Daily Papers

Courts must justify their decisions, but systematically analyzing judicial reasoning at scale remains difficult. This study tests claims about formalistic judging in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by developing automated methods to detect and classify judicial reasoning in decisions of Czech Supreme Courts using state-of-the-art natural language processing methods. We create the MADON dataset of 272 decisions from two Czech Supreme Courts with expert annotations of 9,183 paragraphs with eight argument types and holistic formalism labels for supervised training and evaluation. Using a corpus of 300,511 Czech court decisions, we adapt transformer LLMs to Czech legal domain through continued pretraining and we experiment with methods to address dataset imbalance including asymmetric loss and class weighting. The best models can detect argumentative paragraphs (82.6% Bal-F1), classify traditional types of legal argument (77.5% Bal-F1), and classify decisions as formalistic/non-formalistic (83.8% Bal-F1). Our three-stage pipeline combining ModernBERT, Llama 3.1, and traditional feature-based machine learning achieves promising results for decision classification while reducing computational costs and increasing explainability. Empirically, we challenge prevailing narratives about CEE formalism. We demonstrate that legal argument mining enables promising judicial philosophy classification and highlight its potential for other important tasks in computational legal studies. Our methodology can be used across jurisdictions, and our entire pipeline, datasets, guidelines, models, and source codes are available at https://github.com/trusthlt/madon.

LLM-as-a-judge is a framework in which a large language model (LLM) automatically evaluates the output of another LLM. We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to human scores in a given domain using regression models. The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge by using the judge's textual evaluation and score. We present four quantitative judges for different types of absolute and relative feedback, which showcases the generality and versatility of our framework. Our framework is more computationally efficient than supervised fine-tuning and can be more statistically efficient when human feedback is limited, which is expected in most applications of our work. We validate these claims empirically on four datasets using two base judges. Our experiments show that quantitative judges can effectively improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to benchmark the robustness of safety against adversarial attacks. However, we show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming: diverse victim models exhibit distinct generation styles, attacks distort output patterns, and semantic ambiguity varies significantly across jailbreak scenarios. Through a comprehensive audit using 6642 human-verified labels, we reveal that the unpredictable interaction of these shifts often causes judge performance to degrade to near random chance. This stands in stark contrast to the high human agreement reported in prior work. Crucially, we find that many attacks inflate their success rates by exploiting judge insufficiencies rather than eliciting genuinely harmful content. To enable more reliable evaluation, we propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures. Data available at: https://github.com/SchwinnL/LLMJudgeReliability.

LLM-based judges have emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation and are increasingly used to assess, compare, and improve models. However, the reliability of LLM-based judges themselves is rarely scrutinized. As LLMs become more advanced, their responses grow more sophisticated, requiring stronger judges to evaluate them. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on a judge's alignment with human preferences, but often fail to account for more challenging tasks where crowdsourced human preference is a poor indicator of factual and logical correctness. To address this, we propose a novel evaluation framework to objectively evaluate LLM-based judges. Based on this framework, we propose JudgeBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding. JudgeBench leverages a novel pipeline for converting existing difficult datasets into challenging response pairs with preference labels reflecting objective correctness. Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks, with many strong models (e.g., GPT-4o) performing just slightly better than random guessing. Overall, JudgeBench offers a reliable platform for assessing increasingly advanced LLM-based judges. Data and code are available at https://github.com/ScalerLab/JudgeBench .

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge is emerging as a scalable and efficient alternative to human evaluation, demonstrating strong performance on well-defined tasks. However, its reliability in open-ended tasks with dynamic environments and complex interactions remains unexplored. To bridge the gap, we introduce WebDevJudge, a systematic benchmark for assessing LLM-as-a-judge performance in web development, with support for both non-interactive evaluation based on static observations and continuous interactive evaluation with a dynamic web environment. WebDevJudge comprises human preference labels over paired web implementations, annotated with structured and query-grounded rubrics to ensure high-quality ground truth. Using this benchmark, we comprehensively evaluate various evaluators, including LLMs, MLLMs, and agentic workflows. We systematically investigate the impact of different paradigms and guidance mechanisms. Our experiments reveal a significant gap between LLM judges and human experts. In-depth analysis indicates this gap stems from fundamental model limitations, including failures in recognizing functional equivalence, verifying task feasibility, and mitigating bias. Overall, WebDevJudge presents a significant challenge to LLM-as-a-judge, offering insights to guide future research toward developing more reliable and capable automated evaluators for complicated scenarios. Code and data are available at https://github.com/lcy2723/WebDevJudge.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

Given the rapid progress of generative AI, there is a pressing need to systematically compare and choose between the numerous models and configurations available. The scale and versatility of such evaluations make the use of LLM-based judges a compelling solution for this challenge. Crucially, this approach requires first to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself. Previous work has focused on instance-based assessment of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. We argue that this setting overlooks critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge's positive or negative bias towards certain systems. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs, and the judge's quality is assessed by comparing the resulting system ranking to a human-based ranking. Beyond overall judge assessment, our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

Legal text generated by large language models (LLMs) can usually achieve reasonable factual accuracy, but it frequently fails to adhere to the specialised stylistic norms and linguistic conventions of legal writing. In order to improve stylistic quality, a crucial first step is to establish a reliable evaluation method. However, having legal experts manually develop such a metric is impractical, as the implicit stylistic requirements in legal writing practice are difficult to formalise into explicit rubrics. Meanwhile, existing automatic evaluation methods also fall short: reference-based metrics conflate semantic accuracy with stylistic fidelity, and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations suffer from opacity and inconsistency. To address these challenges, we introduce CLASE (Chinese LegAlese Stylistic Evaluation), a hybrid evaluation method that focuses on the stylistic performance of legal text. The method incorporates a hybrid scoring mechanism that combines 1) linguistic feature-based scores and 2) experience-guided LLM-as-a-judge scores. Both the feature coefficients and the LLM scoring experiences are learned from contrastive pairs of authentic legal documents and their LLM-restored counterparts. This hybrid design captures both surface-level features and implicit stylistic norms in a transparent, reference-free manner. Experiments on 200 Chinese legal documents show that CLASE achieves substantially higher alignment with human judgments than traditional metrics and pure LLM-as-a-judge methods. Beyond improved alignment, CLASE provides interpretable score breakdowns and suggestions for improvements, offering a scalable and practical solution for professional stylistic evaluation in legal text generation (Code and data for CLASE is available at: https://github.com/rexera/CLASE).

LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate its judgments. Enhancing a model's rationale can therefore improve its calibration abilities and ultimately the ability to score content. We introduce Self-Rationalization, an iterative process of improving the rationales for the judge models, which consequently improves the score for fine-grained customizable scoring criteria (i.e., likert-scale scoring with arbitrary evaluation criteria). Self-rationalization works by having the model generate multiple judgments with rationales for the same input, curating a preference pair dataset from its own judgements, and iteratively fine-tuning the judge via DPO. Intuitively, this approach allows the judge model to self-improve by learning from its own rationales, leading to better alignment and evaluation accuracy. After just two iterations -- while only relying on examples in the training set -- human evaluation shows that our judge model learns to produce higher quality rationales, with a win rate of 62% on average compared to models just trained via SFT on rationale . This judge model also achieves high scoring accuracy on BigGen Bench and Reward Bench, outperforming even bigger sized models trained using SFT with rationale, self-consistency or best-of-N sampling by 3% to 9%.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven their expanding application across various fields. One of the most promising applications is their role as evaluators based on natural language responses, referred to as ''LLMs-as-judges''. This framework has attracted growing attention from both academia and industry due to their excellent effectiveness, ability to generalize across tasks, and interpretability in the form of natural language. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the LLMs-as-judges paradigm from five key perspectives: Functionality, Methodology, Applications, Meta-evaluation, and Limitations. We begin by providing a systematic definition of LLMs-as-Judges and introduce their functionality (Why use LLM judges?). Then we address methodology to construct an evaluation system with LLMs (How to use LLM judges?). Additionally, we investigate the potential domains for their application (Where to use LLM judges?) and discuss methods for evaluating them in various contexts (How to evaluate LLM judges?). Finally, we provide a detailed analysis of the limitations of LLM judges and discuss potential future directions. Through a structured and comprehensive analysis, we aim aims to provide insights on the development and application of LLMs-as-judges in both research and practice. We will continue to maintain the relevant resource list at https://github.com/CSHaitao/Awesome-LLMs-as-Judges.

Agentic workflows -- where multiple large language model (LLM) instances interact to solve tasks -- are increasingly built on feedback mechanisms, where one model evaluates and critiques another. Despite the promise of feedback-driven improvement, the stability of agentic workflows rests on the reliability of the judge. However, judges may hallucinate information, exhibit bias, or act adversarially -- introducing critical vulnerabilities into the workflow. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of agentic workflows under deceptive or misleading feedback. We introduce a two-dimensional framework for analyzing judge behavior, along axes of intent (from constructive to malicious) and knowledge (from parametric-only to retrieval-augmented systems). Using this taxonomy, we construct a suite of judge behaviors and develop WAFER-QA, a new benchmark with critiques grounded in retrieved web evidence to evaluate robustness of agentic workflows against factually supported adversarial feedback. We reveal that even strongest agents are vulnerable to persuasive yet flawed critiques -- often switching correct answers after a single round of misleading feedback. Taking a step further, we study how model predictions evolve over multiple rounds of interaction, revealing distinct behavioral patterns between reasoning and non-reasoning models. Our findings highlight fundamental vulnerabilities in feedback-based workflows and offer guidance for building more robust agentic systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance, particularly in non-verifiable settings where judgments rely on agent trajectories including chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. This paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's CoT faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state. We show this assumption is brittle: LLM judges are highly susceptible to manipulation of agent reasoning traces. By systematically rewriting agent CoTs while holding actions and observations fixed, we demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks. We study manipulation strategies spanning style-based approaches that alter only the presentation of reasoning and content-based approaches that fabricate signals of task progress, and find that content-based manipulations are consistently more effective. We evaluate prompting-based techniques and scaling judge-time compute, which reduce but do not fully eliminate susceptibility to manipulation. Our findings reveal a fundamental vulnerability in LLM-based evaluation and highlight the need for judging mechanisms that verify reasoning claims against observable evidence.

LLM-as-a-Judge, which generates chain-of-thought (CoT) judgments, has become a widely adopted auto-evaluation method. However, its reliability is compromised by the CoT reasoning's inability to capture comprehensive and deeper details, often leading to incomplete outcomes. Existing methods mainly rely on majority voting or criteria expansion, which is insufficient to address the limitation in CoT. We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses, thereby exposing deeper and more comprehensive details within the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed CoT judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances evaluation reliability, achieving an average accuracy gain of 6.7% across five benchmarks. Moreover, our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), referred to as crowd rejection sampling, thereby enabling more efficient SFT. Our analysis confirms that CoTs generated by ours are more comprehensive and of higher quality, and evaluation accuracy improves as inference scales.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm shows promise for evaluating generative content but lacks reliability in reasoning-intensive scenarios, such as programming. Inspired by recent advances in reasoning models and shifts in scaling laws, we pioneer bringing test-time computation into LLM-as-a-Judge, proposing MCTS-Judge, a resource-efficient, System-2 thinking framework for code correctness evaluation. MCTS-Judge leverages Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to decompose problems into simpler, multi-perspective evaluations. Through a node-selection strategy that combines self-assessment based on historical actions in the current trajectory and the Upper Confidence Bound for Trees based on prior rollouts, MCTS-Judge balances global optimization and refinement of the current trajectory. We further designed a high-precision, unit-test-level reward mechanism to encourage the Large Language Model (LLM) to perform line-by-line analysis. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks and five LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of MCTS-Judge, which improves the base model's accuracy from 41% to 80%, surpassing the o1-series models with 3x fewer tokens. Further evaluations validate the superiority of its reasoning trajectory in logic, analytics, thoroughness, and overall quality, while revealing the test-time scaling law of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm.

Evaluating generative foundation models on open-ended multimodal understanding (MMU) and generation (MMG) tasks across diverse modalities (e.g., images, audio, video) poses significant challenges due to the complexity of cross-modal interactions. To this end, the idea of utilizing Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) as automated judges has emerged, with encouraging results in assessing vision-language understanding tasks. Moving further, this paper extends MLLM-as-a-Judge across modalities to a unified manner by introducing two benchmarks, TaskAnything and JudgeAnything, to respectively evaluate the overall performance and judging capabilities of MLLMs across any-to-any modality tasks. Specifically, TaskAnything evaluates the MMU and MMG capabilities across 15 any-to-any modality categories, employing 1,500 queries curated from well-established benchmarks. Furthermore, JudgeAnything evaluates the judging capabilities of 5 advanced (e.g., GPT-4o and Gemini-2.0-Flash) from the perspectives of Pair Comparison and Score Evaluation, providing a standardized testbed that incorporates human judgments and detailed rubrics. Our extensive experiments reveal that while these MLLMs show promise in assessing MMU (i.e., achieving an average of 66.55% in Pair Comparison setting and 42.79% in Score Evaluation setting), they encounter significant challenges with MMG tasks (i.e., averaging only 53.37% in Pair Comparison setting and 30.05% in Score Evaluation setting), exposing cross-modality biases and hallucination issues. To address this, we present OmniArena, an automated platform for evaluating omni-models and multimodal reward models. Our work highlights the need for fairer evaluation protocols and stronger alignment with human preferences. The source code and dataset are publicly available at: https://urrealhero.github.io/judgeanythingweb/.

Human-generated reward signals are critical for aligning generative models with human preferences, guiding both training and inference-time evaluations. While large language models (LLMs) employed as proxy evaluators, i.e., LLM-as-a-Judge, significantly reduce the costs associated with manual annotations, they typically require extensive modality-specific training data and fail to generalize well across diverse multimodal tasks. In this paper, we propose Flex-Judge, a reasoning-guided multimodal judge model that leverages minimal textual reasoning data to robustly generalize across multiple modalities and evaluation formats. Our core intuition is that structured textual reasoning explanations inherently encode generalizable decision-making patterns, enabling an effective transfer to multimodal judgments, e.g., with images or videos. Empirical results demonstrate that Flex-Judge, despite being trained on significantly fewer text data, achieves competitive or superior performance compared to state-of-the-art commercial APIs and extensively trained multimodal evaluators. Notably, Flex-Judge presents broad impact in modalities like molecule, where comprehensive evaluation benchmarks are scarce, underscoring its practical value in resource-constrained domains. Our framework highlights reasoning-based text supervision as a powerful, cost-effective alternative to traditional annotation-intensive approaches, substantially advancing scalable multimodal model-as-a-judge.

