Evaluating the Reliability and Fidelity of Automated Judgment Systems of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22214v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:12:29 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Reliability and Fidelity of Automated Judgment Systems of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: A Large Language Model (LLM) as judge evaluates the quality of victim Machine Learning (ML) models, specifically LLMs, by analyzing their outputs.<n>Being a comparably new technique, LLMs as judges lack a thorough investigation for their reliability and agreement to human judgment.<n>We test the efficacy of 37 differently sized conversational LLMs in combination with 5 different judge prompts, the concept of a second-level judge, and 5 models fine-tuned for the task as assessors.
• Score: 0.20052993723676893
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: A Large Language Model (LLM) as judge evaluates the quality of victim Machine Learning (ML) models, specifically LLMs, by analyzing their outputs. An LLM as judge is the combination of one model and one specifically engineered judge prompt that contains the criteria for the analysis. The resulting automation of the analysis scales up the complex evaluation of the victim models' free-form text outputs by faster and more consistent judgments compared to human reviewers. Thus, quality and security assessments of LLMs can cover a wide range of the victim models' use cases. Being a comparably new technique, LLMs as judges lack a thorough investigation for their reliability and agreement to human judgment. Our work evaluates the applicability of LLMs as automated quality assessors of victim LLMs. We test the efficacy of 37 differently sized conversational LLMs in combination with 5 different judge prompts, the concept of a second-level judge, and 5 models fine-tuned for the task as assessors. As assessment objective, we curate datasets for eight different categories of judgment tasks and the corresponding ground-truth labels based on human assessments. Our empirical results show a high correlation of LLMs as judges with human assessments, when combined with a suitable prompt, in particular for GPT-4o, several open-source models with $\geqslant$ 32B parameters, and a few smaller models like Qwen2.5 14B.

Related papers

• How Trustworthy Are LLM-as-Judge Ratings for Interpretive Responses? Implications for Qualitative Research Workflows [0.6437935154416734]
  This study examines whether LLM-as-judge evaluations meaningfully align with human judgments of interpretive quality.<n>We generated one-sentence interpretive responses using five widely adopted inference models.<n>Results show that LLM-as-judge scores capture broad directional trends in human evaluations at the model level but diverge substantially in score magnitude.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T15:22:41Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks [11.01213914485374]
  We study large language models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>Our analysis uncovers a strong correlation between judgment performance and the candidate model task performance.<n>As a consequence, we test whether we can predict the behavior of LLM judges using simple features such as part-of-speech tags.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T10:09:41Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge for LLM Evaluation: Fine-tuned Judge Model is not a General Substitute for GPT-4 [29.93673872618022]
  Fine-tuned judge models are claimed to achieve comparable evaluation capability with GPT-4.<n>Our findings indicate that although the fine-tuned judge models achieve high performance on in-domain test sets, even surpassing GPT-4, they underperform GPT-4 across several dimensions, including generalizability, fairness and adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T10:20:52Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.