact-answer subset (n{=}4181) and a tagged, non-standard subset (n{=}247). Each problem was audited to ensure LaTeX compilability, solvability and verifiability, which involved adding missing figures or information, labeling problems requiring a proof, estimation or image, and removing clutter. This process significantly reduces dataset-induced noise, thereby providing a more precise assessment of model performance. The annotated dataset also allows us to evaluate judge-induced noise by comparing GPT-5 mini with the original Omni-Judge, revealing substantial discrepancies between judges on both the clean and tagged problem subsets. Expert annotations reveal that Omni-Judge is wrong in 96.4% of the judge disagreements, indicating its inability to differentiate between models' abilities, even well before saturation of the benchmark occurs. As problems become more challenging, we find that increasingly competent judges become essential in order to prevent judge errors from masking genuine differences between models. Finally, neither judge identifies the present failure modes for the subset of tagged problems, demonstrating that dataset quality and judge reliability are both critical to develop accurate benchmarks of model performance.

Sycophancy in LLMs is documented across 70+ papers, but expert agreement on construct boundaries remains low (ICC=.184; Ye et al., 2026). The construct fragments because behavioral classification depends on which surface form is privileged. We adopt a materials-science framing: conversation as test specimen under load, LLM-model as material charge, pushback as progressive load, stance-flip as material failure. We characterize this failure across three loading cases (debate n=1000; false-presuppositions n=3400; ethical-setting n=3400; 10-17 material charges per case; 7800 specimens total) using 14 turn-level axis-measurements spanning velocity, damage accumulation, frame-drift, brittleness, and direction stability, plus three speaker-resolved axes from an independent pipeline. The measurements are Hooke-coupled (σ= E cdot varepsilon analog) and reproduce across loading cases with effects up to |r_{rb}| = 0.35 on debate; the sign structure adds a second pattern: the ethical-setting case inverts the velocity and accumulation blocks. Variance composition partitions into two profiles: debate is charge-dominated (brittle-fracture-like: the material grade decides), false-presuppositions and ethical-setting are topic-dominated (creep-like: the load decides); the ratios (2.03 vs 0.13/0.17) are estimator-dependent, for debate even in direction. Cross-judge reliability (GPT-4o vs Haiku 4.5) shows debate scoring is judge-robust (Cohen's κ= 0.88) while false-presupposition scoring is judge-sensitive (κ= 0.36) -- a caveat single-judge benchmarks must report. This is the methodological move Ye et al.'s diagnosis calls for: a multi-axis characterization that does not depend on which surface form of the construct one privileges.

Real-world tasks often require models to learn from task-specific context rather than relying only on pre-trained knowledge. While recent work has highlighted this capability as context learning, existing evaluations mainly focus on textual contexts. In many practical settings, however, the context to be learned from is multimodal: scientific findings are conveyed through figures and tables, financial indicators are scattered across converted reports, and spatial decisions depend on maps, scenes, or web pages. We introduce CLBench-V, a benchmark for multimodal context learning that addresses the difficulty of localizing where context use breaks down by organizing tasks around three dimensions: context grounding, new information application, and new knowledge learning. CLBench-V combines converted public benchmarks with newly constructed datasets spanning domains such as science, finance, long-document understanding, spatial reasoning, and web-based visual question answering. To reduce the cost of constructing domain-specific context-learning tasks, we further use automated construction and filtering procedures for our newly built datasets. Across 3,443 instances and six recent multimodal models, the best overall score is only 0.2847, indicating that multimodal context learning remains far from saturated. Moreover, InternVL3.5-30B-A3B performs best on context grounding and new knowledge learning, while Qwen3.5-Plus performs best on new information application. We further analyze judge reliability, context length, image count, and representative failure cases. Code is available at https://github.com/IamLihua/CLBench-V.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

Safety evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) remains heavily English-centric, leaving Low-Resource Languages (LRLs), particularly African ones, critically underexplored. We introduce TUKABENCH, a jailbreak benchmark for seven African languages that extends JailbreakBench (JBB) beyond direct translation through four settings: human translation of JBB prompts, English adaptation to African contexts followed by human translation, human-curated prompts validated through interactions with GPT-5.2, and code-switched prompts combining English and African languages, isolating the effect of language, cultural grounding, and prompt evasiveness on model safety. Across closed and open models, prompting in African languages reduces refusal relative to English, with culturally adapted prompts leading to least refusal. The evaluation also surfaces two structural limitations: model comprehension failures and reduced LLM-as-a-judge reliability in LRLs. To capture the first, we introduce Deflection alongside Refused and Jailbroken; to assess the second, we validate outputs with human annotations, showing that judge-human agreement drops in lower-resource languages and less commonly supported scripts.

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

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied as automatic evaluators for natural language generation assessment often using pairwise comparative judgements. Existing approaches typically rely on single judges or aggregate multiple judges assuming equal reliability. In practice, LLM judges vary substantially in performance across tasks and evaluation aspects, and their judgment probabilities may be biased and inconsistent. Furthermore, human-labelled supervision for judge calibration may be unavailable. We first empirically demonstrate that inconsistencies in LLM comparison probabilities exist and show that it limits the effectiveness of direct probability-based ranking. To address this, we study the LLM-asa-jury setting and propose BT-sigma, a judge-aware extension of the Bradley-Terry model that introduces a discriminator parameter for each judge to jointly infer item rankings and judge reliability from pairwise comparisons alone. Experiments on benchmark NLG evaluation datasets show that BT-sigma consistently outperforms averaging-based aggregation methods, and that the learned discriminators strongly correlate with independent measures of the cycle consistency of LLM judgments. Further analysis reveals that BT-sigma can be interpreted as an unsupervised calibration mechanism that improves aggregation by modelling judge reliability.

We present MÖVE (Modelle für die Öffentliche Verwaltung Evaluieren), a holistic benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the context of the German public sector. While LLMs are increasingly adopted in public administration, model selection remains largely ad hoc, and existing benchmarks offer limited guidance: they are predominantly English-centric, US-centric in content, and focus exclusively on task performance. MÖVE addresses these gaps by evaluating 39 models across two complementary dimensions. Performance criteria cover summarization, question answering, and topic extraction. Governance criteria assess hallucination tendencies, energy consumption, provider transparency, and alignment with German constitutional values and knowledge about positions by German political parties. In total, we utilize ten German-language datasets, including gold- and silverstandard datasets that we constructed to reflect public-administration domains. We employ a multi-metric evaluation strategy combining classical NLP metrics, embedding-based methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Our results show that no single model dominates across all criteria: top performers differ between tasks, and model size alone is a poor predictor of quality. We further evaluate the benchmark itself, analyzing its statistical precision, LLM judge reliability, the impact of our private datasets on model rankings, the sensitivity of our results to prompt formulation, and the validity of our energy consumption estimates. MÖVE is designed as a living benchmark under active development; results are publicly available at https://moeve.bundesdruckerei.de/.

While progress in GUI agents has been largely driven by industrial-scale training, ungrounded hallucinations often trigger cascading failures in real-world deployments.Unlike general VLM domains, the GUI agent field lacks a hallucination-focused suite for fine-grained diagnosis, reliable evaluation, and targeted mitigation.To bridge this gap, we introduce HalluClear, a comprehensive suite for hallucination mitigation in GUI agents as a complement to computation-intensive scaling. HalluClear comprises: (1) a GUI-specific hallucination taxonomy derived from empirical failure analysis; (2) a calibrated three-stage evaluation workflow which enhances VLM-as-a-judge reliability via expert-annotated benchmarking and ensemble credibility estimation; and (3) a mitigation scheme based on closed-loop structured reasoning, enabling lightweight continual post-training with cold-start initialization for both generalist and GUI-specialist agents. Experiments across representative agents and public benchmarks demonstrate that post-training on only 9K samples within our suite can significantly reduce hallucinations, thereby improving grounding and action fidelity, offering a compute-efficient pathway to robust GUI automation.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

Despite the strong performance of large language models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks, they still have reliability issues. Previous studies indicate that strong LLMs like GPT-4-turbo excel in evaluating the reliability of responses from LLMs, but face efficiency and local deployment issues. Thus, to enable weak LLMs to effectively assess the reliability of LLM responses, we propose a novel cross-query-comparison-based method called Meta Ranking (MR). Unlike previous few-shot methods that solely based on in-context learning capabilities in LLMs, MR assesses reliability by pairwisely ranking the target query-response pair with multiple reference query-response pairs. We found that MR is highly effective in error detection for LLM responses, where weak LLMs, such as Phi-2, could surpass strong baselines like GPT-3.5-turbo, requiring only five reference samples and significantly improving efficiency. We further demonstrate that MR can enhance strong LLMs' performance in two practical applications: model cascading and instruction tuning. In model cascading, we combine open- and closed-source LLMs to achieve performance comparable to GPT-4-turbo with lower costs. In instruction tuning, we use MR for iterative training data filtering, significantly reducing data processing time and enabling LLaMA-7B and Phi-2 to surpass Alpaca-13B with fewer training tokens. These results underscore the high potential of MR in both efficiency and effectiveness.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising assistants for scientific writing. However, there have been concerns regarding the quality and reliability of the generated text, one of which is the citation accuracy and faithfulness. While most recent work relies on methods such as LLM-as-a-Judge, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge alone is also in doubt. In this work, we reframe citation evaluation as a problem of citation attribution alignment, which is assessing whether LLM-generated citations match those a human author would include for the same text. We propose CiteGuard, a retrieval-aware agent framework designed to provide more faithful grounding for citation validation. CiteGuard improves the prior baseline by 12.3%, and achieves up to 65.4% accuracy on the CiteME benchmark, on par with human-level performance (69.7%). It also enables the identification of alternative but valid citations.

While LLM-as-a-Judge is widely used in automated evaluation, existing validation practices primarily operate at the level of observed outputs, offering limited insight into whether LLM judges themselves function as stable and reliable measurement instruments. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-phase diagnostic framework for assessing reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge, grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT). The framework adopts Graded Response Model (GRM) of IRT and formalizes reliability along two complementary dimensions: (1) intrinsic consistency, defined as the stability of measurement behavior under prompt variations, and (2) human alignment, capturing correspondence with human quality assessments. We empirically examine diverse LLM judges with this framework, and show that leveraging IRT-GRM yields interpretable signals for diagnosing judgments systematically. These signals provide practical guidance for verifying reliablity of LLM-as-a-Judge and identifying potential causes of unreliability.

Teaching videos are becoming a major medium for education, creating a growing need for scalable evaluation of their pedagogical quality. Existing automatic judges do not fully address this setting because teaching quality depends on multimodal evidence and should be evaluated with respect to the intended learner rather than as a universal property. We present EduPanel, a rubric-grounded, learner-conditioned LLM judge that decomposes evaluation across specialized agents to produce interpretable assessments for different aspects of teaching quality. Across expert studies, architecture ablations, and learner-persona analyses, EduPanel achieves reliability comparable to a median human expert. In expert evaluation, its feedback improves scoring accuracy (MAE 0.87 to 0.73), while experts remain able to detect unreliable outputs (AUC = 0.77) instead of accepting them blindly. These results suggest that EduPanel can serve as effective assistants for educational evaluation rather than replacements for human experts.