While LLM-as-a-Judge is widely used in automated evaluation, existing validation practices primarily operate at the level of observed outputs, offering limited insight into whether LLM judges themselves function as stable and reliable measurement instruments. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-phase diagnostic framework for assessing reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge, grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT). The framework adopts Graded Response Model (GRM) of IRT and formalizes reliability along two complementary dimensions: (1) intrinsic consistency, defined as the stability of measurement behavior under prompt variations, and (2) human alignment, capturing correspondence with human quality assessments. We empirically examine diverse LLM judges with this framework, and show that leveraging IRT-GRM yields interpretable signals for diagnosing judgments systematically. These signals provide practical guidance for verifying reliablity of LLM-as-a-Judge and identifying potential causes of unreliability.

Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. We introduce LEXam, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Adopting an LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/

The large language model (LLM)-as-judge paradigm has been used to meet the demand for a cheap, reliable, and fast evaluation of model outputs during AI system development and post-deployment monitoring. While judge models -- LLMs finetuned to specialize in assessing and critiquing model outputs -- have been touted as general purpose evaluators, they are typically evaluated only on non-contextual scenarios, such as instruction following. The omission of contextual settings -- those where external information is used as context to generate an output -- is surprising given the increasing prevalence of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and summarization use cases. Contextual assessment is uniquely challenging, as evaluation often depends on practitioner priorities, leading to conditional evaluation criteria (e.g., comparing responses based on factuality and then considering completeness if they are equally factual). To address the gap, we propose ContextualJudgeBench, a judge benchmark with 2,000 challenging response pairs across eight splits inspired by real-world contextual evaluation scenarios. We build our benchmark with a multi-pronged data construction pipeline that leverages both existing human annotations and model-based perturbations. Our comprehensive study across 11 judge models and 9 general purpose models, reveals that the contextual information and its assessment criteria present a significant challenge to even state-of-the-art models. For example, OpenAI's o1, the best-performing model, barely reaches 55% consistent accuracy.

LLM-as-Judge frameworks are increasingly popular for AI evaluation, yet research findings on the relationship between models' generation and judgment abilities remain inconsistent. We investigate this relationship through systematic dataset- and instance-level analyses across 11 models and 21 diverse tasks. Despite both capabilities relying on the same underlying knowledge, our analyses reveal they are only weakly correlated, primarily due to LLMs' sensitivity to the responses being judged. To address this, we propose a self-reference-guided evaluation strategy that leverages a model's own answers as references. This approach significantly strengthens the correlation between generation and judgment abilities, offering a practical path to align these skills and providing a reliable proxy for model selection in evaluation tasks.

LLM-as-a-Judge leverages the generative and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate LLM responses across diverse scenarios, providing accurate preference signals. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human values, ensuring ethical and reliable AI outputs that align with societal norms. Recent studies have raised many methods to train LLM as generative judges, but most of them are data consuming or lack accuracy, and only focus on LLM's judge ability. In this work, we regard judge ability as a general ability of LLM and implement a two-stage training approach, comprising supervised fine-tuning (SFT) warm-up and direct preference optimization (DPO) enhancement, to achieve judge style adaptation and improve judgment accuracy. Additionally, we introduce an efficient data synthesis method to generate judgmental content. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach, utilizing only about 2% to 40% of the data required by other methods, achieves SOTA performance on RewardBench. Furthermore, our training method enhances the general capabilities of the model by constructing complicated judge task, and the judge signals provided by our model have significantly enhanced the downstream DPO training performance of our internal models in our test to optimize policy model with Judge Model. We also open-source our model weights and training data to facilitate further research.

To keep pace with the increasing pace of large language models (LLM) development, model output evaluation has transitioned away from time-consuming human evaluation to automatic evaluation, where LLMs themselves are tasked with assessing and critiquing other model outputs. LLM-as-judge models are a class of generative evaluators that excel in evaluating relatively simple domains, like chat quality, but struggle in reasoning intensive domains where model responses contain more substantive and challenging content. To remedy existing judge shortcomings, we explore training judges with reinforcement learning (RL). We make three key contributions: (1) We propose the Equivalent Initial State Group Relative Policy Optimization (EIS-GRPO) algorithm, which allows us to train our judge to be robust to positional biases that arise in more complex evaluation settings. (2) We introduce ReasoningJudgeBench, a benchmark that evaluates judges in diverse reasoning settings not covered by prior work. (3) We train Judge for Reasoning (J4R), a 7B judge trained with EIS-GRPO that outperforms GPT-4o and the next best small judge by 6.7% and 9%, matching or exceeding the performance of larger GRPO-trained judges on both JudgeBench and ReasoningJudgeBench.

Automated evaluation of free-form outputs from large language models (LLMs) is challenging because many distinct answers can be equally valid. A common practice is to use LLMs themselves as judges, but the theoretical properties of this approach are not yet well understood. We show that a geometric framework that represents both judges and candidates as points on a probability simplex can provide helpful insight on what is or is not identifiable using LLM judges. Our theoretical analysis uncovers a "phase transition" in ranking identifiability: for binary scoring systems, true rankings are identifiable even with weak judges under mild assumptions, while rankings become non-identifiable for three or more scoring levels even with infinite data, absent additional prior knowledge. This non-identifiability highlights how uncertainty in rankings stems from not only aleatoric uncertainty (i.e., inherent stochasticity in the data) but also epistemic uncertainty regarding which assumptions hold, an aspect that has received limited attention until now. To integrate both types of uncertainty, we use Bayesian inference to encode assumptions as priors and conduct sensitivity analysis of ranking estimates and credible intervals. Empirical evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Bayesian inference yields more accurate rankings and substantially improves coverage rates. These results underscore the importance of taking a more holistic approach to uncertainty quantification when using LLMs as judges.

Contemporary evaluation techniques are inadequate for agentic systems. These approaches either focus exclusively on final outcomes -- ignoring the step-by-step nature of agentic systems, or require excessive manual labour. To address this, we introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We apply the Agent-as-a-Judge to the task of code generation. To overcome issues with existing benchmarks and provide a proof-of-concept testbed for Agent-as-a-Judge, we present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks. It includes rich manual annotations, like a total of 365 hierarchical user requirements. We benchmark three of the popular agentic systems using Agent-as-a-Judge and find it dramatically outperforms LLM-as-a-Judge and is as reliable as our human evaluation baseline. Altogether, we believe that Agent-as-a-Judge marks a concrete step forward for modern agentic systems -- by providing rich and reliable reward signals necessary for dynamic and scalable self-improvement.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show strong potential as judges. However, existing approaches face a fundamental trade-off: adapting MLLMs to output a single score misaligns with the generative nature of MLLMs and limits fine-grained requirement understanding, whereas autoregressively generating judging analyses is prohibitively slow in high-throughput settings. Observing that judgment reduces to verifying whether inputs satisfy a set of structured requirements, we propose YOFO, a template-conditioned method that judges all requirements in a single forward pass. Built on an autoregressive model, YOFO accepts a structured requirement template and, in one inference step, produces a binary yes/no decision for each requirement by reading the logits of the final token associated with that requirement. This design yields orders-of-magnitude speedups while preserving interpretability. Extensive experiments show that YOFO not only achieves state-of-the-art results on standard recommendation datasets, but also supports dependency-aware analysis-where subsequent judgments are conditioned on previous ones-and further benefits from post-hoc CoT.

