arXiv (All)
open access
Safety is Contextual, LLM-Judges Are Not: Navigating the Rigid Priors of Evaluators
LLMs-as-judges are the primary way to evaluate safety at scale. Despite their importance, LLM-judges themselves are rarely evaluated beyond human agreement in simple, static benchmarks. We therefore investigate two under-explored but crucial properties of LLMs-as-judges: their sensitivity to in-cont
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
- Who Judges the Judges? A Chinese Safety QA Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Responses and Safety Judges#627602
- Who Judges the Judges? A Chinese Safety QA Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Responses and Safety Judges#1069903
- REA: From Correct LLM Judgments to Safe Decision Delivery#1342689
- Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization#1319171
- JEV-as-a-Judge: Accept When Confident, Escalate When Unsure#1062439
Record · ID 1200964
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