Pith. sign in

REVIEW 10 cited by

Learning to Plan & Reason for Evaluation with Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge

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

arxiv 2501.18099 v2 pith:66R6IVCC submitted 2025-01-30 cs.AI cs.CL

Learning to Plan & Reason for Evaluation with Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge

classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords evaluationreasoningfinalmodelscomponentsevalplannerllm-as-a-judgeplan
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Primal Generation, Dual Judgment: Self-Training from Test-Time Scaling

    cs.LG 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

    DuST self-trains LLMs for code generation by ranking their own test-time samples via sandbox execution and applying GRPO, improving judgment by +6.2 NDCG and single-sample pass@1 by +3.1 on LiveCodeBench.

  2. Primal Generation, Dual Judgment: Self-Training from Test-Time Scaling

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DuST uses on-policy RL to train code models on ranking their own sampled solutions by sandbox execution correctness, improving judgment NDCG, pass@1, and Best-of-4 accuracy while showing that SFT on the same data does...

  3. Reasoning Is Not Free: Robust Adaptive Cost-Efficient Routing for LLM-as-a-Judge

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RACER routes between reasoning and non-reasoning LLM judges via constrained distributionally robust optimization to achieve better accuracy-cost trade-offs under distribution shift.

  4. LLMs, You Can Evaluate It! Design of Multi-perspective Report Evaluation for Security Operation Centers

    cs.CR 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MESSALA is a new LLM framework that produces report evaluations closer to veteran SOC practitioners than prior LLM methods by combining a custom checklist with granularization guidelines and multi-perspective scoring.

  5. Plan First, Judge Later, Run Better: A DMAIC-Inspired Agentic System for Industrial Anomaly Detection

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DMAIC-IAD is a DMAIC-inspired multi-agent system using SOP distillation and a pre-trained judge model that improves industrial anomaly detection performance by 37.76% over baselines across four modalities.

  6. Empirical Evidence of Complexity-Induced Limits in Large Language Models on Finite Discrete State-Space Problems with Explicit Validity Constraints

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Large reasoning models exhibit reasoning collapse, with accuracy dropping sharply beyond task-specific complexity thresholds in controlled versions of nine classical reasoning tasks using strict validity validators.

  7. ConsistRM: Improving Generative Reward Models via Consistency-Aware Self-Training

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ConsistRM improves generative reward models via consistency-aware self-training, outperforming vanilla RFT by 1.5% on average across five benchmarks and four base models.

  8. LLM-as-Judge for Semantic Judging of Powerline Segmentation in UAV Inspection

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    An LLM produces consistent categorical judgments and appropriate confidence declines when evaluating powerline segmentation quality under controlled visual degradations, suggesting it can serve as a reliable watchdog.

  9. TaoSR-AGRL: Adaptive Guided Reinforcement Learning Framework for E-commerce Search Relevance

    cs.IR 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0

    TaoSR-AGRL improves e-commerce search relevance by combining dense rule-aware reward shaping with adaptive ground-truth-guided replay in GRPO, reporting gains on Taobao's private offline and online evaluations.

  10. A Survey of Scaling in Large Language Model Reasoning

    cs.AI 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A survey categorizing scaling in LLM reasoning across input size, steps, rounds, training, and future directions, noting that scaling can negatively affect performance.