Skip to content

SESSE: Sketch, Expand, Sort, Summarize, Evaluate -- LLM-as-Judge Evaluation via Structured Decomposition

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 23 references
Computer Science

Abstract

LLM-as-judge evaluation reduces response quality assessment to a single holistic A/B preference choice, providing no mechanism to isolate which quality dimensions drove the preference or distinguish model errors from genuine label ambiguity. We propose SESSE (Sketch, Expand, Sort, Summarize, Evaluate), a training-free framework that decomposes holistic judgment into structured sub-questions mined directly from the judge's own error cases; requiring no oracle responses, task-specific rubrics, or fine-tuning. On RewardBench (n=1,000), SESSE achieves near-parity with the chain-of-thought baseline and is competitive with RISE-Judge-32B (92.7%), a fine-tuned specialist, while remaining fully training-free. Per-criterion vote evidence provides an interpretable audit trail for diagnosing label ambiguity and judge failure modes unavailable from a single holistic output token.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Beyond Scores: Understanding LLM-as-a-Judge Mechanisms in Summarization Evaluation

This work investigates LLM-based evaluators of natural language generation quality mechanistically through an eight-attack perturbation taxonomy across the Readability and Adequacy dimensions of NLG quality, a generation pipeline that produces paired clean and corrupt summaries with controlled error intensity and expli...

Himil Vasava, Ming-Zhou Jiang · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Oct 2026

How Much Do LLM-as-a-Judge Design Choices Matter? A Systematic Comparison of Prompt Designs, Rating Scales, and Models

Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design these judges. Typically, researchers choose the prompt, rating scale, and model intuitively. If these choices change the judge's verdicts, two studies can reach different...

Laurène Vaugrante, Thilo Hagendorff · 0 citations
Review Open access Aug 2026

Large language models as judges: recent advances in LLM-based evaluation, critique, preference modeling, and feedback for text and code

This survey provides a comprehensive overview of recent advances in LLM-based evaluation, covering techniques, applications, and challenges across domains, with future directions emphasizing standardized protocols, uncertainty estimation, and human–AI collaboration.

M. Nadăş · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.

A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al. · 1 citation
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

OSCAR: Order-aware Scoring and Calibration for AI Rankings

Judge-specific sensitivity is useful for aggregating pairwise LLM evaluations, but its interpretation depends on which systematic presentation effects the ranking model includes. We introduce OSCAR, an order-aware framework for scoring and calibrating AI rankings, and study position as one such effect. In released judg...

You Liu, Yue Liu, Quanchao Lu et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.