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant paradigm for grading model outputs at scale, yet the same model assigns systematically different scores when its output format changes (e.g., a 1-5 rating vs. a True/False label). Existing diagnoses of these format-induced inconsistencies stop at the input-output level. Using Position-aware Edge Attribution Patching (PEAP), we causally investigate the internal mechanism in Gemma-3, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3. We find that judgments across structured understanding and open-ended preference tasks share a sparse, generalized Latent Evaluator sub-graph in the mid-to-late multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs); zero-ablating it collapses judgment while preserving world knowledge in architecturally modular models. By structurally decoupling abstract judging from output formatting, we provide a mechanistic account of format-induced inconsistency on the open-weight models we study: a continuous judgment signal computed in the shared trunk is mapped through fragile, format-specific terminal branches, enabling format-independent preference to be isolated downstream of the requested output format. Our findings imply that benchmark-level reliability comparisons across formats are partially measuring formatter geometry rather than evaluation quality.

Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) can be tailored to adhere to human instructions through instruction tuning. However, due to shifts in the distribution of test-time data, they may not always execute instructions accurately, potentially generating factual errors or misaligned content when acting as chat assistants. To enhance the reliability of LLMs in following instructions, we propose the study of selective instruction following, whereby the system declines to execute instructions if the anticipated response quality is low. We train judge models that can predict numerical quality scores for model responses. To address data scarcity, we introduce Self-J, a novel self-training framework for developing judge models without needing human-annotated quality scores. Our method leverages the model's inherent self-evaluation capability to extract information about response quality from labeled instruction-tuning data. It incorporates a gold reference answer to facilitate self-evaluation and recalibrates by assessing the semantic similarity between the response sample and the gold reference. During the training phase, we implement self-distillation as a regularization technique to enhance the capability of reference-free estimation. To validate alignment evaluation on general instruction-following tasks, we collect large-scale high-quality instructions from Hugging Face for model training and evaluation. Extensive experiments on five open-source models show that our method correlates much more with GPT-4 than strong baselines, e.g., supervised models distilled from GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo. Our analysis shows our model's strong generalization across domains. Additionally, our judge models serve as good reward models, e.g., boosting WizardLM-13B-V1.2 from 89.17 to 92.48 and from 12.03 to 15.90 in version v1 and v2 of AlpacaEval respectively using best-of-32 sampling with our judge models.

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.

Safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) is mostly evaluated in English and contract-bound, leaving multilingual vulnerabilities understudied. We introduce Indic Jailbreak Robustness (IJR), a judge-free benchmark for adversarial safety across 12 Indic and South Asian languages (2.1 Billion speakers), covering 45216 prompts in JSON (contract-bound) and Free (naturalistic) tracks. IJR reveals three patterns. (1) Contracts inflate refusals but do not stop jailbreaks: in JSON, LLaMA and Sarvam exceed 0.92 JSR, and in Free all models reach 1.0 with refusals collapsing. (2) English to Indic attacks transfer strongly, with format wrappers often outperforming instruction wrappers. (3) Orthography matters: romanized or mixed inputs reduce JSR under JSON, with correlations to romanization share and tokenization (approx 0.28 to 0.32) indicating systematic effects. Human audits confirm detector reliability, and lite-to-full comparisons preserve conclusions. IJR offers a reproducible multilingual stress test revealing risks hidden by English-only, contract-focused evaluations, especially for South Asian users who frequently code-switch and romanize.

Fine-grained robotic evaluation matters for understanding embodied models, going beyond binary success rates and rule-based process scores. We present PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5, a toolkit for robot process assessment that turns rollout videos into dense progress curves and derives multiple fine metrics. PRM-as-a-Judge 1.5 introduces three metrics, building on version 1.0, that characterize failure-side progress, post-drawdown recovery, and success-side execution quality, helping users understand embodied model capability. Based on the rollout videos from benchmarks, we perform a comprehensive assessment of the embodied models, providing some fine-grained metric results and key findings. We further introduce RoboPulse++ to evaluate the reliability of process reward models (PRM), providing evaluators with a more accurate testing platform. Moreover, we release a user-friendly assessment suite, including the benchmark, metric implementation, and visualization tools, to support reproducible manipulation process evaluation. We call on the community to rethink how robots are evaluated and establish transparent, procedural, and reproducible assessment as a foundation for the next generation of embodied intelligence.

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language generation (NLG), but the uncertainty of its evaluation remains underexplored. This lack of reliability may limit its deployment in many applications. This work presents the first framework to analyze the uncertainty by offering a prediction interval of LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction. Conformal prediction constructs continuous prediction intervals from a single evaluation run, and we design an ordinal boundary adjustment for discrete rating tasks. We also suggest a midpoint-based score within the interval as a low-bias alternative to raw model score and weighted average. We perform extensive experiments and analysis, which show that conformal prediction can provide valid prediction interval with coverage guarantees. We also explore the usefulness of interval midpoint and judge reprompting for better judgment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for natural language generation, applying human-defined rubrics to assess system outputs. However, human rubrics are often static and misaligned with how models internally represent language quality. We introduce GER-Eval (Generating Evaluation Rubrics for Evaluation) to investigate whether LLMs can design and apply their own evaluation rubrics. We evaluate the semantic coherence and scoring reliability of LLM-defined criteria and their alignment with human criteria. LLMs reliably generate interpretable and task-aware evaluation dimensions and apply them consistently within models, but their scoring reliability degrades in factual and knowledge-intensive settings. Closed-source models such as GPT-4o achieve higher agreement and cross-model generalization than open-weight models such as Llama. Our findings position evaluation as a learned linguistic capability of LLMs, consistent within models but fragmented across them, and call for new methods that jointly model human and LLM evaluative language to improve reliability and interpretability.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors and are increasingly used in real-world situations such as for written exams or benchmarking systems. Despite this, no existing work has analyzed the vulnerability of judge-LLMs against adversaries attempting to manipulate outputs. This work presents the first study on the adversarial robustness of assessment LLMs, where we search for short universal phrases that when appended to texts can deceive LLMs to provide high assessment scores. Experiments on SummEval and TopicalChat demonstrate that both LLM-scoring and pairwise LLM-comparative assessment are vulnerable to simple concatenation attacks, where in particular LLM-scoring is very susceptible and can yield maximum assessment scores irrespective of the input text quality. Interestingly, such attacks are transferable and phrases learned on smaller open-source LLMs can be applied to larger closed-source models, such as GPT3.5. This highlights the pervasive nature of the adversarial vulnerabilities across different judge-LLM sizes, families and methods. Our findings raise significant concerns on the reliability of LLMs-as-a-judge methods, and underscore the importance of addressing vulnerabilities in LLM assessment methods before deployment in high-stakes real-world scenarios.

Instruction-following is a foundational capability of large language models (LLMs), with its improvement hinging on scalable and accurate feedback from judge models. However, the reliability of current judge models in instruction-following remains underexplored due to several deficiencies of existing meta-evaluation benchmarks, such as their insufficient data coverage and oversimplified pairwise evaluation paradigms that misalign with model optimization scenarios. To this end, we propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following that covers diverse instruction and constraint types. For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses based on instruction-following quality. This design enables a listwise evaluation paradigm that assesses the capabilities of judge models to rank multiple responses, which is essential in guiding model alignment. Extensive experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models and demonstrate that our benchmark achieves a stronger positive correlation with downstream task performance compared to existing benchmarks. Our codes and data are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/IF-RewardBench.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm shows promise for evaluating generative content but lacks reliability in reasoning-intensive scenarios, such as programming. Inspired by recent advances in reasoning models and shifts in scaling laws, we pioneer bringing test-time computation into LLM-as-a-Judge, proposing MCTS-Judge, a resource-efficient, System-2 thinking framework for code correctness evaluation. MCTS-Judge leverages Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to decompose problems into simpler, multi-perspective evaluations. Through a node-selection strategy that combines self-assessment based on historical actions in the current trajectory and the Upper Confidence Bound for Trees based on prior rollouts, MCTS-Judge balances global optimization and refinement of the current trajectory. We further designed a high-precision, unit-test-level reward mechanism to encourage the Large Language Model (LLM) to perform line-by-line analysis. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks and five LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of MCTS-Judge, which improves the base model's accuracy from 41% to 80%, surpassing the o1-series models with 3x fewer tokens. Further evaluations validate the superiority of its reasoning trajectory in logic, analytics, thoroughness, and overall quality, while revealing the test-time scaling law of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks. Beyond directly answering user queries, LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models. Such an evaluation capability is crucial both for benchmarking different LLMs and for improving response quality through response ranking. However, despite the growing adoption of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, its effectiveness in coding scenarios remains underexplored due to the absence of dedicated benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce CodeJudgeBench, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge models across three critical coding tasks: code generation, code repair, and unit test generation. Through comprehensive benchmarking of 26 LLM-as-a-Judge models, we find that recent thinking models significantly outperform non-thinking models on our carefully designed code judging tasks. Notably, even relatively small thinking models, such as Qwen3-8B, can outperform specially trained LLM-as-a-Judge models up to 70B in size. Nevertheless, all models still exhibit significant randomness in their judgment of coding tasks. For pairwise judging tasks, simply changing the order in which responses are presented can substantially impact accuracy. In addition, when judging code and unit tests written by different LLMs, LLM-as-a-Judge models also show variance in performance. This sensitivity raises concerns about the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge in coding scenarios. Lastly, we study optimal prompting strategies for LLM-as-a-Judge. We find that using pair-wise comparison outperforms scalar point-wise judging. Furthermore, retaining comments and reasoning in the full, unprocessed LLM response leads to improved judge performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated powerful capabilities that render them valuable in different applications, including conversational AI products. It is paramount to ensure the security and reliability of these products by mitigating their vulnerabilities towards malicious user interactions, which can lead to the exposure of great risks and reputational repercussions. In this work, we present a comprehensive study on the efficacy of fine-tuning and aligning Chain-of-Thought (CoT) responses of different LLMs that serve as input moderation guardrails. We systematically explore various tuning methods by leveraging a small set of training data to adapt these models as proxy defense mechanisms to detect malicious inputs and provide a reasoning for their verdicts, thereby preventing the exploitation of conversational agents. We rigorously evaluate the efficacy and robustness of different tuning strategies to generalize across diverse adversarial and malicious query types. Our experimental results outline the potential of alignment processes tailored to a varied range of harmful input queries, even with constrained data resources. These techniques significantly enhance the safety of conversational AI systems and provide a feasible framework for deploying more secure and trustworthy AI-driven interactions.

