A Four-Axis Trustworthiness Benchmark for LLM-as-Judge in Principle-Based Regulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14329v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 14:20:38 GMT
• Title: A Four-Axis Trustworthiness Benchmark for LLM-as-Judge in Principle-Based Regulation
• Abstract summary: We release Principle-Bench, 168 cryptoasset financial-promotion scenarios mapped to two UK FCA principles.<n>A calibrated, auditable assessor emits exact per-exemplar counterfactual attributions.<n>Across keyword counting, three sentence-transformer embedders, an open-weight LLM-judge, and a calibrated cascade, no method dominates all four axes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Principle-based regulation, with evaluative standards such as "fair, clear, and not misleading" or "deliver good outcomes", cannot be reduced to binary predicates, and LLM-as-judge is increasingly used as the substitute. Our position is that any such judge must be evaluated on four axes: accuracy, paraphrase robustness, adversarial robustness, and calibration. We release Principle-Bench, 168 cryptoasset financial-promotion scenarios mapped to two UK FCA principles, with paraphrase, adversarial keyword-stuffing, and boundary perturbations authored under a pre-registered rubric; the first benchmark covering all four axes for principle-based regulation. We also introduce Ceca (Calibrated Exemplar-Cluster Assessment): a calibrated, auditable assessor that emits exact per-exemplar counterfactual attributions. Across keyword counting, three sentence-transformer embedders, an open-weight LLM-judge, and a calibrated cascade, no method dominates all four axes. A 120B LLM-judge, strongest on benign inputs, loses 47 accuracy points (0.74 to 0.27) on keyword-stuffed Consumer Duty inputs: "compliance theatre." A second judge from a different model family agrees only at Cohen's kappa = 0.16 on that split, localising the failure to the model rather than the corpus. Any deployment-grade LLM-judge for principle-based regulation must report per-principle adversarial deception and post-hoc calibration alongside aggregate accuracy.

Related papers

• Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration [0.5294698352039444]
  We study absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use cases.<n>We show that a model's task accuracy strongly predicts its judging accuracy.<n>More capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T00:25:39Z)
• SVR: Self-Verifying Refinement via Joint Verdict-Confidence Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Test-Time Compute [62.3458279176813]
  Self-Verifying Refinement is an oracle-free multi-turn reinforcement learning framework.<n>It learns to use self-verification as a compute-control policy.<n>It achieves a macro-average accuracy of 0.563 with only 2.99 inference turns on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T16:20:58Z)
• Statistically Reliable LLM-Based Ranking Evaluation via Prediction-Powered Inference [0.4230349220081444]
  We extend Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics.<n>We make it applicable to hierarchical metrics like Precision@K, where annotations are per-document but the metric is per-query.<n>On the ESCI benchmark, augmenting 30 human annotations with Claude 3 Sonnet judgments reduces the standard error of Precision@4 estimates from 4.45 to 3.50.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T18:01:08Z)
• Calibrate, Don't Curate: Label-Efficient Estimation from Noisy LLM Judges [3.974554103907186]
  We show that in multi-judge evaluation with labeled calibration data, do not discard weak judges by accuracy alone.<n>We explain this reversal with oracle analyses showing that the optimal calibrated risk under proper scoring rules cannot increase when additional judge signals are made available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T18:49:58Z)
• CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation [21.96013518286442]
  We introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework for judge scores.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders.<n> CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:17:55Z)
• Understanding LLM Evaluator Behavior: A Structured Multi-Evaluator Framework for Merchant Risk Assessment [26.786161923794115]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators of reasoning quality, yet their reliability and bias in payments-risk settings remain poorly understood.<n>We introduce a structured multi-evaluator framework for assessing LLM reasoning in Merchant Category Code (MCC)-based merchant risk assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T22:55:16Z)
• 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)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• 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)
• ConfTuner: Training Large Language Models to Express Their Confidence Verbally [58.63318088243125]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as science, law, and healthcare.<n>LLMs are often observed to generate incorrect answers with high confidence, a phenomenon known as "overconfidence"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:25:32Z)
• ObjexMT: Objective Extraction and Metacognitive Calibration for LLM-as-a-Judge under Multi-Turn Jailbreaks [12.396822247035578]
  We present exMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition.<n>Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must output a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence.<n> Accuracy is scored by similarity to gold objectives, then thresholded once on 300 calibration items.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-23T03:32:04Z)
• JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge [80.07261839142548]
  We introduce JudgeLRM, a family of judgment-oriented Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find a negative correlation between SFT performance gains and the proportion of reasoning-demanding samples, revealing the limits of SFT in such scenarios.<n>We show that JudgeLRM consistently outperform SFT-tuned baselines in the same size, as well as other RL and SFT variants, and even surpass state-of-the-art reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:18:51Z)

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.