AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22485v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:46:15 GMT
• Title: AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents
• Authors: Sudip Dasgupta, Himanshu Shankar,
• Abstract summary: This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents.<n>It uses modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents.<n>It achieves 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents. Unlike prior solutions focused on unstructured texts or limited compliance checks, this framework leverages modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents for accuracy, consistency, completeness, and clarity. Specialized agents, each responsible for discrete review criteria such as template compliance or factual correctness, operate in parallel or sequence as required. Evaluation outputs are enforced to a standardized, machine-readable schema, supporting downstream analytics and auditability. Continuous monitoring and a feedback loop with human reviewers allow for iterative system improvement and bias mitigation. Quantitative evaluation demonstrates that the AI Agent-as-Judge system approaches or exceeds human performance in key areas: achieving 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document, with a 95% agreement rate between AI and expert human judgment. While promising for a wide range of industries, the study also discusses current limitations, including the need for human oversight in highly specialized domains and the operational cost of large-scale LLM usage. The proposed system serves as a flexible, auditable, and scalable foundation for AI-driven document quality assurance in the enterprise context.

Related papers

• Towards Robust Fact-Checking: A Multi-Agent System with Advanced Evidence Retrieval [1.515687944002438]
  The rapid spread of misinformation in the digital era poses significant challenges to public discourse.<n>Traditional human-led fact-checking methods, while credible, struggle with the volume and velocity of online content.<n>This paper proposes a novel multi-agent system for automated fact-checking that enhances accuracy, efficiency, and explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T02:39:27Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• The Great Nugget Recall: Automating Fact Extraction and RAG Evaluation with Large Language Models [53.12387628636912]
  We propose an automatic evaluation framework that is validated against human annotations.<n>This approach was originally developed for the TREC Question Answering (QA) Track in 2003.<n>We observe strong agreement at the run level between scores derived from fully automatic nugget evaluation and human-based variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T12:55:06Z)
• Completing A Systematic Review in Hours instead of Months with Interactive AI Agents [21.934330935124866]
  We introduce InsightAgent, a human-centered interactive AI agent powered by large language models.<n>InsightAgent partitions a large literature corpus based on semantics and employs a multi-agent design for more focused processing.<n>Our user studies with 9 medical professionals demonstrate that the visualization and interaction mechanisms can effectively improve the quality of synthesized SRs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T02:57:23Z)
• VeriLA: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Interpretable Verification of LLM Agent Failures [3.075266204492352]
  Large language model (LLM) agents in compound AI systems often fail to meet human standards, leading to errors that compromise the system's overall performance.<n>This paper introduces a human-centered evaluation framework for verifying LLM Agent failures (VeriLA)<n>VeriLA systematically assesses agent failures to reduce human effort and make these agent failures interpretable to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-16T21:11:18Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents [61.33974108405561]
  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 present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:57:02Z)
• PROXYQA: An Alternative Framework for Evaluating Long-Form Text Generation with Large Language Models [72.57329554067195]
  ProxyQA is an innovative framework dedicated to assessing longtext generation. It comprises in-depth human-curated meta-questions spanning various domains, each accompanied by specific proxy-questions with pre-annotated answers. It assesses the generated content's quality through the evaluator's accuracy in addressing the proxy-questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T18:12:25Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Multisource AI Scorecard Table for System Evaluation [3.74397577716445]
  The paper describes a Multisource AI Scorecard Table (MAST) that provides the developer and user of an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) system with a standard checklist. The paper explores how the analytic tradecraft standards outlined in Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 203 can provide a framework for assessing the performance of an AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T03:37:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.