With significant efforts in recent studies, LLM-as-a-Judge has become a cost-effective alternative to human evaluation for assessing the text generation quality in a wide range of tasks. However, there still remains a reliability gap between LLM-as-a-Judge and human evaluation. One important reason is the lack of guided oracles in the evaluation process. Motivated by the role of reference pervasively used in classic text evaluation, we introduce RevisEval, a novel text generation evaluation paradigm via the response-adapted references. RevisEval is driven by the key observation that an ideal reference should maintain the necessary relevance to the response to be evaluated. Specifically, RevisEval leverages the text revision capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to adaptively revise the response, then treat the revised text as the reference (response-adapted reference) for the subsequent evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RevisEval outperforms traditional reference-free and reference-based evaluation paradigms that use LLM-as-a-Judge across NLG tasks and open-ended instruction-following tasks. More importantly, our response-adapted references can further boost the classical text metrics, e.g., BLEU and BERTScore, compared to traditional references and even rival the LLM-as-a-Judge. A detailed analysis is also conducted to confirm RevisEval's effectiveness in bias reduction, the impact of inference cost, and reference relevance.

LLM-as-a-Judge, which generates chain-of-thought (CoT) judgments, has become a widely adopted auto-evaluation method. However, its reliability is compromised by the CoT reasoning's inability to capture comprehensive and deeper details, often leading to incomplete outcomes. Existing methods mainly rely on majority voting or criteria expansion, which is insufficient to address the limitation in CoT. We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses, thereby exposing deeper and more comprehensive details within the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed CoT judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances evaluation reliability, achieving an average accuracy gain of 6.7% across five benchmarks. Moreover, our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), referred to as crowd rejection sampling, thereby enabling more efficient SFT. Our analysis confirms that CoTs generated by ours are more comprehensive and of higher quality, and evaluation accuracy improves as inference scales.

Using a language model to score or rank candidate responses has become a scalable alternative to human evaluation in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) pipelines, benchmarking, and application layer evaluations. However, output reliability depends heavily on prompting and aggregation strategy. We present an empirical investigation of four drop-in techniques -- ensemble scoring, task-specific criteria injection, calibration context, and adaptive model escalation -- for improving LLM judge accuracy on RewardBench 2, with a unifying lens of noise control on the stochastic judge: ensembling as Monte Carlo averaging over per-call noise, criteria injection as between-response discrimination sharpening, and per-response score variance as an uncertainty signal. Ensemble scoring and task-specific criteria injection (the latter virtually cost free) together reach up to 85.8% accuracy, +13.5pp over baseline. Calibration context and adaptive model escalation also improve over baseline but are dominated by criteria + ensembling on the cost-accuracy Pareto frontier. Small models benefit disproportionately from ensembling, making high-accuracy LLM judges accessible at low cost. We show that these techniques generalise across model providers, evaluating on both OpenAI GPT and Anthropic Claude families.

This research introduces the Judge's Verdict Benchmark, a novel two-step methodology to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for response accuracy evaluation tasks. We assess how well 54 LLMs can replicate human judgment when scoring responses from RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) or Agentic pipelines against ground truth answers. Our methodology progresses from traditional correlation analysis to comprehensive Cohen's Kappa analysis that measures actual agreement patterns. The two-step approach includes: (1) a correlation test that filters judges with strong alignment, followed by (2) a human-likeness test using z-scores to identify two distinct judgment patterns: human-like judgment (|z| < 1) that mimics natural human variation, and super-consistent judgment (z > 1) that exceeds typical human-to-human agreement levels. This methodology reveals that 27 out of 54 tested LLMs achieve Tier 1 performance: 23 models exhibit human-like patterns that preserve the nuances of human judgment, while 4 models demonstrate super-consistent behavior, a pattern that could indicate either enhanced reliability or oversimplification of complex judgments. Testing 43 open-source models (1B-405B parameters) and 11 closed models (GPT, Gemini, Claude variants), we demonstrate that judge excellence is not solely dependent on model size but on specific training strategies. Our key contributions include: (1) establishing that correlation alone is insufficient for judge evaluation, (2) introducing a "Turing Test for judges" based on agreement patterns, and (3) providing a standardized benchmark for classifying LLM judges into distinct performance tiers for different evaluation needs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge) for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. This paradigm offers scalability and cost-effectiveness compared to human annotation. However, the reliability and security of such systems, particularly their robustness against adversarial manipulations, remain critical concerns. This paper investigates the vulnerability of LLM-as-a-Judge architectures to prompt-injection attacks, where malicious inputs are designed to compromise the judge's decision-making process. We formalize two primary attack strategies: Comparative Undermining Attack (CUA), which directly targets the final decision output, and Justification Manipulation Attack (JMA), which aims to alter the model's generated reasoning. Using the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) optimization method, we craft adversarial suffixes appended to one of the responses being compared. Experiments conducted on the MT-Bench Human Judgments dataset with open-source instruction-tuned LLMs (Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and Falcon3-3B-Instruct) demonstrate significant susceptibility. The CUA achieves an Attack Success Rate (ASR) exceeding 30\%, while JMA also shows notable effectiveness. These findings highlight substantial vulnerabilities in current LLM-as-a-Judge systems, underscoring the need for robust defense mechanisms and further research into adversarial evaluation and trustworthiness in LLM-based assessment frameworks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated near-human performance in summarization tasks based on traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore. However, these metrics do not adequately capture critical aspects of summarization quality, such as factual accuracy, particularly for long narratives (>100K tokens). Recent advances, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, address the limitations of metrics based on lexical similarity but still exhibit factual inconsistencies, especially in understanding character relationships and states. In this work, we introduce NarrativeFactScore, a novel "Agent-as-a-Judge" framework for evaluating and refining summaries. By leveraging a Character Knowledge Graph (CKG) extracted from input and generated summaries, NarrativeFactScore assesses the factual consistency and provides actionable guidance for refinement, such as identifying missing or erroneous facts. We demonstrate the effectiveness of NarrativeFactScore through a detailed workflow illustration and extensive validation on widely adopted benchmarks, achieving superior performance compared to competitive methods. Our results highlight the potential of agent-driven evaluation systems to improve the factual reliability of LLM-generated summaries.

Contemporary evaluation techniques are inadequate for agentic systems. These approaches either focus exclusively on final outcomes -- ignoring the step-by-step nature of agentic systems, or require excessive manual labour. To address this, we introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We apply the Agent-as-a-Judge to the task of code generation. To overcome issues with existing benchmarks and provide a proof-of-concept testbed for Agent-as-a-Judge, we present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks. It includes rich manual annotations, like a total of 365 hierarchical user requirements. We benchmark three of the popular agentic systems using Agent-as-a-Judge and find it dramatically outperforms LLM-as-a-Judge and is as reliable as our human evaluation baseline. Altogether, we believe that Agent-as-a-Judge marks a concrete step forward for modern agentic systems -- by providing rich and reliable reward signals necessary for dynamic and scalable self-improvement.

Agentic workflows -- where multiple large language model (LLM) instances interact to solve tasks -- are increasingly built on feedback mechanisms, where one model evaluates and critiques another. Despite the promise of feedback-driven improvement, the stability of agentic workflows rests on the reliability of the judge. However, judges may hallucinate information, exhibit bias, or act adversarially -- introducing critical vulnerabilities into the workflow. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of agentic workflows under deceptive or misleading feedback. We introduce a two-dimensional framework for analyzing judge behavior, along axes of intent (from constructive to malicious) and knowledge (from parametric-only to retrieval-augmented systems). Using this taxonomy, we construct a suite of judge behaviors and develop WAFER-QA, a new benchmark with critiques grounded in retrieved web evidence to evaluate robustness of agentic workflows against factually supported adversarial feedback. We reveal that even strongest agents are vulnerable to persuasive yet flawed critiques -- often switching correct answers after a single round of misleading feedback. Taking a step further, we study how model predictions evolve over multiple rounds of interaction, revealing distinct behavioral patterns between reasoning and non-reasoning models. Our findings highlight fundamental vulnerabilities in feedback-based workflows and offer guidance for building more robust agentic systems.

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.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.

LLMs have emerged as powerful evaluators in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, offering significant efficiency and flexibility compared to human judgments. However, previous methods primarily rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations. This approach leads to information loss and decreases the reliability of evaluations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with empirical human distributions. Specifically, we propose a distributional alignment objective based on KL divergence, combined with an auxiliary cross-entropy regularization to stabilize the training process. Furthermore, considering that empirical distributions may derive from limited human annotations, we incorporate adversarial training to enhance model robustness against distribution perturbations. Extensive experiments across various LLM backbones and evaluation tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods, with improved alignment quality, evaluation accuracy, and robustness.

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.

LLM-as-a-Judge has revolutionized AI evaluation by leveraging large language models for scalable assessments. However, as evaluands become increasingly complex, specialized, and multi-step, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge has become constrained by inherent biases, shallow single-pass reasoning, and the inability to verify assessments against real-world observations. This has catalyzed the transition to Agent-as-a-Judge, where agentic judges employ planning, tool-augmented verification, multi-agent collaboration, and persistent memory to enable more robust, verifiable, and nuanced evaluations. Despite the rapid proliferation of agentic evaluation systems, the field lacks a unified framework to navigate this shifting landscape. To bridge this gap, we present the first comprehensive survey tracing this evolution. Specifically, we identify key dimensions that characterize this paradigm shift and establish a developmental taxonomy. We organize core methodologies and survey applications across general and professional domains. Furthermore, we analyze frontier challenges and identify promising research directions, ultimately providing a clear roadmap for the next generation of agentic evaluation.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been increasingly used as automatic evaluators-a paradigm known as MLLM-as-a-Judge. However, their reliability and vulnerabilities to biases remain underexplored. We find that many MLLM judges fail to reliably integrate key visual or textual cues, yielding unreliable evaluations when evidence is missing or mismatched, and exhibiting instability under semantically irrelevant perturbations. To address this, we systematically define Compositional Bias in MLLM-as-a-Judge systems and introduce MM-JudgeBias, a benchmark for evaluating it. MM-JudgeBias introduces controlled perturbations across Query, Image, and Response, and evaluates model behavior via two complementary metrics: Bias-Deviation (BD) for sensitivity and Bias-Conformity (BC) for stability. Our dataset of over 1,800 curated and refined multimodal samples, drawn from 29 source benchmarks, enables a fine-grained diagnosis of nine bias types across diverse tasks and domains. Experiments on 26 state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal systematic modality neglect and asymmetric evaluation tendencies, underscoring the need for more reliable judges.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evaluations. To bridge this gap, we propose BiasScope, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BiasScope can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias discovery from a passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on BiasScope, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50\% on JudgeBench-Pro, underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robustness and to mitigate potential biases further.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare applications, including clinical documentation, diagnostic reasoning, medicine recommendation, and medical education. Their outputs are largely unstructured clinical text, which is difficult to reliably evaluate at scale. LLM-as-a-Judge, in which an LLM evaluates another system's output against task-specific criteria, offers a scalable alternative and is increasingly used in clinical evaluation, yet its validity in healthcare remains underexamined. Existing reviews focus on general-purpose LLM evaluation or on risk framework, rather than systematically characterizing how LLM-as-a-Judge is applied in healthcare and how well their judgments align with human experts. We therefore conduct a PRISMA-guided comprehensive review of LLM-as-a-Judge applications in healthcare, searching five databases for studies published between January 2023 and February 2026. After screening 541 records, 134 studies meet the eligibility and are coded by health scenario, judge configuration, technical approach, and validation design. LLM-as-a-Judge is concentrated in clinical decision support, clinical natural language processing (NLP), medical knowledge and question answering (QA), and medical communication. OpenAI models are the most frequently used judges, and prompt engineering appears in nearly all studies, with ensemble, multi-agent, and retrieval-augmented designs as common extensions. Among studies reporting human validation, LLM judges often show moderate to strong alignment with expert judgments, although reliability varies substantially across tasks. Overall, this review positions LLM-as-a-Judge as a promising framework for scalable healthcare AI evaluation, while emphasizing that its clinical value depends on model design and rigorous validation.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively. These results highlight RBD's effectiveness and scalability. Additional experiments further demonstrate its strong generalization across biases and domains, as well as its efficiency.

Self-improvement in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is crucial for enhancing their reliability and robustness. However, current methods often rely heavily on MLLMs themselves as judges, leading to high computational costs and potential pitfalls like reward hacking and model collapse. This paper introduces a novel, model-level judge-free self-improvement framework. Our approach employs a controlled feedback mechanism while eliminating the need for MLLMs in the verification loop. We generate preference learning pairs using a controllable hallucination mechanism and optimize data quality by leveraging lightweight, contrastive language-image encoders to evaluate and reverse pairs when necessary. Evaluations across public benchmarks and our newly introduced IC dataset designed to challenge hallucination control demonstrate that our model outperforms conventional techniques. We achieve superior precision and recall with significantly lower computational demands. This method offers an efficient pathway to scalable self-improvement in MLLMs, balancing performance gains with reduced resource requirements.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate non-factual content, known as hallucinations. Existing retrieval-augmented-based hallucination detection approaches typically address this by framing it as a classification task, evaluating hallucinations based on their consistency with retrieved evidence. However, this approach usually lacks detailed explanations for these evaluations and does not assess the reliability of these explanations. Furthermore, deficiencies in retrieval systems can lead to irrelevant or partially relevant evidence retrieval, impairing the detection process. Moreover, while real-world hallucination detection requires analyzing multiple pieces of evidence, current systems usually treat all evidence uniformly without considering its relevance to the content. To address these challenges, we introduce Halu-J, a critique-based hallucination judge with 7 billion parameters. Halu-J enhances hallucination detection by selecting pertinent evidence and providing detailed critiques. Our experiments indicate that Halu-J outperforms GPT-4o in multiple-evidence hallucination detection and matches its capability in critique generation and evidence selection. We also introduce ME-FEVER, a new dataset designed for multiple-evidence hallucination detection. Our code and dataset can be found in https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/factool .

LLM-as-a-judge has become the standard for automated evaluation, but it suffers from high cost, significant latency, and opaque decisions -- limitations that undermine its scalability and reliability. We address these with a simple, efficient alternative: program distillation. Instead of prompting an LLM at the evaluation time, we distill its decision logic into a committee of programs that score candidates directly. These programmatic judges offer transparency, are easily inspected or edited, and eliminate per-sample API costs. Building on this notion, we introduce PAJAMA, a system that synthesizes programs as judges, aggregates their decisions into a joint verdict, and incorporates a fallback mechanism to selectively escalate low-confidence cases to an LLM. Across five datasets and four model families, we show that programmatic judges can match the performance of a 13B-size LLM judge. When using program outputs as routing signals, PAJAMA improves both accuracy and throughput and advances the Pareto frontier. Beyond evaluation, programmatic judges produce cheap and effective reward signals: on RewardBench, a reward model distilled from programs' verdicts outperforms one trained on a proprietary LLM's labels at two orders of magnitude lower API cost.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

Recent multimodal large language models have demonstrated strong reasoning ability, yet their reliability as automated evaluators remains limited by a critical weakness: when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues, MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers. We identify and systematically analyze this phenomenon, which we term Perceptual Judgment Bias. Through controlled visual perturbations, existing multimodal judges frequently anchor on the response text instead of their own visual perception, leading to inconsistent and non-verifiable evaluations. To address this issue, we introduce the Perceptually Perturbed Judgment Dataset, which constructs minimally edited counterfactual responses that isolate perceptual errors and enable verifiable supervision. Building on this dataset, we develop a unified training framework that combines a structured GRPO-based reward with a batch-ranking objective, achieving coherent global ordering without explicit pairwise labels. Experiments across diverse MLLM-as-a-Judge benchmarks show that our approach substantially improves perceptual fidelity, ranking coherence, and alignment with human evaluation. Our results establish a scalable and generalizable pathway for training multimodal judges that are perceptually grounded, interpretable, and robust to visual-reasoning conflicts.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate the quality of LLM generations and responses, but this leads to significant challenges: high API costs, uncertain reliability, inflexible pipelines, and inherent biases. To address these, we introduce PAJAMA (Program-As-a-Judge for Automated Model Assessment), a new alternative that uses LLMs to synthesize executable judging programs instead of directly scoring responses. These synthesized programs can be stored and run locally, costing orders of magnitude less while providing interpretable, and auditable judging logic that can be easily adapted. Program-based judges mitigate biases, improving judgment consistency by 15.83% and reducing biased responses by 23.7% on average compared to a Qwen2.5-14B-based LLM-as-a-judge. When program judgments are distilled into a model, PAJAMA outperforms LLM-as-a-judge on the challenging CHAT-HARD subset of RewardBench, outperforming metrics by 2.19% on Prometheus and 8.67% on the JudgeLM dataset, all at three orders of magnitude lower cost.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

The use of LLMs as automated judges ("LLM-as-a-judge") is now widespread, yet standard judges suffer from a multitude of reliability issues. To address these challenges, we introduce Verdict, an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators. Verdict leverages the composition of modular reasoning units (such as verification, debate, and aggregation) and increased inference-time compute to improve LLM judge quality. Across a variety of challenging tasks such as content moderation, fact-checking, and hallucination detection, Verdict judges achieves performance competitive with orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges, prompted judges, and reasoning models. Our framework establishes a foundation for scalable, interpretable, and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for both researchers and practitioners.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in various applications, but the reliability of the outcomes remains a challenge. One such challenge is using LLMs-as-judges for direct assessment, i.e., assigning scores from a specified range without any references. We first show that this challenge stems from LLM judge outputs being associated with score range bias, i.e., LLM judge outputs are highly sensitive to pre-defined score ranges, preventing the search for optimal score ranges. We also show that similar biases exist among models from the same family. We then mitigate this bias through contrastive decoding, achieving up to 11.3% relative improvement on average in Spearman correlation with human judgments across different score ranges.

Generative search engines and deep research LLM agents promise trustworthy, source-grounded synthesis, yet users regularly encounter overconfidence, weak sourcing, and confusing citation practices. We introduce DeepTRACE, a novel sociotechnically grounded audit framework that turns prior community-identified failure cases into eight measurable dimensions spanning answer text, sources, and citations. DeepTRACE uses statement-level analysis (decomposition, confidence scoring) and builds citation and factual-support matrices to audit how systems reason with and attribute evidence end-to-end. Using automated extraction pipelines for popular public models (e.g., GPT-4.5/5, You.com, Perplexity, Copilot/Bing, Gemini) and an LLM-judge with validated agreement to human raters, we evaluate both web-search engines and deep-research configurations. Our findings show that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided, highly confident responses on debate queries and include large fractions of statements unsupported by their own listed sources. Deep-research configurations reduce overconfidence and can attain high citation thoroughness, but they remain highly one-sided on debate queries and still exhibit large fractions of unsupported statements, with citation accuracy ranging from 40--80% across systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, where practical value depends on both accuracy and trustworthy, risk-aware judgments. Existing approaches predominantly focus on accuracy, overlooking the necessity of well-calibrated confidence, which is vital for adaptive and reliable evaluation pipelines. In this work, we advocate a shift from accuracy-centric evaluation to confidence-driven, risk-aware LLM-as-a-Judge systems, emphasizing the necessity of well-calibrated confidence for trustworthy and adaptive evaluation. We systematically identify the Overconfidence Phenomenon in current LLM-as-a-Judges, where predicted confidence significantly overstates actual correctness, undermining reliability in practical deployment. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce TH-Score, a novel metric measuring confidence-accuracy alignment. Furthermore, we propose LLM-as-a-Fuser, an ensemble framework that transforms LLMs into reliable, risk-aware evaluators. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach substantially improves calibration and enables adaptive, confidence-driven evaluation pipelines, achieving superior reliability and accuracy compared to existing baselines.

Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of existing LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLM judges, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for investigating 5 types of biases for LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset with 142 samples referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of human and LLM evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the most cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit their weakness and conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge against perturbations, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

Large language models frequently encounter conflicts between their parametric knowledge and contextual input, often resulting in factual inconsistencies or hallucinations. We propose Self-Reflective Debate for Contextual Reliability (SR-DCR), a lightweight framework that integrates token-level self-confidence with an asymmetric multi-agent debate to adjudicate such conflicts. A critic, deprived of context, challenges a defender who argues from the given passage; a judge model evaluates the debate and determines the context's reliability. The final answer is selected by combining the verdict with model confidence. Experiments on the ClashEval benchmark demonstrate that SR-DCR consistently enhances robustness to misleading context while maintaining accuracy on trustworthy inputs, outperforming both classical debate and confidence-only baselines with minimal computational overhead. The code is available at https://github.com/smiles724/Self-Reflective-Debates.

Portuguese Information Retrieval (IR) lacks public datasets, and relevance assessment for specialized collections remains costly. While Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support relevance assessment, their reliability in non-English specialized domains remains unclear. We introduce NormasTCU (https://huggingface.co/datasets/LeandroRibeiro/NormasTCU), a Brazilian Portuguese IR dataset with 14,469 legal documents, 46 queries, and 3,048 human judgments over 812 query-document pairs. Using NormasTCU, we evaluated LLM-as-a-judge for relevance assessment by prompting three models with two prompt techniques to grade these pairs. We then compared the rankings of 15 IR systems derived from LLM-generated and human reference qrels. LLMs consistently showed a positive scoring bias (mean absolute error: 0.46--0.66 on a 0-2 scale). Furthermore, pair-level agreement with human judgments achieved only fair to moderate levels, with Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.32 to 0.53. Despite this bias, LLM-generated judgments often yielded highly similar system rankings for nDCG@10 and MRR (observed Kendall's tau greater than or equal 0.90, although the bootstrap confidence intervals did not always remain above this threshold), but were less reliable for P@10 and R@10. Notably, LLM-based rankings were sometimes more strongly correlated with the reference ranking than individual human annotations were. As a practical implication, our results suggest that LLMs could effectively support scalable relevance assessment in specialized Portuguese corpora when evaluated using nDCG or MRR (rank-aware metrics), but they should be avoided when relying on precision or recall.

