Related papers: Context Over Content: Exposing Evaluation Faking i…

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge relies on a critical assumption, namely that high inter-evaluator agreement indicates reliable and objective evaluation. We present two complementary findings that challenge this assumption. \textbf{First}, we…

LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines have become the de facto evaluator for agent safety, yet existing benchmarks treat their verdicts as ground-truth proxies without checking whether the verdicts depend on the agent's behavior or merely on how the…

Currently, there is a trend for the wider public to rely on LLMs for financial or legal consultation, medical and mental support (Chatterji et al., 2025), often accepting the advice provided without necessarily seeking logical verification…

New Large Language Models (LLMs) become available every few weeks, and modern application developers confronted with the unenviable task of having to decide if they should switch to a new model. While human evaluation remains the gold…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators of reasoning quality, yet their reliability and bias in payments-risk settings remain poorly understood. We introduce a structured multi-evaluator framework for assessing LLM…

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant paradigm for evaluating language model outputs, yet LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that compromise evaluation reliability. We present a comprehensive empirical study comparing nine debiasing…

Large language models (LLMs) has been widely adopted as a scalable surrogate for human evaluation, yet such judges remain imperfect and susceptible to surface-level biases. One possible reason is that these judges lack sufficient…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge). This work challenges its reliability by showing that trust judgments by LLMs are biased by disclosed source labels. Using a counterfactual design,…

How reliable are single-response LLM-as-a-judge ratings without references, and can we obtain fine-grained, deterministic scores in this setting? We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to…

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…

As LLM-based agents increasingly operate in high-stakes domains with real-world consequences, ensuring their behavioral safety becomes paramount. The dominant oversight paradigm, LLM-as-a-Judge, faces a fundamental dilemma: how can…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments. This raises the need to examine how such…

Automated answer matching, which leverages LLMs to evaluate free-text responses by comparing them to a reference answer, shows substantial promise as a scalable and aligned alternative to human evaluation. However, its reliability requires…

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…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to automatically label and analyze educational dialogue at scale, yet current pipelines lack reliable ways to detect when models are wrong. We investigate whether reasoning generated by…

We present the Judge Reliability Harness, an open source library for constructing validation suites that test the reliability of LLM judges. As LLM based scoring is widely deployed in AI benchmarks, more tooling is needed to efficiently…

Large language models (LLMs) are evolving fast and are now frequently used as evaluators, in a process typically referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, which provides quality assessments of model outputs. However, recent research points out…

LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks are increasingly trusted to automate evaluation in place of human experts, yet their reliability in high-stakes medical contexts remains unproven. We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete…

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…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than just answer plausibility. We introduce C2-Faith, a…