Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.27106v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 02:06:37 GMT
• Title: Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks
• Abstract summary: We show that large language models (LLMs) have low intra-rater reliability in their assigned scores across different runs.<n>This variance makes their ratings inconsistent, almost arbitrary in the worst case.<n>We quantify this inconsistency across different NLG tasks and benchmarks and see if judicious use of LLM judges can still be useful following proper guidelines.
• Score: 4.757470449749876
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Natural Language Generation (NLG) continues to be widely adopted, properly assessing it has become quite difficult. Lately, using large language models (LLMs) for evaluating these generations has gained traction, as they tend to align more closely with human preferences than conventional n-gram or embedding-based metrics. In our experiments, we show that LLM judges have low intra-rater reliability in their assigned scores across different runs. This variance makes their ratings inconsistent, almost arbitrary in the worst case, making it difficult to measure how good their judgments actually are. We quantify this inconsistency across different NLG tasks and benchmarks and see if judicious use of LLM judges can still be useful following proper guidelines.

Related papers

• Examining Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges in Non-Verifiable LLM Post-Training [75.98427023288052]
  Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges provide a promising path for extending the success of reasoning models to non-verifiable domains.<n>This study investigates the actual impact of non-reasoning and reasoning judges in reinforcement-learning-based LLM alignment.<n>We find that reasoning-judge-trained policies achieve such strong performance by learning to generate highly effective adversarial outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T17:57:06Z)
• Who can we trust? LLM-as-a-jury for Comparative Assessment [42.32900791516691]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied as automatic evaluators for natural language generation assessment.<n>LLMs judges vary substantially in performance across tasks and aspects, and their judgment probabilities may be biased and inconsistent.<n>We 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T17:04:02Z)
• CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation [21.96013518286442]
  We introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework for judge scores.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders.<n> CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:17:55Z)
• A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground Truth [4.9467757325435775]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.<n>Treating all judges equally can yield biased leaderboards and misleading uncertainty estimates.<n>We propose a judge-aware ranking framework that extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by introducing judge-specific discrimination parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T15:01:28Z)
• Are We on the Right Way to Assessing LLM-as-a-Judge? [16.32248269615178]
  We introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without requiring human annotation.<n>Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency and global logical consistency.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T23:49:55Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [8.67484421243584]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed as evaluators for complex tasks.<n>There are various biases within LLM-as-a-Judge, which adversely affect the fairness and reliability of judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T15:25:23Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [11.948519516797745]
  We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Models [55.60306377044225]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. This paper explores two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-15T22:02:12Z)

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.