Hallucinations are a persistent problem with Large Language Models (LLMs). As these models become increasingly used in high-stakes domains, such as healthcare and finance, the need for effective hallucination detection is crucial. To this end, we propose a versatile framework for zero-resource hallucination detection that practitioners can apply to real-world use cases. To achieve this, we adapt a variety of existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques, including black-box UQ, white-box UQ, and LLM-as-a-Judge, transforming them as necessary into standardized response-level confidence scores ranging from 0 to 1. To enhance flexibility, we introduce a tunable ensemble approach that incorporates any combination of the individual confidence scores. This approach enables practitioners to optimize the ensemble for a specific use case for improved performance. To streamline implementation, the full suite of scorers is offered in this paper's companion Python toolkit, UQLM. To evaluate the performance of the various scorers, we conduct an extensive set of experiments using several LLM question-answering benchmarks. We find that our tunable ensemble typically surpasses its individual components and outperforms existing hallucination detection methods. Our results demonstrate the benefits of customized hallucination detection strategies for improving the accuracy and reliability of LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation, where LLMs select a score from multiple rubrics, has received less analysis. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias: LLMs prefer score options appearing at specific positions in the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate consistent position bias. To mitigate this bias, we propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions. We show that aggregating scores across balanced permutations not only reveals latent position bias, but also improves correlation between the LLM-as-a-Judge and human. Our results suggest that rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge is not inherently point-wise and that simple permutation-based calibration can substantially improve its reliability.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare to address complex inquiries, ensuring their reliability remains a critical challenge. Recent studies have highlighted that generic LLMs often struggle in clinical contexts, occasionally producing misleading guidance. To mitigate these risks, this research focuses on the domain-specific adaptation of Llama-2-7B using the Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) technique. By injecting trainable low-rank matrices into the Transformer layers, we efficiently adapted the model using authentic patient-physician transcripts while preserving the foundational knowledge of the base model. Our objective was to enhance precision and contextual relevance in responding to medical queries by capturing the specialized nuances of clinical discourse. Due to the resource-intensive nature of large-scale human validation, the model's performance was evaluated through a dual-track framework: Track A utilized traditional lexical similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE), while Track B employed an "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm using GPT-4 for semantic assessment. Our results demonstrate that while the LoRA-enhanced model achieved significant improvements across all quantitative lexical dimensions, a profound disagreement surfaced in the GPT-4 evaluation, which marginally favored the baseline model's conversational flow. This metric divergence underscores a pivotal finding: traditional automated scores may not fully reflect clinical utility. Consequently, we propose that while automated metrics and LLM judges serve as valuable developmental proxies, rigorous validation by human medical experts remains an indispensable requirement for the safe deployment of LLMs in healthcare settings.

Deepfake detection models often generate natural-language explanations, yet their reasoning is frequently ungrounded in visual evidence, limiting reliability. Existing evaluations measure classification accuracy but overlook reasoning fidelity. We propose DeepfakeJudge, a framework for scalable reasoning supervision and evaluation, that integrates an out-of-distribution benchmark containing recent generative and editing forgeries, a human-annotated subset with visual reasoning labels, and a suite of evaluation models, that specialize in evaluating reasoning rationales without the need for explicit ground truth reasoning rationales. The Judge is optimized through a bootstrapped generator-evaluator process that scales human feedback into structured reasoning supervision and supports both pointwise and pairwise evaluation. On the proposed meta-evaluation benchmark, our reasoning-bootstrapped model achieves an accuracy of 96.2\%, outperforming 30x larger baselines. The reasoning judge attains very high correlation with human ratings and 98.9\% percent pairwise agreement on the human-annotated meta-evaluation subset. These results establish reasoning fidelity as a quantifiable dimension of deepfake detection and demonstrate scalable supervision for interpretable deepfake reasoning. Our user study shows that participants preferred the reasonings generated by our framework 70\% of the time, in terms of faithfulness, groundedness, and usefulness, compared to those produced by other models and datasets. All of our datasets, models, and codebase are https://github.com/KjAeRsTuIsK/DeepfakeJudge{open-sourced}.

Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for evaluating the performance of LLMs has recently garnered attention. Nonetheless, this type of approach concurrently introduces potential biases from LLMs, raising concerns about the reliability of the evaluation results. To mitigate this issue, we propose and study two versions of many-shot in-context prompts, Reinforced and Unsupervised ICL, for helping GPT-4o-as-a-Judge in single answer grading. The former uses in-context examples with model-generated rationales, and the latter without. Based on the designed prompts, we investigate the impact of scaling the number of in-context examples on the agreement and quality of the evaluation. Furthermore, we first reveal the symbol bias in GPT-4o-as-a-Judge for pairwise comparison and then propose a simple yet effective approach to mitigate it. Experimental results show that advanced long-context LLMs, such as GPT-4o, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot regime. Meanwhile, the experimental results further verify the effectiveness of the symbol bias mitigation approach.

Benchmarking video-language models has largely focused on short clips and single-sentence metrics, leaving open whether current systems can generate accurate long-form, paragraph-level descriptions. We introduce CLIP-CC-Bench, an evaluation suite for long-form video description built from 5 hours of movie content segmented into 90-second clips, each paired with an expert-written paragraph-style reference. The evaluation suite employs an ensemble of five state-of-the-art LLM-based embedding models to increase reliability and mitigate single-model bias, and applies two complementary methodologies: (i) coarse-grained semantic matching and (ii) fine-grained semantic matching to compare model-generated descriptions against CLIP-CC-Bench references. Using this framework, we evaluate 17 state-of-the-art video-language models and report both their Borda-aggregated rankings and their average scores on CLIP-CC-Bench. We further quantify the protocol's internal reliability through inter-judge agreement and bootstrap ranking stability. We release standardized evaluation scripts, model outputs, and aggregation tools at https://github.com/Multimodal-Intelligence-Lab/CLIP-CC-Bench to support reproducibility. CLIP-CC-Bench provides a practical evaluation framework for long-form video description, filling a gap left by existing short-clip and QA-only benchmarks.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal question remains challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) is a core component of human--computer interaction and an increasingly important front-end for LLM-based assistants and agents. However, most current ASR systems still follow a single-pass paradigm, which is poorly aligned with human communication, where misunderstandings are resolved through iterative clarification and refinement. This mismatch makes it difficult to correct meaning-critical errors once they occur. Meanwhile, token-level metrics such as WER or CER cannot adequately reflect such a problem. To address these limitations, we formulate Interactive ASR as a multi-turn refinement task and propose Agentic ASR, a closed-loop framework that combines a single-pass ASR front-end with semantic correction, intent routing, and reasoning-based editing. We further introduce the Sentence-level Semantic Error Rate (S^2ER), an LLM-based semantic evaluation metric, together with an Interactive Simulation System for scalable and reproducible benchmarking. Experiments on multilingual, named-entity-intensive, and code-switching benchmarks show that iterative interaction consistently reduces semantic errors, with much larger gains in S^2ER than in conventional token-level metrics. Human--AI alignment and ablation studies further validate the reliability of the semantic judge and the robustness of the proposed framework. The code is available at: https://interactiveasr.github.io/ and the live demo is available at https://i-asr.sjtuxlance.com/

The rapid advancement of speech-to-speech (S2S) large language models (LLMs) has significantly improved real-time spoken interaction. However, current evaluation frameworks remain inadequate for assessing performance in complex, multi-turn dialogues. To address this, we introduce MTalk-Bench, a multi-turn S2S benchmark covering three core dimensions: Semantic Information, Paralinguistic Information, and Ambient Sound. Each dimension includes nine realistic scenarios, along with targeted tasks to assess specific capabilities such as reasoning. Our dual-method evaluation framework combines Arena-style evaluation (pairwise comparison) and Rubrics-based evaluation (absolute scoring) for relative and absolute assessment. The benchmark includes both model and human outputs, evaluated by human evaluators and LLMs. Experimental results reveal two sets of findings. Overall performance of S2S LLMs: (1) models excel at semantic information processing yet underperform on paralinguistic information and ambient sounds perception; (2) models typically regain coherence by increasing response length, sacrificing efficiency in multi-turn dialogues; (3) modality-aware, task-specific designs outperform brute scaling. Evaluation framework and reliability: (1) Arena and Rubrics yield consistent, complementary rankings, but reliable distinctions emerge only when performance gaps are large; (2) LLM-as-a-judge aligns with humans when gaps are clear or criteria explicit, but exhibits position and length biases and is reliable on nonverbal evaluation only with text annotations. These results highlight current limitations in S2S evaluation and the need for more robust, speech-aware assessment frameworks.

We examine if frontier chat-based large language models (LLMs) adjust their outputs based on neurodivergence (ND) context in system prompts and describe the nature of these adjustments. Specifically, we propose NDBench, a 576-output benchmark involving two frontier models, three system prompt types (baseline, ND-profile assertion, and ND-profile assertion with explicit instructions for adjustments), four canonical ND profiles, and 24 prompts across four categories, one of which involves an adversarial masking strategy. Four trends emerge consistently from our findings. First, LLMs show significant adaptation under ND context, where fully instructed conditions yield lengthier and more structured outputs, characterized by higher token counts, more headings, and more granular steps (p < 10^-8, Holm-corrected). Second, such adaptation is largely structural in nature: although list density does not change much, there is a marked rise in the frequency of headings and per-step detail. Third, ND persona assertion alone fails to suppress potentially harmful tendencies, as masking-reinforcement decreases only in explicitly instructed cases (36-44% reduction); the reduction rate barely changes in persona assertion conditions. Moreover, reliability analysis of LLM-based harm assessment reveals that only two out of the six dimensions (masking and reinforcement, validation quality) exceed the pre-defined inter-judge agreement criterion (alpha >= 0.67) and thus can be considered primary results. NDBench is made publicly available along with its prompts, outputs, code, and other resources, forming a reproducible framework for auditing future LLMs' adaptation to ND awareness.

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for question answering (QA) and other reference-conditioned evaluation tasks, little is known about their ability to adhere to a provided reference. We identify a critical failure mode of such reference-based LLM QA evaluation: when the provided reference conflicts with the judge model's parametric knowledge, the resulting scores become unreliable, substantially degrading evaluation fidelity. To study this phenomenon systematically, we introduce a controlled swapped-reference QA framework that induces reference-belief conflicts. Specifically, we replace the reference answer with an incorrect entity and construct diverse pairings of original and swapped references with correspondingly aligned candidate answers. Surprisingly, grading reliability drops sharply under swapped references across a broad set of judge models. We empirically show that this vulnerability is driven by judges' over-reliance on parametric knowledge, leading judges to disregard the given reference under conflict. Finally, we find that this failure persists under common prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting a fundamental limitation of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and motivating reference-based protocols that enforce stronger adherence to the provided reference.

We present QuantumLLMInstruct (QLMMI), an innovative dataset featuring over 500,000 meticulously curated instruction-following problem-solution pairs designed specifically for quantum computing - the largest and most comprehensive dataset of its kind. Originating from over 90 primary seed domains and encompassing hundreds of subdomains autonomously generated by LLMs, QLMMI marks a transformative step in the diversity and richness of quantum computing datasets. Designed for instruction fine-tuning, QLMMI seeks to significantly improve LLM performance in addressing complex quantum computing challenges across a wide range of quantum physics topics. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have propelled advancements in computational science with datasets like Omni-MATH and OpenMathInstruct, these primarily target Olympiad-level mathematics, leaving quantum computing largely unexplored. The creation of QLMMI follows a rigorous four-stage methodology. Initially, foundational problems are developed using predefined templates, focusing on critical areas such as synthetic Hamiltonians, QASM code generation, Jordan-Wigner transformations, and Trotter-Suzuki quantum circuit decompositions. Next, detailed and domain-specific solutions are crafted to ensure accuracy and relevance. In the third stage, the dataset is enriched through advanced reasoning techniques, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Task-Oriented Reasoning and Action (ToRA), which enhance problem-solution diversity while adhering to strict mathematical standards. Lastly, a zero-shot Judge LLM performs self-assessments to validate the dataset's quality and reliability, minimizing human oversight requirements.

Current large speech language models (Speech-LLMs) often exhibit limitations in empathetic reasoning, primarily due to the absence of training datasets that integrate both contextual content and paralinguistic cues. In this work, we propose two approaches to incorporate contextual paralinguistic information into model training: (1) an explicit method that provides paralinguistic metadata (e.g., emotion annotations) directly to the LLM, and (2) an implicit method that automatically generates novel training question-answer (QA) pairs using both categorical and dimensional emotion annotations alongside speech transcriptions. Our implicit method boosts performance (LLM-judged) by 38.41% on a human-annotated QA benchmark, reaching 46.02% when combined with the explicit approach, showing effectiveness in contextual paralinguistic understanding. We also validate the LLM judge by demonstrating its correlation with classification metrics, providing support for its reliability.

The continuous advancement of large language models (LLMs) has brought increasing attention to the critical issue of developing fair and reliable methods for evaluating their performance. Particularly, the emergence of cheating phenomena, such as test set leakage and prompt format overfitting, poses significant challenges to the reliable evaluation of LLMs. As evaluation frameworks commonly use Regular Expression (RegEx) for answer extraction, models may adjust their responses to fit formats easily handled by RegEx. Nevertheless, the key answer extraction module based on RegEx frequently suffers from extraction errors. Furthermore, recent studies proposing fine-tuned LLMs as judge models for automated evaluation face challenges in terms of generalization ability and fairness. This paper comprehensively analyzes the entire LLM evaluation chain and demonstrates that optimizing the key answer extraction module improves extraction accuracy and enhances evaluation reliability. Our findings suggest that improving the key answer extraction module can lead to higher judgment accuracy and improved evaluation efficiency compared to the judge models. To address these issues, we propose xFinder, a novel evaluator for answer extraction and matching in LLM evaluation. As part of this process, we create a specialized dataset, the Key Answer Finder (KAF) dataset, to ensure effective model training and evaluation. Generalization tests and real-world evaluations show that the smallest xFinder model, with only 500 million parameters, achieves an average extraction accuracy of 93.42\%. In contrast, RegEx accuracy in the best evaluation framework is 74.38\%. The final judgment accuracy of xFinder reaches 97.61\%, outperforming existing evaluation frameworks and judge models.

Rubric-based evaluation has become a prevailing paradigm for evaluating instruction following in large language models (LLMs). Despite its widespread use, the reliability of these rubric-level evaluations remains unclear, calling for meta-evaluation. However, prior meta-evaluation efforts largely focus on the response level, failing to assess the fine-grained judgment accuracy that rubric-based evaluation relies on. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricEval. Our benchmark features: (1) the first rubric-level meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction following, (2) diverse instructions and responses spanning multiple categories and model sources, and (3) a substantial set of 3,486 quality-controlled instances, along with Easy/Hard subsets that better differentiates judge performance. Our experiments reveal that rubric-level judging remains far from solved: even GPT-4o, a widely adopted judge in instruction-following benchmarks, achieves only 55.97% on Hard subset. Considering evaluation paradigm, rubric-level evaluation outperforms checklist-level, explicit reasoning improves accuracy, and both together reduce inter-judge variance. Through our established rubric taxonomy, we further identify common failure modes and offer actionable insights for reliable instruction-following evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot annotation and LLM-as-a-judge tasks, yet their reliability hinges on how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions. We investigate three dimensions of this interaction: (1) how an LLM's familiarity with data and task definitions affects performance, (2) the extent to which additional information in prompts can correct zero-shot errors ("decision stickiness"), and (3) model susceptibility to misaligned task definitions. Through experiments on toxicity detection across diverse datasets (spanning social media, gaming, news, and forums) using both dense and mixture-of-experts models, we find that nearly two-thirds of zero-shot errors are resistant to correction, with an overall rescue rate (fraction of initial errors corrected by prompting) of only 34.8%. High-confidence errors prove especially resistant to correction. When given misaligned definitions, LLMs follow them while maintaining confidence levels unchanged from the aligned condition. Crucially, we introduce Definition-Specific Familiarity (DSF), which measures alignment between a model's internal concept and the task definition. After controlling for dataset-level confounds, DSF shows a positive association with model performance (partial r = +0.41), while three distinct memorization metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and embedding cosine similarity) all fail to show a positive association. These findings show the limitations of prompt-based correction in annotation tasks, highlighting the importance of definition alignment over text-level memorization.

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.

In this paper, we introduce MATA, a novel evaluation dataset to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Telugu language, comprising 729 carefully curated multiple-choice and open-ended questions that span diverse linguistic dimensions. We evaluate 11 open-weight and closed-source LLMs on our dataset and present a fine-grained analysis of their performance. Further, we empirically show how LLMs rely on superficial heuristics such as answer position and distractor patterns for multiple-choice questions. Finally, we also compare LLM-as-a-judge evaluation with human evaluation for open-ended questions and draw some conclusions on its reliability in a low-resource language. We argue that such fine-grained evaluation is essential for understanding model limitations and can inform the development of more linguistically capable LLMs, while also serving as a foundation for future research in Telugu NLP.

Position bias has proven to be a prevalent issue of modern language models (LMs), where the models prioritize content based on its position within the given context. This bias often leads to unexpected model failures and hurts performance, robustness, and reliability across various applications. Our mechanistic analysis attributes the position bias to two components employed in nearly all state-of-the-art LMs: causal attention and relative positional encodings. Specifically, we find that causal attention generally causes models to favor distant content, while relative positional encodings like RoPE prefer nearby ones based on the analysis of retrieval-augmented question answering (QA). Further, our empirical study on object detection reveals that position bias is also present in vision-language models (VLMs). Based on the above analyses, we propose to ELIMINATE position bias caused by different input segment orders (e.g., options in LM-as-a-judge, retrieved documents in QA) in a TRAINING-FREE ZERO-SHOT manner. Our method changes the causal attention to bidirectional attention between segments and utilizes model attention values to decide the relative orders of segments instead of using the order provided in input prompts, therefore enabling Position-INvariant inferencE (PINE) at the segment level. By eliminating position bias, models achieve better performance and reliability in downstream tasks where position bias widely exists, such as LM-as-a-judge and retrieval-augmented QA. Notably, PINE is especially useful when adapting LMs for evaluating reasoning pairs: it consistently provides 8 to 10 percentage points performance gains in most cases, and makes Llama-3-70B-Instruct perform even better than GPT-4-0125-preview on the RewardBench reasoning subset.

Question Answering (QA) on narrative text poses a unique challenge to current systems, requiring a deep understanding of long, complex documents. However, the reliability of NarrativeQA, the most widely used benchmark in this domain, is hindered by noisy documents and flawed QA pairs. In this work, we introduce LiteraryQA, a high-quality subset of NarrativeQA focused on literary works. Using a human- and LLM-validated pipeline, we identify and correct low-quality QA samples while removing extraneous text from source documents. We then carry out a meta-evaluation of automatic metrics to clarify how systems should be evaluated on LiteraryQA. This analysis reveals that all n-gram-based metrics have a low system-level correlation to human judgment, while LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, even with small open-weight models, can strongly agree with the ranking identified by humans. Finally, we benchmark a set of long-context LLMs on LiteraryQA. We release our code and data at https://github.com/SapienzaNLP/LiteraryQA.

Agentic LLM coding tools compress long session histories into compaction summaries that subsequent sessions inherit as ground truth. This paper documents a failure mode in Claude Code where partial standard output from timed-out commands (exit code 143) is recorded in compaction summaries as confirmed results, propagating false positives across sessions and model versions without re-verification. The underlying mechanism is a conflation of observation and persistence, where information that appeared in the terminal is treated as equivalent to information written to durable storage. This finding extends the analysis of LLM self-evaluation failures reported in prior work on non-determinism in LLM-as-judge grading by showing that agentic tools exhibit analogous reliability deficits when reporting on their own operational outcomes. The failure has direct implications for any workflow that relies on agentic session continuity for data processing, scientific computation, or multi-step automation.

The study of negotiation styles dates back to Aristotle's ethos-pathos-logos rhetoric. Prior efforts primarily studied the success of negotiation agents. Here, we shift the focus towards the styles of negotiation strategies. Our focus is the strategic dialogue board game Diplomacy, which affords rich natural language negotiation and measures of game success. We used LLM-as-a-judge to annotate a large human-human set of Diplomacy games for fine-grained negotiation tactics from a sociologically-grounded taxonomy. Using a combination of the It Takes Two and WebDiplomacy datasets, we demonstrate the reliability of our LLM-as-a-Judge framework and show strong correlations between negotiation features and success in the Diplomacy setting. Lastly, we investigate the differences between LLM and human negotiation strategies and show that fine-tuning can steer LLM agents toward more human-like negotiation behaviors.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently advanced text-driven 3D generation, yet Text-to-CAD remains far from supporting industrial product design. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on generating single-part CAD models and evaluate them using geometric similarity metrics that fail to capture functionality, manufacturability, and assemblability. To address this gap, we introduce MUSE, a Text-to-CAD benchmark focused on complex, editable boundary representation (B-Rep) assemblies. MUSE pairs practical design instances with structured Design Specifications and evaluates generated models through a three-stage protocol: code check, geometric check, and design-intent alignment. The final stage uses design-specific rubrics to assess functionality, manufacturability, and assemblability, moving beyond shape matching toward practical design quality. To enable scalable evaluation, we use a rubric-based visual language model (VLM) judge and validate its reliability through human annotation. Experiments on closed-source and open-source LLMs reveal a clear failure cascade from executable code to valid geometry and finally to engineering-ready design, with even the strongest models achieving limited success on fine-grained engineering criteria. Together, MUSE provides a realistic benchmark and evaluation framework for advancing Text-to-CAD from geometric generation toward true engineering design. Our project website, including the leaderboard, dataset, and code, is available at https://dong7313.github.io/muse-benchmark/.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated notable creative abilities in generating literary texts, including poetry and short stories. However, prior research has primarily centered on English, with limited exploration of non-English literary traditions and without standardized methods for assessing creativity. In this paper, we evaluate the capacity of LLMs to generate Persian literary text enriched with culturally relevant expressions. We build a dataset of user-generated Persian literary spanning 20 diverse topics and assess model outputs along four creativity dimensions-originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration-by adapting the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. To reduce evaluation costs, we adopt an LLM as a judge for automated scoring and validate its reliability against human judgments using intraclass correlation coefficients, observing strong agreement. In addition, we analyze the models' ability to understand and employ four core literary devices: simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and antithesis. Our results highlight both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in Persian literary text generation, underscoring the need for further refinement.

