Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.12083

All Verdicts are Not Equal: Rethinking LLM Judge Reliability

Vineet Kumar·Darshita Rathore·Anindya Moitra
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LLM-as-a-Judge is the standard paradigm for NLP evaluation, yet its systemic reliability remains poorly understood despite being widely treated as a deterministic ground truth. We present a comprehensive reliability audit, stresstesting six frontier models across four benchmarks, five prompt formats, two presentation orders, three sampling temperatures, and ten repetitions per condition. Our empirical analysis reveals severe vulnerabilities: verdicts change across identical replications at temperature zero, position-order swaps flip the majority of verdicts on challenging tasks, and the most deterministic judge achieves perfect consistency by trivially repeating incorrect verdicts, agreeing with ground truth only 51% of the time. To formalize these multi-faceted failure modes, we introduce the trustworthy verdict rate (T ), a unified metric capturing the joint probability that an evaluation is reproducible, order-invariant, and accurate. UsingT , we derive a theoretical upper bound on accuracy imposed by position bias and show that reliability is item-specific rather than modellevel. Finally, we demonstrate that shifting from pairwise win-rate to holistic rubric scoring improves trustworthiness more than any single-format prompting intervention, offering an actionable framework for robust NLP evaluation.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vineet Kumar, Darshita Rathore, Anindya Moitra. 2026-10-08. All Verdicts are Not Equal: Rethinking LLM Judge Reliability. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12083

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Semantic Self-Consistency: Enhancing Language Model Reasoning via Semantic Weighting

While large language models (LLMs) have rapidly improved their performance on a broad number of tasks, they still often fall short on reasoning tasks. As LLMs become more integrated in diverse real-world tasks, advancing their reasoning capabilities is crucial to their effectiveness in nuanced, complex problems. Wang et al.'s self-consistency framework reveals that sampling multiple rationales before taking a majority vote reliably improves model performance across various closed-answer reasoning tasks. Standard methods based on this framework aggregate the final decisions of these rationales but fail to utilize the semantic information detailed in the step-by-step reasoning paths. Our work introduces semantic self-consistency, enhancing this approach by incorporating and analyzing both the reasoning paths of these rationales in addition to their final decisions before taking a majority vote. These methods not only improve the reliability of reasoning paths but also cause more robust performance on complex reasoning tasks.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Isolated Dots: Benchmarking Structured Table Construction as Deep Knowledge Extraction

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to extract and synthesize structured information from complex real-world documents, yet they typically produce unstructured, hard-to-verify paragraph-style outputs. We introduce AOE (Arranged and Organized Extraction), a bilingual benchmark that evaluates LLMs' ability to distill long-form, multi-document inputs (64k to 1.8M tokens) into structured tables. AOE comprises 12 tasks across four domains (academic, financial, legal, and medical), each grounded in genuine analytical needs, with schema guidance provided to isolate extraction quality from formatting variance. We evaluate 12 frontier LLMs (both open-weight and proprietary) under four generation settings of increasing autonomy: direct full-document input, RAG-based retrieval, offline document-browsing agent, and online web-search agent. Even the best-performing model achieves only 42.7% Cell F1, and retrieval-augmented approaches often degrade rather than improve performance, revealing that structured extraction from long contexts remains a fundamental challenge - an "Area of Effect" (AOE) that impacts all tested systems.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

PersonaFuse: A Situation-Aware Post-Training Framework for Adaptive LLM Behavior in Enterprise Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in enterprise settings to support task execution and workflow automation. Despite the strong performance of general-purpose models on standard benchmarks, organizations often need to adapt them to domain-specific tasks and operational constraints in practice. However, existing post-training approaches introduce capability trade-offs and lack mechanisms for situational adaptation. In this work, we propose PersonaFuse, a post-training framework that enables situation-aware behavioral adaptation in LLMs. Grounded in Trait Activation Theory and operationalized through the Five-Factor Model, PersonaFuse dynamically adjusts model behavior based on task context using a mixture-of-experts architecture with trait-level experts and a context-aware routing mechanism. We evaluate PersonaFuse at three levels. At the capability level, it achieves balanced improvements across general reasoning, interaction quality, and safety without introducing trade-offs. At the workflow level, it improves task completion in enterprise scenarios involving tool use and structured execution across both B2B and B2C tasks. At the deployment level, we analyze model selection under cost and safety constraints using a capability-cost frontier framework, showing that models adapted with PersonaFuse achieve more favorable trade-offs and are consistently selected as optimal across deployment scenarios. PersonaFuse provides a practical framework for developing LLMs that are not only capable, but also adaptable and deployable in real-world enterprise environments.

cs.CL↗