Eval-Pair Matrix: Answer-Paired Meta-Evaluation of LLM Judges for Grounded RAG

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10626v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 07:39:45 GMT
• Title: Eval-Pair Matrix: Answer-Paired Meta-Evaluation of LLM Judges for Grounded RAG
• Abstract summary: We introduce Eval-Pair Matrix, a controlled meta evaluation protocol for source-grounded RAG.<n>We induce one hidden answer-causal contradiction per record, generate answers from perturbed passages with GPT, Grok, and Gemini models, and then use the same models as blind judges to evaluate each answer against the original passages.<n>The experiment contains 300 core records, 897 labeled generator outputs, and 2,683 judge verdicts in a crossed 3 x 3 matrix.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge evaluation is widely used for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but reusing the same model family as both generator and judge makes self-leniency difficult to identify. We introduce Eval-Pair Matrix, a controlled meta evaluation protocol for source-grounded RAG. Starting from GaRAGe questions and grounding passages, we induce one hidden answer-causal contradiction per record, generate answers from perturbed passages with GPT, Grok, and Gemini models, and then use the same models as blind judges to evaluate each answer against the original passages. The experiment contains 300 core records, 897 labeled generator outputs, and 2,683 judge verdicts in a crossed 3 x 3 matrix; the primary analysis uses 275 fully validated records. Instead of comparing diagonal and off-diagonal cells across different answers, we estimate same-model effects by pairing judges on the exact same candidate answer. This changes the interpretation: diagonal and off diagonal F1 are similar, and the paired same-model recall effect is near zero (-0.5 pp; 95% cluster bootstrap CI [-2.7, +1.7]). The only robust paired gap is lower matching-judge flagging for answers that avoided the induced claim (-4.3 pp). A targeted human evaluation finds that reviewed apparent false positives are alternate source-error detections, mistakes in labeling whether the induced claim was adopted, or unclear cases; none were adjudicated as genuine false alarms. The lesson is methodological: RAG judge studies should report full matrices, answer-paired effects, behavior strata, and label-task alignment.

Related papers

• Small Language Models as Judges for Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning [57.707881387886516]
  We study whether smaller language models can serve as efficient and reliable rubric-based judges.<n>We compare three ways of extracting criterion-level judgments from small models: Generative verdicts, Yes/No Logprob margins, and Probe judges.<n>Across both datasets, the Qwen3-1.7B Probe judge achieves the strongest criterion-level agreement among these methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T20:00:17Z)
• Why RAGs Hallucinate: Penalty-Aware Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems with Knowledge-Gap Canaries [0.0]
  Volume-based accuracy rewards retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems for guessing.<n>We present a penalty-aware evaluation framework for deployed RAG products.<n>We find that accuracy when answering is closely clustered across systems (97.0-98.0%), while canary violation rates differ roughly sixfold (16.7% vs. 98.1%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T20:17:01Z)
• AdversaBench: Automated LLM Red-Teaming with Multi-Judge Confirmation and Cross-Model Transferability [16.27940179594792]
  AdversaBench is an end-to-end red-teaming pipeline that mutates seed prompts with five structured operators.<n>We report experiments on 45 seeds across three categories: reasoning, instruction-following, and tool use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:50:51Z)
• Turning Bias into Bugs: Bandit-Guided Style Manipulation Attacks on LLM Judges [65.92623263645139]
  We introduce BITE, a black-box adversarial framework that learns semantics-preserving edits to mislead an LLM judge.<n>BITE achieves an attack success rate exceeding 65% and raises scores by 1-2 points on a 9-point scale.<n>Our findings expose a fundamental weakness in the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm and motivate robust, attack-aware evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T05:24:09Z)
• GAMBIT: A Three-Mode Benchmark for Adversarial Robustness in Multi-Agent LLM Collectives [48.545980031973556]
  GAMBIT is a benchmark with three evaluation modes and two independent scores for evaluating imposter detectors.<n>The benchmark comes with a dataset of 27,804 labeled instances spanning 240 co-evolved imposter strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-09T16:07:23Z)
• SURE-RAG: Sufficiency and Uncertainty-Aware Evidence Verification for Selective Retrieval-Augmented Generation [6.604874054866016]
  We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property.<n>A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals.<n>We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T09:05:40Z)
• GSAR: Typed Grounding for Hallucination Detection and Recovery in Multi-Agent LLMs [0.0]
  We present a groundedness framework that partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary)<n>GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T16:20:28Z)
• Criterion Validity of LLM-as-Judge for Business Outcomes in Conversational Commerce [10.670366057920205]
  Multi-dimensional dialogue evaluation is widely used to assess conversational AI.<n>It remains largely untested whether quality scores are associated with the downstream outcomes they are meant to serve.<n>We test a 7-dimension evaluation rubric (implemented via LLM-as-Judge) against verified business conversion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T04:47:42Z)
• C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [0.6138671548064355]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>We introduce C2-Faith, a benchmark that targets two complementary dimensions of faithfulness: causality (does each step logically follow from prior context?) and coverage.<n>We evaluate three frontier judges under three tasks: binary causal detection, causal step localization, and coverage scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T13:36:47Z)
• Dependence-Aware Label Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge via Ising Models [55.94503936470247]
  Large-scale AI evaluation increasingly relies on aggregating binary judgments from $K$ annotators, including judges.<n>Most classical methods assume annotators are conditionally independent given the true label $Yin0,1$, an assumption often violated by LLM judges.<n>We study label aggregation through a hierarchy of dependence-aware models based on Ising graphical models and latent factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T21:26:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• LLMs Can Patch Up Missing Relevance Judgments in Evaluation [56.51461892988846]
  We use large language models (LLMs) to automatically label unjudged documents. We simulate scenarios with varying degrees of holes by randomly dropping relevant documents from the relevance judgment in TREC DL tracks. Our method achieves a Kendall tau correlation of 0.87 and 0.92 on an average for Vicuna-7B and GPT-3.5 Turbo respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T00:32:19Z)

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.