Alignment has become a critical step for instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) to become helpful assistants. However, effective evaluation of alignment for emerging Chinese LLMs is still significantly lacking, calling for real-scenario grounded, open-ended, challenging and automatic evaluations tailored for alignment. To fill in this gap, we introduce AlignBench, a comprehensive multi-dimensional benchmark for evaluating LLMs' alignment in Chinese. Equipped with a human-in-the-loop data curation pipeline, our benchmark employs a rule-calibrated multi-dimensional LLM-as-Judge with Chain-of-Thought to generate explanations and final ratings as evaluations, ensuring high reliability and interpretability. Furthermore, we report AlignBench evaluated by CritiqueLLM, a dedicated Chinese evaluator LLM that recovers 95% of GPT-4's evaluation ability. We will provide public APIs for evaluating AlignBench with CritiqueLLM to facilitate the evaluation of LLMs' Chinese alignment. All evaluation codes, data, and LLM generations are available at https://github.com/THUDM/AlignBench.

RAG-based question-answering (QA) in specialist domains faces a cold-start problem: lack of evaluative benchmarks and absence of labeled data for post-training. We present DoRA (Domain-oriented RAG Assessment), a novel benchmark construction and evaluation framework using only a small set of specialist domain documents. DoRA systematically generates synthetic QA training and evaluation datasets with auditable evidence across five domain-specific intents. To mitigate same-pipeline circularity, DoRA's training and test splits use different LLM families (Claude Sonnet for training; GPT-4o for test) drawn from disjoint seed-document corpora. Instantiated on 40 defense-related documents (written in English), DoRA yields ~6.6K curated instances. Compared against 8 LLM baselines over a benchmark of 1,259 samples, a LoRA-adapted Llama3.1-8B trained on the synthetic training set consistently improves performance over 6 coverage and faithfulness metrics, especially reducing hallucination by more than half under the default GTE retrieval setting, with gains persisting across alternative retrievers and prompting-based baselines. Defense-domain expertise is incorporated in three stages of our evaluation: (a) determining the quality of the synthetic QA generated by DoRA, (b) ascertaining the reliability of LLM-as-judge scores, and (c) evaluating the generalization of the QA pipeline on completely human-written QA examples. We position DoRA as a practical framework for specialist-domain RAG under domain shift, with defense as a high-stakes case study.

Data from online job postings are difficult to access and are not built in a standard or transparent manner. Data included in the standard taxonomy and occupational information database (O*NET) are updated infrequently and based on small survey samples. We adopt O*NET as a framework for building natural language processing tools that extract structured information from job postings. We publish the Job Ad Analysis Toolkit (JAAT), a collection of open-source tools built for this purpose, and demonstrate its reliability and accuracy in out-of-sample and LLM-as-a-Judge testing. We extract more than 10 billion data points from more than 155 million online job ads provided by the National Labor Exchange (NLx) Research Hub, including O*NET tasks, occupation codes, tools, and technologies, as well as wages, skills, industry, and more features. We describe the construction of a dataset of occupation, state, and industry level features aggregated by monthly active jobs from 2015 - 2025. We illustrate the potential for research and future uses in education and workforce development.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently confabulate scientific facts, severely undermining their trustworthiness. Addressing this challenge requires benchmarks that go beyond binary factuality and enable fine-grained evaluation. We introduce ReFACT (Reddit False And Correct Texts), a benchmark of 1,001 expert-annotated question-answer pairs spanning diverse scientific domains for the detection of scientific confabulation. Each instance includes both a scientifically correct answer and a non-factual counterpart annotated with precise error spans and error types. ReFACT enables multi-stage evaluation: (1) confabulation detection, (2) fine-grained error localization, and (3) correction. We benchmark 9 state-of-the-art LLMs, revealing limited performance (about 50 percent accuracy). Even top models such as GPT-4o fail to distinguish factual from confabulated scientific answers, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM-as-judge evaluation paradigms. Our findings highlight the need for fine-grained, human-validated benchmarks to detect and correct scientific confabulation in domain-specific contexts. The dataset is available at: https://github.com/ddz5431/ReFACT

Systems that generate scientific research questions are evaluated today by expert scores, LLM-as-judge ratings, or curated case studies -- all subjective, none falsifiable. We formalize historical backtesting as an alternative: a system generates questions from a corpus frozen at a historical cutoff, the questions are frozen before any access to later literature, and a temporally isolated future corpus then determines whether each question was subsequently answered, partially addressed, independently posed, or ignored, and whether its underlying premise was supported or refuted. The protocol is model-agnostic: any system that emits frozen questions can be scored. We release reproducible astronomy instances with temporally isolated corpora, frozen questions, auditable labels, four reference baselines, and a submission interface. Two findings result. First, evidence-structure-first generation outperforms LLM-only prompting: across a generator decomposition crossed with a four-cutoff stress test (2010-2024, 798 judged questions) whose last window postdates model training, LLM-only generation shows memorized relevance without specific foresight, while a generator using no model weights at all finds questions whose premises the future refutes in every era. Second, a seven-rater agreement study (two blinded human annotators, five judge models, 90 items) indicts the outcome taxonomy rather than the judge: two careful humans agree at kappa = 0.17, every judge model agrees with the professional annotator as well or better (0.17-0.26), and frontier models agree with one another at 0.60 -- certifying an LLM judge by model-model agreement would have overstated its reliability threefold. A prospective instance -- 200 questions frozen 2026-08-17, scored 2027-2030 -- is released so the central claims become contamination-free tests that time itself will grade.

Techniques for reliable rubric-based LLM evaluation -- ensemble judging, bias mitigation, few-shot calibration -- are scattered across papers with inconsistent terminology and partial implementations. We introduce Autorubric, an open-source framework that unifies these rubric-based LLM evaluation lessons with opinionated defaults: analytic rubrics with binary, ordinal, and nominal criteria; single-judge and ensemble evaluation; few-shot calibration; bias mitigations; and psychometric reliability metrics. We validate on three benchmarks: RiceChem (college chemistry grading, 80\% accuracy with 5-shot calibration), ResearcherBench (deep research evaluation, 931 criteria, cross-judge agreement analysis), and CHARM-100, a new chatbot evaluation dataset combining all three criterion types with ground truth labels (87\% binary accuracy, moderate-to-substantial κ). Beyond measurement, per-criterion scores and explanations serve as optimization signals. We demonstrate how Autorubric's rubric-evaluation explanations raise a peer review agent's score from 0.47 to 0.85 (above the 0.82 expert-curated baseline), and its scores serve as RL rewards to produce statistically significant improvement on AdvancedIF (+0.039, Wilcoxon p = 0.032) with positive transfer to IFEval. In all of these cases, Autorubric enabled us to rapidly operationalize various rubric design choices and best practices with minimal effort.

Recent advancements in Large Video Language Models (LVLMs) have highlighted their potential for multi-modal understanding, yet evaluating their factual grounding in video contexts remains a critical unsolved challenge. To address this gap, we introduce Video SimpleQA, the first comprehensive benchmark tailored for factuality evaluation of LVLMs. Our work distinguishes from existing video benchmarks through the following key features: 1) Knowledge required: demanding integration of external knowledge beyond the explicit narrative; 2) Fact-seeking question: targeting objective, undisputed events or relationships, avoiding subjective interpretation; 3) Definitive & short-form answer: Answers are crafted as unambiguous and definitively correct in a short format, enabling automated evaluation through LLM-as-a-judge frameworks with minimal scoring variance; 4) External-source verified: All annotations undergo rigorous validation against authoritative external references to ensure the reliability; 5) Temporal reasoning required: The annotated question types encompass both static single-frame understanding and dynamic temporal reasoning, explicitly evaluating LVLMs factuality under the long-context dependencies. We extensively evaluate 41 state-of-the-art LVLMs and summarize key findings as follows: 1) Current LVLMs exhibit notable deficiencies in factual adherence, particularly for open-source models. The best-performing model Gemini-1.5-Pro achieves merely an F-score of 54.4%; 2) Test-time compute paradigms show insignificant performance gains, revealing fundamental constraints for enhancing factuality through post-hoc computation; 3) Retrieval-Augmented Generation demonstrates consistent improvements at the cost of additional inference time overhead, presenting a critical efficiency-performance trade-off.

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to benchmark the robustness of safety against adversarial attacks. However, we show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming: diverse victim models exhibit distinct generation styles, attacks distort output patterns, and semantic ambiguity varies significantly across jailbreak scenarios. Through a comprehensive audit using 6642 human-verified labels, we reveal that the unpredictable interaction of these shifts often causes judge performance to degrade to near random chance. This stands in stark contrast to the high human agreement reported in prior work. Crucially, we find that many attacks inflate their success rates by exploiting judge insufficiencies rather than eliciting genuinely harmful content. To enable more reliable evaluation, we propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures. Data available at: https://github.com/SchwinnL/LLMJudgeReliability.

LLM-based judges have emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation and are increasingly used to assess, compare, and improve models. However, the reliability of LLM-based judges themselves is rarely scrutinized. As LLMs become more advanced, their responses grow more sophisticated, requiring stronger judges to evaluate them. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on a judge's alignment with human preferences, but often fail to account for more challenging tasks where crowdsourced human preference is a poor indicator of factual and logical correctness. To address this, we propose a novel evaluation framework to objectively evaluate LLM-based judges. Based on this framework, we propose JudgeBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding. JudgeBench leverages a novel pipeline for converting existing difficult datasets into challenging response pairs with preference labels reflecting objective correctness. Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks, with many strong models (e.g., GPT-4o) performing just slightly better than random guessing. Overall, JudgeBench offers a reliable platform for assessing increasingly advanced LLM-based judges. Data and code are available at https://github.com/ScalerLab/JudgeBench .