LLM-as-a-Judge has revolutionized AI evaluation by leveraging large language models for scalable assessments. However, as evaluands become increasingly complex, specialized, and multi-step, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge has become constrained by inherent biases, shallow single-pass reasoning, and the inability to verify assessments against real-world observations. This has catalyzed the transition to Agent-as-a-Judge, where agentic judges employ planning, tool-augmented verification, multi-agent collaboration, and persistent memory to enable more robust, verifiable, and nuanced evaluations. Despite the rapid proliferation of agentic evaluation systems, the field lacks a unified framework to navigate this shifting landscape. To bridge this gap, we present the first comprehensive survey tracing this evolution. Specifically, we identify key dimensions that characterize this paradigm shift and establish a developmental taxonomy. We organize core methodologies and survey applications across general and professional domains. Furthermore, we analyze frontier challenges and identify promising research directions, ultimately providing a clear roadmap for the next generation of agentic evaluation.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, to mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods such as process reward models (PRMs) or self-consistency operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from the idea that "the gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof". We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework Safe. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations. We evaluate our framework Safe across multiple language models and various mathematical datasets, demonstrating a significant performance improvement while offering interpretable and verifiable evidence. We also propose FormalStep as a benchmark for step correctness theorem proving with 30,809 formal statements. To the best of our knowledge, our work represents the first endeavor to utilize formal mathematical language Lean 4 for verifying natural language content generated by LLMs, aligning with the reason why formal mathematical languages were created in the first place: to provide a robust foundation for hallucination-prone human-written proofs.

As LLM-based judges become integral to industry applications, obtaining well-calibrated uncertainty estimates efficiently has become critical for production deployment. However, existing techniques, such as verbalized confidence and multi-generation methods, are often either poorly calibrated or computationally expensive. We introduce linear probes trained with a Brier score-based loss to provide calibrated uncertainty estimates from reasoning judges' hidden states, requiring no additional model training. We evaluate our approach on both objective tasks (reasoning, mathematics, factuality, coding) and subjective human preference judgments. Our results demonstrate that probes achieve superior calibration compared to existing methods with approx10x computational savings, generalize robustly to unseen evaluation domains, and deliver higher accuracy on high-confidence predictions. However, probes produce conservative estimates that underperform on easier datasets but may benefit safety-critical deployments prioritizing low false-positive rates. Overall, our work demonstrates that interpretability-based uncertainty estimation provides a practical and scalable plug-and-play solution for LLM judges in production.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

Rapid advancements in large language models have unlocked remarkable capabilities when it comes to processing and summarizing unstructured text data. This has implications for the analysis of rich, open-ended datasets, such as survey responses, where LLMs hold the promise of efficiently distilling key themes and sentiments. However, as organizations increasingly turn to these powerful AI systems to make sense of textual feedback, a critical question arises, can we trust LLMs to accurately represent the perspectives contained within these text based datasets? While LLMs excel at generating human-like summaries, there is a risk that their outputs may inadvertently diverge from the true substance of the original responses. Discrepancies between the LLM-generated outputs and the actual themes present in the data could lead to flawed decision-making, with far-reaching consequences for organizations. This research investigates the effectiveness of LLMs as judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. We utilized an Anthropic Claude model to generate thematic summaries from open-ended survey responses, with Amazon's Titan Express, Nova Pro, and Meta's Llama serving as LLM judges. The LLM-as-judge approach was compared to human evaluations using Cohen's kappa, Spearman's rho, and Krippendorff's alpha, validating a scalable alternative to traditional human centric evaluation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs as judges offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on AI assisted text analysis. We discuss limitations and provide recommendations for future research, emphasizing the need for careful consideration when generalizing LLM judge models across various contexts and use cases.

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language generation (NLG), but the uncertainty of its evaluation remains underexplored. This lack of reliability may limit its deployment in many applications. This work presents the first framework to analyze the uncertainty by offering a prediction interval of LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction. Conformal prediction constructs continuous prediction intervals from a single evaluation run, and we design an ordinal boundary adjustment for discrete rating tasks. We also suggest a midpoint-based score within the interval as a low-bias alternative to raw model score and weighted average. We perform extensive experiments and analysis, which show that conformal prediction can provide valid prediction interval with coverage guarantees. We also explore the usefulness of interval midpoint and judge reprompting for better judgment.

Formal mathematical reasoning remains a critical challenge for artificial intelligence, hindered by limitations of existing benchmarks in scope and scale. To address this, we present FormalMATH, a large-scale Lean4 benchmark comprising 5,560 formally verified problems spanning from high-school Olympiad challenges to undergraduate-level theorems across diverse domains (e.g., algebra, applied mathematics, calculus, number theory, and discrete mathematics). To mitigate the inefficiency of manual formalization, we introduce a novel human-in-the-loop autoformalization pipeline that integrates: (1) specialized large language models (LLMs) for statement autoformalization, (2) multi-LLM semantic verification, and (3) negation-based disproof filtering strategies using off-the-shelf LLM-based provers. This approach reduces expert annotation costs by retaining 72.09% of statements before manual verification while ensuring fidelity to the original natural-language problems. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLM-based theorem provers reveals significant limitations: even the strongest models achieve only 16.46% success rate under practical sampling budgets, exhibiting pronounced domain bias (e.g., excelling in algebra but failing in calculus) and over-reliance on simplified automation tactics. Notably, we identify a counterintuitive inverse relationship between natural-language solution guidance and proof success in chain-of-thought reasoning scenarios, suggesting that human-written informal reasoning introduces noise rather than clarity in the formal reasoning settings. We believe that FormalMATH provides a robust benchmark for benchmarking formal mathematical reasoning.

Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges, which can benefit from inference-time scaling, provide a promising path for extending the success of reasoning models to non-verifiable domains where the output correctness/quality cannot be directly checked. However, while reasoning judges have shown better performance on static evaluation benchmarks, their effectiveness in actual policy training has not been systematically examined. Therefore, we conduct a rigorous study to investigate the actual impact of non-reasoning and reasoning judges in reinforcement-learning-based LLM alignment. Our controlled synthetic setting, where a "gold-standard" judge (gpt-oss-120b) provides preference annotations to train smaller judges, reveals key differences between non-reasoning and reasoning judges: non-reasoning judges lead to reward hacking easily, while reasoning judges can lead to policies that achieve strong performance when evaluated by the gold-standard judge. Interestingly, we find that the reasoning-judge-trained policies achieve such strong performance by learning to generate highly effective adversarial outputs that can also score well on popular benchmarks such as Arena-Hard by deceiving other LLM-judges. Combined with our further analysis, our study highlights both important findings and room for improvements for applying (reasoning) LLM-judges in non-verifiable LLM post-training.

