LLM-as-a-Judge for Human-AI Co-Creation: A Reliability-Aware Evaluation Framework for Coding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27727v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:20:22 GMT
• Title: LLM-as-a-Judge for Human-AI Co-Creation: A Reliability-Aware Evaluation Framework for Coding
• Abstract summary: rubric-driven LLM-as-a-Judge framework is presented for contest-style human-AI co-creation.<n>Co-creation success is found to concentrate early, with Success-at-Turn rising to 0.8533 at the first observed turn.<n>On the judging side, the best held-out scores reach 0.5937 for ROC-AUC, 0.6904 for PR-AUC, and 0.5000 for MCC test.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are increasingly employed both as judges for evaluating open-ended outputs and as co-creation partners in AI-assisted programming; yet rigorous evaluation in human-AI co-creation settings remains underdeveloped as judgments must be reliable, comparable across models, and interpretable over multi-turn interaction. To address this gap, a rubric-driven LLM-as-a-Judge framework is presented for contest-style human-AI co-creation in coding and software engineering (SE). The framework is built around schema-constrained judge outputs, validation and repair mechanisms, grouped and split by user and problem to prevent trajectory leakage, and participant-level NONBLIND context. Multiple LLM judges are assessed through a multi-metric protocol covering discrimination (ROC-AUC, PR-AUC), thresholded decision quality (MCC), probabilistic reliability (LogLoss, Brier score, ECE), and inter-judge agreement (Cohen's and Fleiss' k). Human-AI co-creation is further examined through trajectory-level signals, including turn-wise confidence, Success-at-Turn, time-to-success, revision churn, and CodeBLEU. Co-creation success is found to concentrate early, with Success-at-Turn rising to 0.8533 at the first observed turn and stabilizing at 0.8641 by turn 6. Revision behavior, however, remains heterogeneous, suggesting that productive progress can emerge through either incremental refinement or broader restructuring. On the judging side, the best held-out scores reach 0.5937 for ROC-AUC, 0.6904 for PR-AUC, and 0.5000 for MCC test, while inter-judge consistency remains modest overall (mean pairwise Cohen's k = 0.1592, Fleiss' k = 0.0696). Taken together, this work offers an auditable and reproducible evaluation methodology that links reliability-aware LLM judging with trajectory-based analysis of human-AI co-creation, providing a practical evaluation template for future AI-assisted coding and SE.

Related papers

• Governed Human-AI Prioritization Under Uncertainty: Adaptive Estimation and Dependency-Constrained Portfolio Selection [0.0]
  AI-native software engineering increasingly combines human judgment, historical analogy, parametric estimation, and AI-generated forecasts inside the same prioritization decision.<n>We study five quantitative operators used in the D-POAF decision practice: Business Value Score (BVS), Effort and Risk Score (ERS), Prioritization Value Score (PVS), Collective Score (CCS), and Optimal Development Path (ODP)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T14:04:37Z)
• CauTion: Knowing When to Trust LLMs for Ensemble Causal Discovery [51.07538881798502]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising source of domain knowledge to complement statistical inference.<n>We propose CauTion, a framework that reliably integrates LLM domain knowledge into an ensemble of statistical causal discovery algorithms.<n>CauTion consistently outperforms both data-centric and LLM-augmented baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T13:07:43Z)
• Are we still able to recognize pearls? Machine-driven peer review and the risk to creativity: An explainable RAG-XAI detection framework with markers extraction [7.723181091241251]
  We introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns.<n>The framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T08:25:49Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Catching UX Flaws in Code: Leveraging LLMs to Identify Usability Flaws at the Development Stage [0.0]
  This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can provide reliable and consistent assessments at the development stage.<n>We generated over 850 evaluations in three independent evaluations per site using a pipeline of OpenAI's GPT-4o.<n>For issue detection, the model demonstrated moderate consistency, with an average pairwise Cohen's Kappa of 0.50 and an exact agreement of 84%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T21:02:54Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• 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)
• A Confidence-Diversity Framework for Calibrating AI Judgement in Accessible Qualitative Coding Tasks [0.0]
  Confidence-diversity calibration is a quality assessment framework for accessible coding tasks.<n>Analysing 5,680 coding decisions from eight state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that mean self-confidence tracks inter-model agreement closely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T03:47:10Z)
• T2I-Eval-R1: Reinforcement Learning-Driven Reasoning for Interpretable Text-to-Image Evaluation [60.620408007636016]
  We propose T2I-Eval-R1, a novel reinforcement learning framework that trains open-source MLLMs using only coarse-grained quality scores.<n>Our approach integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization into the instruction-tuning process, enabling models to generate both scalar scores and interpretable reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:44:59Z)
• EVALOOOP: A Self-Consistency-Centered Framework for Assessing Large Language Model Robustness in Programming [8.52533297070733]
  EVALOOOP is an assessment framework that evaluates robustness from a self-consistency perspective.<n>We evaluate 96 popular large language models (LLMs) on the MBPP Plus benchmark.<n> EVALOOOP induces a 2.65%-47.62% absolute drop in pass@1 accuracy within ten loops.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T01:02:33Z)
• Crowd Comparative Reasoning: Unlocking Comprehensive Evaluations for LLM-as-a-Judge [90.8674158031845]
  We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses.<n>This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) judgment.<n>Our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:31:06Z)

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.