Beyond Accuracy: A Dual-Judge Evaluation Protocol for Vision-Language Models in Legally Grounded Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24258v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:49:46 GMT
• Title: Beyond Accuracy: A Dual-Judge Evaluation Protocol for Vision-Language Models in Legally Grounded Tasks
• Abstract summary: We contribute a dual-judge protocol that pairs a standard 0-10 quality judge with a strict binary semantic-equivalence judge against a human-curated reference.<n>We study a controlled, visually grounded regulatory task, whose meaning is a codified question with a known reference for every input.
• Score: 1.2555090617748867
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI systems are increasingly evaluated for legally accountable settings, where correct outputs must also be justifiable against an applicable legal standard. Existing legal-AI benchmarks and LLM-as-judge protocols provide important infrastructure for measuring task performance and open-ended response quality. We contribute one additional evaluation signal: a dual-judge protocol that pairs a standard 0-10 quality judge with a strict binary semantic-equivalence judge against a human-curated reference. We study a controlled, visually grounded regulatory task - UK traffic-sign interpretation, whose meaning is a codified question with a known reference for every input - and measure not merely whether the two judges disagree (by construction they must) but how much and where. On 4,680 evaluations under seven visibility levels and two occlusion modes, the two judges are moderately associated (point-biserial r = 0.644), while revealing an asymmetric Type II pattern affecting 8.0% of all evaluations. Its distribution is instructive: the marginal rate peaks at high visibility (14.2% at v = 0.8) simply because high-scoring answers are common there, but conditioned on the answer already scoring above 7, the rate is highest under heavy occlusion (54-63% at v <= 0.3), so a high quality score is least trustworthy when the input is most degraded. We are explicit that the signal is a property of this judge and reference: a 49-row human check shows the 0-10 judge aligns closely with everyday-reader judgement (Pearson r = 0.81; r = 0.80 with the LLM accuracy sub-score), while the equivalence judge is fairly but one-directionally stricter. The protocol adds one LLM call per evaluation and surfaces a signal single-judge protocols do not report. We release the prompt template, occluded variants, and full evaluation results.

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)
• 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)
• Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution [0.0]
  We study the calibration question for citation quality in deep-research systems.<n>We score 8 off-the-shelf LLM judges against gold labels over 1,248 rubric decisions.<n>Our results show that this calibration does not require the most expensive available model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T17:01:40Z)
• JudgeSense: A Benchmark for Prompt Sensitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems [0.0]
  Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges for evaluating other models.<n>We introduce JudgeSense, a framework and benchmark for quantifying this property via the Judge Sensitivity Score (JSS)<n>On factuality, all judges cluster near JSS about 0.63, driven by a polarity-inverted prompt artifact.<n>We release code, decision logs, and a validated paraphrase dataset to support standardized JSS reporting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T00:08:30Z)
• When LLM Judge Scores Look Good but Best-of-N Decisions Fail [0.29465623430708904]
  Large language models are often used as judges to score candidate responses, then validated with a single global metric.<n>This can be misleading when the real deployment task is best-of-n selection within a prompt.<n>For judge-based selection, the relevant audit should report within-prompt signal, tie rates, and recovery/top-1 accuracy, not global agreement alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T23:40:03Z)
• 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)
• Evaluative Fingerprints: Stable and Systematic Differences in LLM Evaluator Behavior [0.0]
  We find that judges are consistent, but not with each other; they are consistent with themselves.<n>Across 3,240 evaluations, inter-judge agreement is near-zero.<n>Averaging judges' scores produces a synthetic verdict that corresponds to no judge's actual values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T17:02:22Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• J4R: Learning to Judge with Equivalent Initial State Group Relative Policy Optimization [69.23273504123941]
  We train judges to be robust to positional biases that arise in more complex evaluation settings.<n>We introduce ReasoningJudgeBench, a benchmark that evaluates judges in diverse reasoning settings not covered by prior work.<n>We train Judge for Reasoning (J4R), a 7B judge trained with EIS-GRPO that outperforms GPT-4o and the next best small judge by 6.7% and 9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T16:50:35Z)
• Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Indeterminacy [65.137380612741]
  We introduce a framework for validating LLM-as-a-judge systems under rating indeterminacy.<n>We demonstrate that differences in how humans and LLMs resolve rating indeterminacy when responding to forced-choice rating instructions can heavily bias validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T22:09:47Z)

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.