Legal rules encompass not only codified statutes but also implicit adjudicatory principles derived from precedents that contain discretionary norms, social morality, and policy. While computational legal research has advanced in applying established rules to cases, inducing legal rules from judicial decisions remains understudied, constrained by limitations in model inference efficacy and symbolic reasoning capability. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers unprecedented opportunities for automating the extraction of such latent principles, yet progress is stymied by the absence of formal task definitions, benchmark datasets, and methodologies. To address this gap, we formalize Legal Rule Induction (LRI) as the task of deriving concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from sets of analogous precedents, distilling their shared preconditions, normative behaviors, and legal consequences. We introduce the first LRI benchmark, comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 Chinese cases in total) for model tuning and 216 expert-annotated gold test sets. Experimental results reveal that: 1) State-of-the-art LLMs struggle with over-generalization and hallucination; 2) Training on our dataset markedly enhances LLMs capabilities in capturing nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to function as a judge by making final rulings based on case claims and facts, which plays a vital role in the judicial domain for supporting court decision-making and improving judicial efficiency. However, existing methods often struggle with logical errors when conducting complex legal reasoning. We propose LegalReasoner, which enhances LJP reliability through step-wise verification and correction of the reasoning process. Specifically, it first identifies dispute points to decompose complex cases, and then conducts step-wise reasoning while employing a process verifier to validate each step's logic from correctness, progressiveness, and potential perspectives. When errors are detected, expert-designed attribution and resolution strategies are applied for correction. To fine-tune LegalReasoner, we release the LegalHK dataset, containing 58,130 Hong Kong court cases with detailed annotations of dispute points, step-by-step reasoning chains, and process verification labels. Experiments demonstrate that LegalReasoner significantly improves concordance with court decisions from 72.37 to 80.27 on LLAMA-3.1-70B. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/weijiezz/LegalHK.

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators offers a scalable alternative to human annotation, yet existing Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) for judges approaches often fall short in domains requiring complex reasoning. In this work, we investigate whether LLM judges truly benefit from enhanced reasoning capabilities. Through a detailed analysis of reasoning requirements across evaluation tasks, we reveal a negative correlation between SFT performance gains and the proportion of reasoning-demanding samples - highlighting the limitations of SFT in such scenarios. To address this, we introduce JudgeLRM, a family of judgment-oriented LLMs trained using reinforcement learning (RL) with judge-wise, outcome-driven rewards. JudgeLRM models consistently outperform both SFT-tuned and state-of-the-art reasoning models. Notably, JudgeLRM-3B surpasses GPT-4, and JudgeLRM-7B outperforms DeepSeek-R1 by 2.79% in F1 score, particularly excelling in judge tasks requiring deep reasoning.

With the rapid development of large multimodal models, reliable judge and critic models have become essential for open-ended evaluation and preference alignment, providing pairwise preferences, numerical scores, and explanatory justifications for assessing model-generated responses. However, existing critics are primarily trained in general visual domains such as captioning or image question answering, leaving physical AI tasks involving perception, causal reasoning, and planning largely underexplored. We introduce PhyCritic, a multimodal critic model optimized for physical AI through a two-stage RLVR pipeline: a physical skill warmup stage that enhances physically oriented perception and reasoning, followed by self-referential critic finetuning, where the critic generates its own prediction as an internal reference before judging candidate responses, improving judgment stability and physical correctness. Across both physical and general-purpose multimodal judge benchmarks, PhyCritic achieves strong performance gains over open-source baselines and, when applied as a policy model, further improves perception and reasoning in physically grounded tasks.

Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). However, traditional methods, whether matching-based or embedding-based, often fall short of judging subtle attributes and delivering satisfactory results. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm, where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection across various tasks and applications. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-based judgment and assessment, offering an in-depth overview to advance this emerging field. We begin by giving detailed definitions from both input and output perspectives. Then we introduce a comprehensive taxonomy to explore LLM-as-a-judge from three dimensions: what to judge, how to judge and where to judge. Finally, we compile benchmarks for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge and highlight key challenges and promising directions, aiming to provide valuable insights and inspire future research in this promising research area. Paper list and more resources about LLM-as-a-judge can be found at https://github.com/llm-as-a-judge/Awesome-LLM-as-a-judge and https://llm-as-a-judge.github.io.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design. In this work, we investigate whether smaller models can serve as efficient evaluators by leveraging internal representations instead of surface generation. We uncover a consistent empirical pattern: small LMs, despite with weak generative ability, encode rich evaluative signals in their hidden states. This motivates us to propose the Semantic Capacity Asymmetry Hypothesis: evaluation requires significantly less semantic capacity than generation and can be grounded in intermediate representations, suggesting that evaluation does not necessarily need to rely on large-scale generative models but can instead leverage latent features from smaller ones. Our findings motivate a paradigm shift from LLM-as-a-Judge to Representation-as-a-Judge, a decoding-free evaluation strategy that probes internal model structure rather than relying on prompted output. We instantiate this paradigm through INSPECTOR, a probing-based framework that predicts aspect-level evaluation scores from small model representations. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH, GPQA) show that INSPECTOR substantially outperforms prompting-based small LMs and closely approximates full LLM judges, while offering a more efficient, reliable, and interpretable alternative for scalable evaluation.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have gained significant attention recently, showing remarkable potential in artificial general intelligence. However, assessing the utility of MLLMs presents considerable challenges, primarily due to the absence of multimodal benchmarks that align with human preferences. Drawing inspiration from the concept of LLM-as-a-Judge within LLMs, this paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities, encompassing three distinct tasks: Scoring Evaluation, Pair Comparison, and Batch Ranking. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking. Furthermore, a closer examination reveals persistent challenges in the judgment capacities of LLMs, including diverse biases, hallucinatory responses, and inconsistencies in judgment, even in advanced models such as GPT-4V. These findings emphasize the pressing need for enhancements and further research efforts to be undertaken before regarding MLLMs as fully reliable evaluators. In light of this, we advocate for additional efforts dedicated to supporting the continuous development within the domain of MLLM functioning as judges. The code and dataset are publicly available at our project homepage: https://mllm-judge.github.io/.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

Optimizing LLM-based agentic workflows is challenging for scaling AI capabilities. Current methods rely on coarse, end-to-end evaluation signals and lack fine-grained signals on where to refine, often resulting in inefficient or low-impact modifications. To address these limitations, we propose JudgeFlow, an Evaluation-Judge-Optimization-Update pipeline. We incorporate reusable, configurable logic blocks into agentic workflows to capture fundamental forms of logic. On top of this abstraction, we design a dedicated Judge module that inspects execution traces particularly failed runs and assigns rank-based responsibility scores to problematic blocks. These fine-grained diagnostic signals are then leveraged by an LLM-based optimizer, which focuses modifications on the most problematic block in the workflow. Our approach improves sample efficiency, enhances interpretability through block-level diagnostics, and provides a scalable foundation for automating increasingly complex agentic workflows. We evaluate JudgeFlow on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks, where JudgeFlow achieves superior performance and efficiency compared to existing methods.

Scientists often infer abstract procedures from specific instances of problems and use the abstractions to generate new, related instances. For example, programs encoding the formal rules and properties of a system have been useful in fields ranging from RL (procedural environments) to physics (simulation engines). These programs can be seen as functions which execute to different outputs based on their parameterizations (e.g., gridworld configuration or initial physical conditions). We introduce the term EFA (Executable Functional Abstraction) to denote such programs for math problems. EFA-like constructs have been shown to be useful for math reasoning as problem generators for stress-testing models. However, prior work has been limited to abstractions for grade-school math (whose simple rules are easy to encode in programs), while generating EFAs for advanced math has thus far required human engineering. We explore the automatic construction of EFAs for advanced math problems. We operationalize the task of automatically constructing EFAs as a program synthesis task, and develop EFAGen, which conditions an LLM on a seed math problem and its step-by-step solution to generate candidate EFA programs that are faithful to the generalized problem and solution class underlying the seed problem. Furthermore, we formalize properties any valid EFA must possess in terms of executable unit tests, and show how the tests can be used as verifiable rewards to train LLMs to become better writers of EFAs. We demonstrate that EFAs constructed by EFAGen behave rationally by remaining faithful to seed problems, produce learnable problem variations, and that EFAGen can infer EFAs across multiple diverse sources of competition-level math problems. Finally, we show downstream uses of model-written EFAs e.g. finding problem variations that are harder or easier for a learner to solve, as well as data generation.

