arXiv (All)
open access
JuryFlow: Disagreement-Guided Human-in-the-Loop Multi-Agent Evaluation
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automated judges for AI-generated content, yet a single judge is unreliable and even a panel of judges leaves a hard residue: when judges disagree, majority voting discards the conflict instead of resolving it. We present JuryFlow, a disagree
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
- Bias Amplification in Multi-Agent Network: How Biased Agents Shape Opinions and Rhetoric#1012499
- Consensus and Factual Dynamics in Large Populations of Interacting Language Models#1144178
- MADBench: Benchmarking the Security of Multi-Agent Debate#1144113
- Can AI automatically analyze public opinion? A LLM agents-based agentic pipeline for timely public opinion analysis#1122923
- Pair Difficulty Matters: Rethinking Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation and Consistency#1141894
Record · ID 1154372
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