It is argued that LLM-as-judge reports should include dataset slices, bias probes, error-dependence estimates, error-dependence estimates, and protocol audit trails.
Abstract
An LLM-as-judge score can move even when the candidate responses stay fixed, simply because the evaluator has changed. We treat this evaluator-replacement ambiguity as a measurement-validity problem. Across four judgment datasets, we compare two upgrade paths available in practice: scaling Qwen3 dense judges from 1.7B to 32B parameters and moving across MiniMax M2-M2.7 released APIs. The main pattern is that judge upgrades are not interchangeable: only Qwen3 1.7B to 4B gives a robust adjacent gain, while MiniMax adjacent releases do not. Stronger judges reduce but do not remove position and verbosity bias. Repeated-sample juries add little when errors are correlated. Structured debate can move decisions substantially, but without parser and fallback logs those shifts cannot be attributed to deliberation. We argue that LLM-as-judge reports should include dataset slices, bias probes, error-dependence estimates, and protocol audit trails.
Flip rates are insufficient as a complete measure of open-ended conformity, wrong peers harm open-ended revision, evaluators are not neutral, and anchor calibration is necessary.
The AI Bias Firewall (AIBF), a method that audits an applicant tracking system one decision at a time, is presented and a limitation is reported: correcting flagged decisions raises the disparate impact ratio substantially but not to legal parity, because features labeled as merit carry residual proxy correlation.
The results show that high judge agreement can coexist with weak sensitivity to changes in the construct being evaluated, motivating joint reporting of invariance and sensitivity and auditing the validation set itself.
Jianlin Chen, Wenhui Chen, Ziyao Lin et al.· 0 citations
Website redundancy does not have a single fixed meaning. The same repeated element may distract during one task and provide backup during another. We introduce CORA (Counterfactual, Observable Redundancy Audit), which measures repetition load, normal-use tax, and failure-domain recovery reserve separately. Each run retains screenshots, stable element identities, and task traces. A versioned vision-language model proposes the annotations. Typed validation and release checks then determine whether a calibrated dimension can be reported; failed or malformed outputs stay in the fixed denominator. On a transparent mechanistic testbed, the factorized CORA representation separated reserve from normal-use tax and predicted perturbed success more accurately than scalar-load baselines. The model studies then showed why repeatability is not enough: two small local vision-language models produced recurring outputs, but neither instrument met all release requirements. CORA therefore withheld automated scores from both instruments while retaining the raw responses and failure records. Separate checker fixtures confirmed that the typed validator and hardened release gates implement their specifications; these tests do not establish semantic grounding or accuracy on production sites. Taken together, the results position CORA as an auditable candidate procedure for the controlled benchmark studied here rather than a general standard. Human agreement, AI-versus-human accuracy, and validation on independent production sites remain open empirical questions.
When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.
Nuo Chen, Qian Wang, Qingyun Zou et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
LLM judges are often asked to extract criteria and evidence before choosing between candidate answers. This workflow assumes that the intermediate record preserves the information needed for a later verdict. For reasoning-capable models, visible field order does not reveal internal decision order, so we test an observable alternative: persist the evidence in one call and make it the exclusive input to the next. Across 24,000 judgments over HelpSteer3, FeedbackQA, and CoVal, we compare standard pairwise judging, structured one-call judging, two-call evidence locking, and three-call pointwise locking with Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5. Evidence locking reduces agreement with released human preferences by 4 to 6 percentage points and increases answer-order inconsistency by 8 to 10 points relative to structured one-call judging. Pointwise locking is also harmful, while structured evidence elicitation remains close to standard judging. The result holds for both judges and all three datasets. Persisted evidence can support auditability, but it should not replace the source answers at decision time.
Divyansh Singh· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
