arXiv (All)
open access
Opening LLM Judges: Recovering Preference Signals Beyond the Final Verdict
LLM judges are widely used to evaluate model outputs, but their verdicts can be unreliable: a judge may favor the worse answer for its position, length, or other surface features. When a judge is wrong, is the information needed to judge correctly absent from the model, or present in its internal re
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Second-Order Response Laws for LLM Judges: Debiased Estimation of Prompt Instability#620659
- Second-Order Response Laws for LLM Judges: Debiased Estimation of Prompt Instability#618980
- trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories#819526
- trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories#809530
- Judge Circuits Explain Format-Induced Inconsistency in LLM-as-a-Judge#987675
Record · ID 1116738
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive