LLM Judges Can Be Too Generous When There Is No Reference Answer

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12885v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:31:33 GMT
• Title: LLM Judges Can Be Too Generous When There Is No Reference Answer
• Abstract summary: We show that judge models tend to over-credit incorrect answers in the absence of a reference answer.<n>We also show that adding reference answer information to the prompt flips the judge model's correct/incorrect decisions by as much as 85%.<n>Our results emphasize the need for calibrating the LLM judges with a sample with reference-aware evaluation before using them in reference-free setups reliably.
• Score: 4.33144664431421
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM judges are increasingly being used to evaluate open-ended model responses, often in no-reference settings where a ground-truth answer is unavailable. However, can they reliably assess in such evaluation setups? We explore this question in this paper through a two stage pipeline with a) calibration experiments that assess the judge model's knowledge of the task it is evaluating, and b) sensitivity experiments that assess how the judge model's performance is impacted by the presence and positioning of the reference answer in the prompt. Across experiments covering three languages, we show that the judge models we evaluated tend to over-credit incorrect answers in the absence of a reference answer, and adding reference answer information to the prompt flips the judge model's correct/incorrect decisions by as much as 85% in some experimental settings. Comparison with a subset of human annotations shows that these reference-driven changes generally align with human judgments. Our results emphasize the need for calibrating the LLM judges with a sample with reference-aware evaluation before using them in reference-free setups reliably, and our methodology provides a blueprint for researchers and practitioners in doing such calibration of LLM judges for other tasks.

Related papers

• DA-RAC: Distance-Aware Calibration of LLM Judges for Trustworthy AI Auditing [6.639255145889912]
  DA-RAC is a distance-aware reference-anchored calibration method for LLM judges.<n>It improves calibration and reduces false-pass risk relative to zero-shot, chain-of-thought evaluation, and static-anchor baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-15T00:29:25Z)
• CyclicJudge: Mitigating Judge Bias Efficiently in LLM-based Evaluation [6.3121191919394475]
  This work introduces a variance decomposition that partitions benchmark score variance into scenario, generation, judge, and residual components.<n>Based on this analysis, CyclicJudge, a round-robin assignment of judges to scenarios, is demonstrated to be the optimal strategy for a fixed judge-call budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T13:46:32Z)
• Are LLM Evaluators Really Narcissists? Sanity Checking Self-Preference Evaluations [3.262230127283452]
  We show that evaluators may deliver self-preferring verdicts when the judge responds to queries which they completed incorrectly themselves.<n>We introduce an Evaluator Quality Baseline, which compares the probability that a judge incorrectly votes for itself against the probability that it votes for an incorrect response from another model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T04:38:18Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Judges as Evaluators: The JETTS Benchmark of LLM-as-Judges as Test-Time Scaling Evaluators [66.83088028268318]
  This paper introduces the Judge Evaluation for Test-Time Scaling benchmark.<n>It evaluates judge performance in three domains (math reasoning, code generation, and instruction following) under three task settings.<n>Our benchmark shows that while judges are competitive with outcome reward models in reranking, they are consistently worse than process reward models in beam search procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:33:23Z)
• 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)
• 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.