AURA: Adaptive Uncertainty-aware Refinement for LLM-as-a-Judge Auditing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19714v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 02:26:05 GMT
• Title: AURA: Adaptive Uncertainty-aware Refinement for LLM-as-a-Judge Auditing
• Abstract summary: We propose AURA, an adaptive uncertainty-aware refinement framework for auditing pairwise large language models.<n>AURA iteratively learns a human-consistency signal, propagates reliable evidence, and prioritizes uncertain comparisons for human review.<n>We provide a compact formulation, a stable refinement procedure, and a comprehensive evaluation on both synthetic and real pairwise LLM-answer data.
• Score: 5.259890149301948
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for open-ended generation, as large-scale human evaluation is often expensive and difficult to scale, yet their preferences remain imperfect proxies for human judgment. Existing auditing pipelines often assume that a reliable subset of examples or clean supervision signals are available beforehand, for example from human annotation, heuristic filtering, or the outputs of strong judges. In LLM evaluation, this assumption is fragile: the initial split may inherit judge bias, while human verification is typically too scarce to define stable groups at scale. We propose AURA, an adaptive uncertainty--aware refinement framework for auditing pairwise LLM--as--a--judge decisions under selected human verification. AURA iteratively learns a human-consistency signal, propagates reliable evidence, and prioritizes uncertain comparisons for human review. The key idea is to treat trust in a judge as a latent quantity that is progressively refined as evidence accumulates. We provide a compact formulation, a stable refinement procedure, and a comprehensive evaluation on both synthetic and real pairwise LLM-answer data.

Related papers

• Quantifying and Auditing LLM Evaluation via Positive--Unlabeled Learning [4.114698130306098]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for scalable evaluation.<n>LLMs exhibit systematic biases that are decoupled from semantic quality.<n>Human supervision is costly and typically selective, yielding reliable positive judgments but leaving most outputs unlabelled and potentially mixed in quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T13:26:04Z)
• From Blind Guess to Informed Judgment: Teaching LLMs to Evaluate Materials by Building Knowledge-Augmented Preference Signals [13.95417871252485]
  MaterEval produces evaluations that follow expert rules and provide supporting evidence, and a rule-removed blind guess.<n>We introduce a fast-slow reasoning scheme that decouples large-scale rapid screening from in-depth review on a small subset.<n>Results show that expert rules can be systematically transformed into learnable preference signals, enabling a low-cost and deployable evaluation module.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T08:09:35Z)
• CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging [95.02210956333374]
  We propose a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation.<n>On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T10:59:19Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• 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)
• A Coin Flip for Safety: LLM Judges Fail to Reliably Measure Adversarial Robustness [57.510025257780306]
  We show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming.<n>We propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:13:35Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Who Judges the Judge? LLM Jury-on-Demand: Building Trustworthy LLM Evaluation Systems [2.9141470183751674]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T15:26:20Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• 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)
• DAFE: LLM-Based Evaluation Through Dynamic Arbitration for Free-Form Question-Answering [12.879551933541345]
  We propose the Dynamic Arbitration Framework for Evaluation (DAFE) to evaluate large language models.<n>DAFE employs two primary LLM-as-judges and engages a third arbitrator only in cases of disagreements.<n>We show DAFE's ability to provide consistent, scalable, and resource-efficient assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T15:29:55Z)

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.