REVIEW 7 cited by
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge: How Design Choices Impact Evaluation Reliability
read the original abstract
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making
LLMs show omissive bias by underrepresenting religious frameworks in responses to non-religious ethical questions relative to human expectations.
-
A Communication-Theoretic Framework for LLM Agents: Cost-Aware Adaptive Reliability
LLM reliability techniques are unified as communication channel operators, with a new cost-aware router achieving superior quality-cost tradeoffs on hard tasks.
-
When the Judge Changes, So Does the Measurement: Auditing LLM-as-Judge Reliability
Judge upgrades are not interchangeable: only Qwen3 1.7B→4B yields robust adjacent gains, MiniMax adjacent releases do not, and stronger judges reduce but do not remove bias or correlated jury errors.
-
Are LLMs Bad at Moral Reasoning?
Reanalyzing MoReBench by assigning LLMs the task of generating scoring rubrics shows better calibration to human rubrics and suggests stronger LLM moral reasoning than previously reported.
-
ComplexConstraints and Beyond: Expert Rubrics for RLVR
Expert-curated rubrics in the new ComplexConstraints dataset improve LLM instruction following by 12-15% when used as RL training signals, with gains transferring to out-of-distribution agentic benchmarks.
-
Multi-Turn Neural Transparency: Surfacing Neural Activations Improves User Calibration to LLM Behavioral Drift
Multi-turn neural transparency using behavioral vectors and dynamic visualizations improves user anticipation and evaluation of LLM trait expression while reducing overconfidence, per a randomized study with 246 participants.
-
Building Customer Support AI Agents at 100M-User Scale: An Evaluation-Driven Framework
An evaluation-driven framework for customer support AI agents at Nubank integrates context engineering, LLM judges, and A/B testing to deliver up to 37pp NPS gains and strong offline-online correlation across five pro...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.