Who Judges the Judge? LLM Jury-on-Demand: Building Trustworthy LLM Evaluation Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01786v1
• Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 15:26:20 GMT
• Title: Who Judges the Judge? LLM Jury-on-Demand: Building Trustworthy LLM Evaluation Systems
• Authors: Xiaochuan Li, Ke Wang, Girija Gouda, Shubham Choudhary, Yaqun Wang, Linwei Hu, Joel Vaughan, Freddy Lecue,
• Abstract summary: We propose a dynamic, learning-based framework for scalable and context-aware evaluation.<n>Our method trains a set of reliability predictors to assess when LLM judges will agree with human experts.<n> Experiments on summarization and RAG benchmarks show that our dynamic jury system achieves significantly higher correlation with human judgment than both single-judge and static-jury baselines.
• Score: 2.9141470183751674
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become integrated into high-stakes domains, there is a growing need for evaluation methods that are both scalable for real-time deployment and reliable for critical decision-making. While human evaluation is reliable, it is slow and costly. Single LLM judges are biased, and static juries lack adaptability. To overcome these limitations, we propose LLM Jury-on-Demand - a dynamic, learning-based framework for scalable and context-aware evaluation. Our method trains a set of reliability predictors to assess when LLM judges will agree with human experts, leveraging token distributions, embeddings, and structural input features. This enables a fully adaptive evaluation where, for each data point, an optimal jury of the most reliable judges is dynamically selected, and their scores are aggregated using their reliability as weights. Experiments on summarization and RAG benchmarks show that our dynamic jury system achieves significantly higher correlation with human judgment than both single-judge and static-jury baselines. These results highlight the promise of adaptive, learning-based juries for building scalable, more reliable and trustworthy evaluation systems for modern LLMs in high-stakes domains.

Related papers

• Judge Reliability Harness: Stress Testing the Reliability of LLM Judges [1.1699027359021665]
  Judge Reliability Harness is an open source library for constructing validation suites that test the reliability of LLM judges.<n>We evaluate four state-of-the-art judges across four benchmarks spanning safety, persuasion, misuse, and agentic behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T17:27:07Z)
• 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)
• CompassJudger-2: Towards Generalist Judge Model via Verifiable Rewards [72.44810390478229]
  CompassJudger-2 is a novel generalist judge model that overcomes limitations via a task-driven, multi-domain data curation strategy.<n> CompassJudger-2 achieves superior results across multiple judge and reward benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T01:34:24Z)
• 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)
• J4R: Learning to Judge with Equivalent Initial State Group Relative Policy Optimization [69.23273504123941]
  We train judges to be robust to positional biases that arise in more complex evaluation settings.<n>We introduce ReasoningJudgeBench, a benchmark that evaluates judges in diverse reasoning settings not covered by prior work.<n>We train Judge for Reasoning (J4R), a 7B judge trained with EIS-GRPO that outperforms GPT-4o and the next best small judge by 6.7% and 9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T16:50:35Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Judge as A Judge: Improving the Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation through the Judge-Consistency of Large Language Models [68.92020689188887]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven its effectiveness in alleviating hallucinations for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Existing automated evaluation metrics cannot fairly evaluate the outputs generated by RAG models during training and evaluation.<n>This paper introduces the Judge-Consistency (ConsJudge) method, which aims to enhance LLMs to generate more accurate evaluations for RAG models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T04:50:43Z)
• Verdict: A Library for Scaling Judge-Time Compute [5.468405526095168]
  Verdict is an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators.<n>Verdict achieves performance competitive with orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T09:26:44Z)
• 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)

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.