Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Improve LLM-as-a-Judge Ability as a General Ability

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 2502.11689 v2 pith:C7TFUTNT submitted 2025-02-17 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords judgeabilitymodeldatatrainingapproachgeneralaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

LLM-as-a-Judge leverages the generative and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate LLM responses across diverse scenarios, providing accurate preference signals. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human values, ensuring ethical and reliable AI outputs that align with societal norms. Recent studies have raised many methods to train LLM as generative judges, but most of them are data consuming or lack accuracy, and only focus on LLM's judge ability. In this work, we regard judge ability as a general ability of LLM and implement a two-stage training approach, comprising supervised fine-tuning (SFT) warm-up and direct preference optimization (DPO) enhancement, to achieve judge style adaptation and improve judgment accuracy. Additionally, we introduce an efficient data synthesis method to generate judgmental content. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach, utilizing only about 2% to 40% of the data required by other methods, achieves SOTA performance on RewardBench. Furthermore, our training method enhances the general capabilities of the model by constructing complicated judge task, and the judge signals provided by our model have significantly enhanced the downstream DPO training performance of our internal models in our test to optimize policy model with Judge Model. We also open-source our model weights and training data to facilitate further research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. CompassJudger-2: Towards Generalist Judge Model via Verifiable Rewards

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 7B judge model trained with verifiable reward signals and a margin contrastive loss matches the judgment accuracy of models tens of times larger, and a new benchmark JudgerBenchV2 standardizes judge evaluation.

  2. TreeThink: A Modular Tree Search Library for Mathematical Reasoning with LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    TreeThink provides a modular, asynchronous tree-search library for neural theorem proving with unified REPL clients for Lean, Rocq, and Isabelle and up to 6.3× wall-clock speedup.

  3. Do Biased Models Have Biased Thoughts?

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The manuscript is internally inconsistent: the abstract describes an LLM fairness experiment while the body is a different paper on pilot-wave quantum mechanics, so no coherent result can be assessed.

Pith tools