Safety benchmarks such as HarmBench rely on LLM judges to classify model responses as harmful or safe, yet the judge configuration, namely the combination of judge model and judge prompt, is typically treated as a fixed implementation detail. We show this assumption is problematic. Using a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design, we construct 12 judge prompt variants along two axes, evaluation structure and instruction framing, and apply them using a single judge model, Claude Sonnet 4-6, producing 28,812 judgments over six target models and 400 HarmBench behaviors. We find that prompt wording alone, holding the judge model fixed, shifts measured harmful-response rates by up to 24.2 percentage points, with even within-condition surface rewording causing swings of up to 20.1 percentage points. Model safety rankings are moderately unstable, with mean Kendall tau = 0.89, and category-level sensitivity ranges from 39.6 percentage points for copyright to 0 percentage points for harassment. A supplementary multi-judge experiment using three judge models shows that judge-model choice adds further variance. Our results demonstrate that judge prompt wording is a substantial, previously under-examined source of measurement variance in safety benchmarking.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges for evaluating other models, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt paraphrases remains unmeasured. We introduce JudgeSense, a framework and benchmark for quantifying this property via the Judge Sensitivity Score (JSS), defined as the fraction of paraphrase pairs on which a judge returns an identical decision. Evaluating nine judge models on 494 validated paraphrase pairs, we find that coherence is the only task where judges meaningfully differ, with JSS ranging from 0.389 to 0.992. On factuality, all judges cluster near JSS about 0.63, driven by a polarity-inverted prompt artifact; after correction, factuality JSS rises to about 0.9. Pairwise tasks (preference and relevance) exhibit degenerate always-A behavior in 8 of 9 judges, indicating strong position bias. Model scale does not predict consistency. We release code, decision logs, and a validated paraphrase dataset to support standardized JSS reporting.

LLM judges have become central infrastructure for model evaluations, online grading, and reward modeling. Judges are typically validated by accuracy on golden data, but accuracy says little about whether they are stable under re-prompting, challenge, or sustained pushback. We introduce the Wiggle Framework, a unified stress test for epistemic stability in LLM judges. The framework decomposes judge robustness along three dimensions: Mechanical Consistency (stability under re-prompting and reframing), Single-turn Conviction (stability under a single challenge), and Multi-turn Persistence (stability under sustained or adaptive pressure). We use the framework to study 9 frontier models across 14 judging tasks spanning safety, toxicity, AI writing detection, and political-response evaluation. Every model exhibits substantial wiggle as a judge --- flipping verdicts 25--71\% of the time under static pushback, and 62--91\% with an adversarial LLM persuader. Critically, we find that pressure that succeeds in changing a judge's verdict is almost always net-corrupting with respect to ground truth. Beyond the framework itself, we identify baseline jury majority strength as the most effective single-shot signal for anticipating which items wiggle. Taken together, this is the first apples-to-apples cross-dataset comparison of mechanical, conformity, and persuadability tests in a judging context.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down. But the judge is itself a model behind an API, and a silent version bump or scoring-prompt update changes how it scores -- so every drift alarm is ambiguous between a worse product and a changed judge. We resolve the ambiguity with a fixed, human-labeled anchor set that the current judge re-scores at a steady interleave, a second betting e-process on the judge-versus-human gap, and a guard-window rule returning a verdict in {none, system, judge}. We prove anytime-validity, one-way identification (only the judge can move the anchors), an attribution race whose design law is that the anchors must out-run the main process they guard, and process orthogonality. On two real judge changes, a silent version bump is detected as judge drift in 60/60 runs with zero judge-to-system misattribution, and a contaminating strict-prompt change is correctly attributed on 110 of 120 runs at guard width 300 -- while the industry-default rolling z-test false-alarms on 75% of drift-free streams. Every experiment replicates on a second domain (TL;DR summarization) with nothing re-tuned, and where the domains differ the differences are the ones the race predicts: the strict-prompt change shifts scores harder there, so the anchors fire faster and attribution becomes perfect (240/240). The monitor runs at approximately 0.64 of the cost of strong-judging every item, or 0.21 in a cheaper-but-deafer regime.

A self-evolving agent retires its bad skills by watching them fail, so what happens when the judge cannot see the failures? Skill retirement is the structural constraint that keeps a growing library from drifting below the no-skill baseline, but its guarantee assumes an unbiased reward, which is false for the LLM judges that reference-free tasks force upon us. We show that a biased judge does not merely add noise; it silently switches off the curator. We make this precise with a corrupted-reward analysis and, isolating the causal channel by injecting corruption on top of a deterministic reward, a behavioral study on a reference-free report-writing testbed with a code-generation cross-check. Symmetric noise leaves retirement intact, but false-pass bias (failures slipping through as passes) disables contribution-based retirement past a sharp threshold that no amount of data can cross. Separating genuine retirement from cap-eviction churn shows this mechanism failure is universal, holding across domains and failure rates and sparing only near-zero-false-pass, verifier-like graders. The downstream outcome, though, is regime-dependent: eval quality degrades only where the same corruption also starves skill synthesis, and otherwise holds steady, so the disabled curator is silent, surfacing in no aggregate metric. The contribution is a behavioral safety result, not a performance one. A cheap defect-injection audit then tells an operator, before deployment, which side of the threshold their judge occupies.

LLM-as-judge evaluation has become the de facto standard for scaling model assessment, but the practice is statistically unsound: uncalibrated scores can invert preferences, naive confidence intervals on uncalibrated scores achieve near-0% coverage, and importance-weighted estimators collapse under limited overlap despite high effective sample size (ESS). We introduce Causal Judge Evaluation (CJE), a framework that fixes all three failures. On n=4,961 Chatbot Arena prompts (after filtering from 5k), CJE achieves 99% pairwise ranking accuracy at full sample size (94% averaged across configurations), matching oracle quality, at 14x lower cost (for ranking 5 policies) by calibrating a 16x cheaper judge on just 5% oracle labels (~250 labels). CJE combines three components: (i) AutoCal-R, reward calibration via mean-preserving isotonic regression; (ii) SIMCal-W, weight stabilization via stacking of S-monotone candidates; and (iii) Oracle-Uncertainty Aware (OUA) inference that propagates calibration uncertainty into confidence intervals. We formalize the Coverage-Limited Efficiency (CLE) diagnostic, which explains why IPS-style estimators fail even when ESS exceeds 90%: the logger rarely visits regions where target policies concentrate. Key findings: SNIPS inverts rankings even with reward calibration (38% pairwise, negative Kendall's tau) due to weight instability; calibrated IPS remains near-random (47%) despite weight stabilization, consistent with CLE; OUA improves coverage from near-0% to ~86% (Direct) and ~96% (stacked-DR), where naive intervals severely under-cover.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics like public health where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI truthfulness by enabling humans to supervise systems that may exceed human capabilities--yet humans themselves hold different beliefs and biases that impair their judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies: one with human judges holding either mainstream or skeptical beliefs evaluating factuality claims through AI-assisted debate or consultancy protocols, and a second examining the same problem with personalized AI judges designed to mimic these different human belief systems. In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy with a single-advisor system by 10% overall. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (+15.2% accuracy), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight--leveraging both diverse human and AI judgments to move closer to truth in contested domains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

LLMs-as-judges are the only way to evaluate safety at scale. Despite their importance, LLM-judges themselves are rarely evaluated beyond human agreement in simple, static benchmarks. We therefore investigate two under-explored but crucial properties of LLMs-as-judges: their susceptibility to relying on in context-information, and their steerability to differing safety definitions, which may not align with their internal safety priors. We evaluate the safety judging abilities of many generalist LLMs and safety-specific judges, and investigate the impact of task demonstrations, novel in-context information, and changing safety definitions. We find that while LLM-judges can learn from new information, they are broadly unlikely to adjust their evaluations if the context or safety definition contradicts their prior.

As interactive LLM-based applications are created and refined, model developers need to evaluate the quality of generated text along many possible axes. For simpler systems, human evaluation may be practical, but in complicated systems like conversational chatbots, the amount of generated text can overwhelm human annotation resources. Model developers have begun to rely heavily on auto-evaluation, where LLMs are also used to judge generation quality. However, existing LLM-as-a-judge benchmarks largely focus on simple Q\&A tasks that do not match the complexity of multi-turn conversations. We introduce RankJudge, a benchmark generator for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge on multi-turn conversations grounded in reference documents. RankJudge creates pairs of conversations where one conversation has a single flaw injected into one turn. This construction allows paired conversations to be labeled unambiguously as better or worse, and precisely isolates failure categories to individual turns, enabling a strict joint correctness criterion for judging. We implement RankJudge across the domains of machine learning, biomedicine, and finance, evaluate 21 frontier LLM judges, and rank those judges via the Bradley-Terry model. Our formulation also allows ranking each conversation pair with difficulty ratings, which we use to dynamically curate the evaluation slice to reduce label noise, as confirmed via human annotation. We find that judge rankings are stable under partial observability, coarser correctness criteria, and an alternative random-walk rating algorithm.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to function as a judge by making final rulings based on case claims and facts, which plays a vital role in the judicial domain for supporting court decision-making and improving judicial efficiency. However, existing methods often struggle with logical errors when conducting complex legal reasoning. We propose LegalReasoner, which enhances LJP reliability through step-wise verification and correction of the reasoning process. Specifically, it first identifies dispute points to decompose complex cases, and then conducts step-wise reasoning while employing a process verifier to validate each step's logic from correctness, progressiveness, and potential perspectives. When errors are detected, expert-designed attribution and resolution strategies are applied for correction. To fine-tune LegalReasoner, we release the LegalHK dataset, containing 58,130 Hong Kong court cases with detailed annotations of dispute points, step-by-step reasoning chains, and process verification labels. Experiments demonstrate that LegalReasoner significantly improves concordance with court decisions from 72.37 to 80.27 on LLAMA-3.1-70B. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/weijiezz/LegalHK.

Given the rapid progress of generative AI, there is a pressing need to systematically compare and choose between the numerous models and configurations available. The scale and versatility of such evaluations make the use of LLM-based judges a compelling solution for this challenge. Crucially, this approach requires first to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself. Previous work has focused on instance-based assessment of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. We argue that this setting overlooks critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge's positive or negative bias towards certain systems. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs, and the judge's quality is assessed by comparing the resulting system ranking to a human-based ranking. Beyond overall judge assessment, our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

Almost every paper on LLM jailbreaks and prompt injection reports an attack-success rate (ASR), and that number is assigned not by people but by an automated judge: either a safety classifier trained for the task, or a general chat model prompted to grade. The judge is rarely checked. We check it. Using 596 human-labeled completions from the HarmBench classifier validation set, we compare the two judge families against human majority votes and then attack them. The two families fail in opposite ways. The dedicated classifier over-flags (precision 0.835, recall 0.974); three different LLM-as-judges keep high precision (0.81 to 0.94) but show erratic recall (0.06 to 0.65), so the same responses produce very different ASR depending on which judge scores them. The two families also differ sharply in robustness. Wrappers that leave the harmful text untouched and only add benign framing flip every LLM-judge between 57% and 100% of the time, and a single prepended refusal sentence accounts for much of this (39% to 88%). The dedicated classifier resists these surface attacks (at most 6.7%), but a white-box GCG attack on its open weights flips 70% of confident true positives (21 of 30; 95% CI 54 to 86%) even at a small optimization budget. A two-annotator audit confirms the attacks leave the harm intact: every one of 80 sampled flips still contained the harmful content. Because a large and growing share of reported ASR comes from LLM-judges, many such numbers are unreliable both on average and under deliberate pressure. We recommend that papers report judge precision and recall on a human-labeled slice, report ASR corrected for judge precision, and include an adversarial check of the judge. Our code is released.

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.