The demand for synthetic data in mathematical reasoning has increased due to its potential to enhance the mathematical capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, ensuring the validity of intermediate reasoning steps remains a significant challenge, affecting data quality. While formal verification via theorem provers effectively validates LLM reasoning, the autoformalisation of mathematical proofs remains error-prone. In response, we introduce iterative autoformalisation, an approach that iteratively refines theorem prover formalisation to mitigate errors, thereby increasing the execution rate on the Lean prover from 60% to 87%. Building upon that, we introduce Theorem Prover as a Judge (TP-as-a-Judge), a method that employs theorem prover formalisation to rigorously assess LLM intermediate reasoning, effectively integrating autoformalisation with synthetic data generation. Finally, we present Reinforcement Learning from Theorem Prover Feedback (RLTPF), a framework that replaces human annotation with theorem prover feedback in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Across multiple LLMs, applying TP-as-a-Judge and RLTPF improves benchmarks with only 3,508 samples, achieving 5.56% accuracy gain on Mistral-7B for MultiArith, 6.00% on Llama-2-7B for SVAMP, and 3.55% on Llama-3.1-8B for AQUA.

Large multimodal models (LMMs) are increasingly adopted as judges in multimodal evaluation systems due to their strong instruction following and consistency with human preferences. However, their ability to follow diverse, fine-grained evaluation criteria remains underexplored. We develop Multi-Crit, a benchmark for evaluating multimodal judges on their capacity to follow pluralistic criteria and produce reliable criterion-level judgments. Covering both open-ended generation and verifiable reasoning tasks, Multi-Crit is built through a rigorous data curation pipeline that gathers challenging response pairs with multi-criterion human annotations. It further introduces three novel metrics for systematically assessing pluralistic adherence, criterion-switching flexibility, and the ability to recognize criterion-level preference conflicts. Comprehensive analysis of 25 LMMs reveals that 1) proprietary models still struggle to maintain consistent adherence to pluralistic criteria--especially in open-ended evaluation; 2) open-source models lag further behind in flexibly following diverse criteria; and 3) critic fine-tuning with holistic judgment signals enhances visual grounding but fails to generalize to pluralistic criterion-level judgment. Additional analyses on reasoning fine-tuning, test-time scaling, and boundary consistency between open-source and proprietary models further probe the limits of current multimodal judges. As a pioneering study, Multi-Crit lays the foundation for building reliable and steerable multimodal AI evaluation.

LLM-as-a-Judge refers to the automatic modeling of preferences for responses generated by Large Language Models (LLMs), which is of significant importance for both LLM evaluation and reward modeling. Although generative LLMs have made substantial progress in various tasks, their performance as LLM-Judge still falls short of expectations. In this work, we propose Think-J, which improves generative LLM-as-a-Judge by learning how to think. We first utilized a small amount of curated data to develop the model with initial judgment thinking capabilities. Subsequently, we optimize the judgment thinking traces based on reinforcement learning (RL). We propose two methods for judgment thinking optimization, based on offline and online RL, respectively. The offline RL requires training a critic model to construct positive and negative examples for learning. The online method defines rule-based reward as feedback for optimization. Experimental results showed that our approach can significantly enhance the evaluation capability of generative LLM-Judge, surpassing both generative and classifier-based LLM-Judge without requiring extra human annotations.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical scores as main outputs. In this work, we propose LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge, an LLM-based evaluation approach with the main output being a structured report of common issue types in the NLG system outputs. Our approach is targeted at providing developers with meaningful insights on what improvements can be done to a given NLG system and consists of two main steps, namely open-ended per-instance issue analysis and clustering of the discovered issues using an intuitive cumulative algorithm. We also introduce a strategy for evaluating the proposed approach, coupled with ~300 annotations of issues in instances from 12 NLG datasets. Our results show that LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge correctly recognizes instance-specific issues in 2/3 cases and is capable of producing error type reports resembling the reports composed by human annotators. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/tunde-ajayi/llm-as-a-qualitative-judge.

Recently, there has been a growing trend of utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) to evaluate the quality of other LLMs. Many studies have employed proprietary close-source models, especially GPT4, as the evaluator. Alternatively, other works have fine-tuned judge models based on open-source LLMs as the evaluator. In this study, we conduct an empirical study of different judge models on their evaluation capability. Our findings indicate that although the fine-tuned judge models achieve high accuracy on in-domain test sets, even surpassing GPT4, they are inherently task-specific classifiers, and their generalizability and fairness severely underperform GPT4.

Legal judgment prediction is essential for enhancing judicial efficiency. In this work, we identify that existing large language models (LLMs) underperform in this domain due to challenges in understanding case complexities and distinguishing between similar charges. To adapt LLMs for effective legal judgment prediction, we introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human judicial reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. We further enhance LLMs through fine-tuning with multi-task synthetic trajectories to improve legal judgment prediction accuracy and efficiency under our ADAPT framework. Extensive experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction, particularly when dealing with complex and confusing charges.

Recent advances in large language models show strong promise for formal reasoning. However, most LLM-based theorem provers have long been constrained by the need for expert-written formal statements as inputs, limiting their applicability to real-world problems expressed in natural language. We tackle this gap with Mathesis, the first end-to-end theorem proving pipeline processing informal problem statements. It contributes Mathesis-Autoformalizer, the first autoformalizer using reinforcement learning to enhance the formalization ability of natural language problems, aided by our novel LeanScorer framework for nuanced formalization quality assessment. It also proposes a Mathesis-Prover, which generates formal proofs from the formalized statements. To evaluate the real-world applicability of end-to-end formal theorem proving, we introduce Gaokao-Formal, a benchmark of 488 complex problems from China's national college entrance exam. Our approach is carefully designed, with a thorough study of each component. Experiments demonstrate Mathesis's effectiveness, with the autoformalizer outperforming the best baseline by 22% in pass-rate on Gaokao-Formal. The full system surpasses other model combinations, achieving 64% accuracy on MiniF2F with pass@32 and a state-of-the-art 18% on Gaokao-Formal.

The ``LLM-as-a-judge'' paradigm has become a standard method for evaluating open-ended generation. To address the quadratic scalability costs of pairwise comparisons, popular benchmarks like Arena-Hard and AlpacaEval compare all models against a single anchor. However, despite its widespread use, the impact of anchor selection on the reliability of the results remains largely unexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate the effect of anchor selection by evaluating 22 different anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset. We find that the choice of anchor is critical: a poor anchor can dramatically reduce correlation with human rankings. We identify that common anchor choices (best-performing and worst-performing models) make poor anchors. Because these extreme anchors are consistently better or worse than all other models, they are seldom indicative of the relative ranking of the models. We further quantify the effect size of anchor selection, showing it is comparable to the selection of a judge model. We conclude with actionable recommendations. First, we conduct a power analysis, and compute sufficient benchmark sizes for anchor-based evaluation, finding that standard benchmark sizes are insufficient for pairwise evaluation and fail to distinguish between competitive models reliably. Second, we provide guidelines for selecting informative anchors to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation practices.

As multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit errors when solving scientific problems, evaluating the validity of their reasoning processes is critical for ensuring reliability and uncovering fine-grained model weaknesses. Since human evaluation is laborious and costly, prompting MLLMs as automated process judges has become a common practice. However, the reliability of these model-based judges remains uncertain. To address this, we introduce ProJudgeBench, the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed for evaluating abilities of MLLM-based process judges. ProJudgeBench comprises 2,400 test cases and 50,118 step-level labels, spanning four scientific disciplines with diverse difficulty levels and multi-modal content. In ProJudgeBench, each step is meticulously annotated by human experts for correctness, error type, and explanation, enabling a systematic evaluation of judges' capabilities to detect, classify and diagnose errors. Evaluation on ProJudgeBench reveals a significant performance gap between open-source and proprietary models. To bridge this gap, we further propose ProJudge-173k, a large-scale instruction-tuning dataset, and a Dynamic Dual-Phase fine-tuning strategy that encourages models to explicitly reason through problem-solving before assessing solutions. Both contributions significantly enhance the process evaluation capabilities of open-source models. All the resources will be released to foster future research of reliable multi-modal process evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on mathematical benchmarks. At the same time, they are prone to hallucination and sycophancy, often providing convincing but flawed proofs for incorrect mathematical statements provided by users. This significantly limits the applicability of LLMs in theorem proving, as verification of these flawed proofs must be done manually by expert mathematicians. However, existing benchmarks that measure sycophancy in mathematics are limited: they focus solely on final-answer problems, rely on very simple and often contaminated datasets, and construct benchmark samples using synthetic modifications that create ill-posed questions rather than well-posed questions that are demonstrably false. To address these issues, we introduce BrokenMath, the first benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in LLMs within the context of natural language theorem proving. BrokenMath is built from advanced 2025 competition problems, which are perturbed with an LLM to produce false statements and subsequently refined through expert review. Using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time. We further investigate several mitigation strategies, including test-time interventions and supervised fine-tuning on curated sycophantic examples. These approaches substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, sycophantic behavior.

Inequality proving, crucial across diverse scientific and mathematical fields, tests advanced reasoning skills such as discovering tight bounds and strategic theorem application. This makes it a distinct, demanding frontier for large language models (LLMs), offering insights beyond general mathematical problem-solving. Progress in this area is hampered by existing datasets that are often scarce, synthetic, or rigidly formal. We address this by proposing an informal yet verifiable task formulation, recasting inequality proving into two automatically checkable subtasks: bound estimation and relation prediction. Building on this, we release IneqMath, an expert-curated dataset of Olympiad-level inequalities, including a test set and training corpus enriched with step-wise solutions and theorem annotations. We also develop a novel LLM-as-judge evaluation framework, combining a final-answer judge with four step-wise judges designed to detect common reasoning flaws. A systematic evaluation of 29 leading LLMs on IneqMath reveals a surprising reality: even top models like o1 achieve less than 10% overall accuracy under step-wise scrutiny; this is a drop of up to 65.5% from their accuracy considering only final answer equivalence. This discrepancy exposes fragile deductive chains and a critical gap for current LLMs between merely finding an answer and constructing a rigorous proof. Scaling model size and increasing test-time computation yield limited gains in overall proof correctness. Instead, our findings highlight promising research directions such as theorem-guided reasoning and self-refinement. Code and data are available at https://ineqmath.github.io/.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

As models increasingly leverage multi-step reasoning strategies to solve complex problems, supervising the logical validity of these intermediate steps has become a critical research challenge. Process reward models address this by providing step-by-step feedback, but current approaches have two major drawbacks: they typically function as classifiers without providing explanations, and their reliance on supervised fine-tuning with static datasets limits generalization. Inspired by recent advances, we reframe stepwise reward modeling from a classification task to a reasoning task itself. We thus propose a generative judge that reasons about the policy model's reasoning steps (i.e., meta-reasons), outputting thinking tokens before delivering a final verdict. Our model, StepWiser, is trained by reinforcement learning using relative outcomes of rollouts. We show it provides (i) better judgment accuracy on intermediate steps than existing methods; (ii) can be used to improve the policy model at training time; and (iii) improves inference-time search.

Despite rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), achieving reliable performance on highly professional and structured examinations remains a significant challenge. The Japanese bar examination is a particularly demanding benchmark, requiring not only advanced legal reasoning but also strict adherence to complex answer formats that involve joint evaluation of multiple propositions. While recent studies have reported improvements by decomposing such questions into simpler true--false judgments, these approaches have not been systematically evaluated under the original exam format and scoring scheme, leaving open the question of whether they truly capture exam-level competence. In this paper, we present a self-verification model trained on a newly constructed dataset that faithfully replicates the authentic format and evaluation scale of the exam. Our model is able to exceed the official passing score when evaluated on the actual exam scale, marking the first demonstration, to our knowledge, of an LLM passing the Japanese bar examination without altering its original question structure or scoring rules. We further conduct extensive comparisons with alternative strategies, including multi-agent inference and decomposition-based supervision, and find that these methods fail to achieve comparable performance. Our results highlight the importance of format-faithful supervision and consistency verification, and suggest that carefully designed single-model approaches can outperform more complex systems in high-stakes professional reasoning tasks. Our dataset and codes are publicly available.

The formalization of existing mathematical proofs is a notoriously difficult process. Despite decades of research on automation and proof assistants, writing formal proofs remains arduous and only accessible to a few experts. While previous studies to automate formalization focused on powerful search algorithms, no attempts were made to take advantage of available informal proofs. In this work, we introduce Draft, Sketch, and Prove (DSP), a method that maps informal proofs to formal proof sketches, and uses the sketches to guide an automated prover by directing its search to easier sub-problems. We investigate two relevant setups where informal proofs are either written by humans or generated by a language model. Our experiments and ablation studies show that large language models are able to produce well-structured formal sketches that follow the same reasoning steps as the informal proofs. Guiding an automated prover with these sketches enhances its performance from 20.9% to 39.3% on a collection of mathematical competition problems.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate the quality of LLM generations and responses, but this leads to significant challenges: high API costs, uncertain reliability, inflexible pipelines, and inherent biases. To address these, we introduce PAJAMA (Program-As-a-Judge for Automated Model Assessment), a new alternative that uses LLMs to synthesize executable judging programs instead of directly scoring responses. These synthesized programs can be stored and run locally, costing orders of magnitude less while providing interpretable, and auditable judging logic that can be easily adapted. Program-based judges mitigate biases, improving judgment consistency by 15.83% and reducing biased responses by 23.7% on average compared to a Qwen2.5-14B-based LLM-as-a-judge. When program judgments are distilled into a model, PAJAMA outperforms LLM-as-a-judge on the challenging CHAT-HARD subset of RewardBench, outperforming metrics by 2.19% on Prometheus and 8.67% on the JudgeLM dataset, all at three orders of magnitude lower cost.

In this paper, we introduce a new process prejudge strategy in LLM reasoning to demonstrate that bootstrapping with process prejudge allows the LLM to adaptively anticipate the errors encountered when advancing the subsequent reasoning steps, similar to people sometimes pausing to think about what mistakes may occur and how to avoid them, rather than relying solely on trial and error. Specifically, we define a prejudge node in the rationale, which represents a reasoning step, with at least one step that follows the prejudge node that has no paths toward the correct answer. To synthesize the prejudge reasoning process, we present an automated reasoning framework with a dynamic tree-searching strategy. This framework requires only one LLM to perform answer judging, response critiquing, prejudge generation, and thought completion. Furthermore, we develop a two-phase training mechanism with supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) to further enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Experimental results from competition-level complex reasoning demonstrate that our method can teach the model to prejudge before thinking and significantly enhance the reasoning ability of LLMs. Code and data is released at https://github.com/wjn1996/Prejudge-Before-Think.

Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of "tit for tat" state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents. Codes: https://github.com/Skytliang/Multi-Agents-Debate

LLM-as-judge evaluation has become the de facto standard for scaling model assessment, but the practice is statistically unsound: uncalibrated scores can invert preferences, naive confidence intervals on uncalibrated scores achieve near-0% coverage, and importance-weighted estimators collapse under limited overlap despite high effective sample size (ESS). We introduce Causal Judge Evaluation (CJE), a framework that fixes all three failures. On n=4,961 Chatbot Arena prompts (after filtering from 5k), CJE achieves 99% pairwise ranking accuracy at full sample size (94% averaged across configurations), matching oracle quality, at 14x lower cost (for ranking 5 policies) by calibrating a 16x cheaper judge on just 5% oracle labels (~250 labels). CJE combines three components: (i) AutoCal-R, reward calibration via mean-preserving isotonic regression; (ii) SIMCal-W, weight stabilization via stacking of S-monotone candidates; and (iii) Oracle-Uncertainty Aware (OUA) inference that propagates calibration uncertainty into confidence intervals. We formalize the Coverage-Limited Efficiency (CLE) diagnostic, which explains why IPS-style estimators fail even when ESS exceeds 90%: the logger rarely visits regions where target policies concentrate. Key findings: SNIPS inverts rankings even with reward calibration (38% pairwise, negative Kendall's tau) due to weight instability; calibrated IPS remains near-random (47%) despite weight stabilization, consistent with CLE; OUA improves coverage from near-0% to ~86% (Direct) and ~96% (stacked-DR), where naive intervals severely under-cover.

Today, large language models are widely used as judges to evaluate responses from other language models. Hence, it is imperative to benchmark and improve these LLM-judges on real-world language model usage: a typical human-assistant conversation is lengthy, and shows significant diversity in topics, intents, and requirements across turns, e.g. social interactions, task requests, feedback. We present Amulet, a framework that leverages pertinent linguistic concepts of dialog-acts and maxims to improve the accuracy of LLM-judges on preference data with complex, multi-turn conversational context. Amulet presents valuable insights about (a) the communicative structures and intents present in the conversation (dialog acts), and (b) the satisfaction of conversational principles (maxims) by the preference responses, and uses them to make judgments. On four challenging datasets, Amulet shows that (a) humans frequently (60 to 70 percent of the time) change their intents from one turn of the conversation to the next, and (b) in 75 percent of instances, the preference responses can be differentiated via dialog acts and/or maxims, reiterating the latter's significance in judging such data. Amulet can be used either as a judge by applying the framework to a single LLM, or integrated into a jury with different LLM judges; our judges and juries show strong improvements on relevant baselines for all four datasets.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. A critical but under-modeled issue is that judge LLMs differ substantially in reliability; treating all judges equally can yield biased leaderboards and misleading uncertainty estimates. More data can make evaluation more confidently wrong under misspecified aggregation. We propose a judge-aware ranking framework that extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by introducing judge-specific discrimination parameters, jointly estimating latent model quality and judge reliability from pairwise comparisons without reference labels. We establish identifiability up to natural normalizations and prove consistency and asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimator, enabling confidence intervals for score differences and rank comparisons. Across multiple public benchmarks and a newly collected dataset, our method improves agreement with human preferences, achieves higher data efficiency than unweighted baselines, and produces calibrated uncertainty quantification for LLM rankings.

The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited post hoc to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning--an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.

Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased, namely they would favor answers which present better superficial quality (such as verbosity, fluency) while ignoring the instruction following ability. In this work, we propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, for closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality, both on probability level and prompt level. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality. We apply our methods on the bias evaluation benchmark, and experiment results show our methods mitigate the bias by a large margin while maintaining a satisfactory evaluation accuracy.

The current focus of AI research is shifting from emphasizing model training towards enhancing evaluation quality, a transition that is crucial for driving further advancements in AI systems. Traditional evaluation methods typically rely on reward models assigning scalar preference scores to outputs. Although effective, such approaches lack interpretability, leaving users often uncertain about why a reward model rates a particular response as high or low. The advent of LLM-as-a-Judge provides a more scalable and interpretable method of supervision, offering insights into the decision-making process. Moreover, with the emergence of large reasoning models, which consume more tokens for deeper thinking and answer refinement, scaling test-time computation in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm presents an avenue for further boosting performance and providing more interpretability through reasoning traces. In this paper, we introduce J1-7B, which is first supervised fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets collected via rejection-sampling and subsequently trained using Reinforcement Learning (RL) with verifiable rewards. At inference time, we apply Simple Test-Time Scaling (STTS) strategies for additional performance improvement. Experimental results demonstrate that J1-7B surpasses the previous state-of-the-art LLM-as-a-Judge by 4.8\% and exhibits a 5.1\% stronger scaling trend under STTS. Additionally, we present three key findings: (1) Existing LLM-as-a-Judge does not inherently exhibit such scaling trend. (2) Model simply fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets continues to demonstrate similarly weak scaling behavior. (3) Significant scaling trend emerges primarily during the RL phase, suggesting that effective STTS capability is acquired predominantly through RL training.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to achieve breakthrough performance on complex logical reasoning tasks. Nevertheless, most existing research focuses on employing formal language to guide LLMs to derive reliable reasoning paths, while systematic evaluations of these capabilities are still limited. In this paper, we aim to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs across various logical reasoning problems utilizing formal languages. From the perspective of three dimensions, i.e., spectrum of LLMs, taxonomy of tasks, and format of trajectories, our key findings are: 1) Thinking models significantly outperform Instruct models, especially when formal language is employed; 2) All LLMs exhibit limitations in inductive reasoning capability, irrespective of whether they use a formal language; 3) Data with PoT format achieves the best generalization performance across other languages. Additionally, we also curate the formal-relative training data to further enhance the small language models, and the experimental results indicate that a simple rejected fine-tuning method can better enable LLMs to generalize across formal languages and achieve the best overall performance. Our codes and reports are available at https://github.com/jiangjin1999/FormalEval.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has catalyzed significant breakthroughs in complex LLM reasoning within verifiable domains, such as mathematics and programming. Recent efforts have sought to extend this paradigm to open-ended tasks by employing LLMs-as-a-Judge to provide sequence-level rewards for policy optimization. However, these rewards are inherently sparse, failing to provide the fine-grained supervision necessary for generating complex, long-form trajectories. Furthermore, current work treats the Judge as a black-box oracle, discarding the rich intermediate feedback signals encoded in it. To address these limitations, we introduce Grad2Reward, a novel framework that extracts dense process rewards directly from the Judge's model inference process via a single backward pass. By leveraging gradient-based attribution, Grad2Reward enables precise token-level credit assignment, substantially enhancing training efficiency and reasoning quality. Additionally, Grad2Reward introduces a self-judging mechanism, allowing the policy to improve through its own evaluative signals without training specialized reward models or reliance on superior external Judges. The experiments demonstrate that policies optimized with Grad2Reward achieve outstanding performance across diverse open-ended tasks, affirming its effectiveness and broad generalizability.

Autoformalization, which translates natural language mathematics into formal statements to enable machine reasoning, faces fundamental challenges in the wild due to the multimodal nature of the physical world, where physics requires inferring hidden constraints (e.g., mass or energy) from visual elements. To address this, we propose MMFormalizer, which extends autoformalization beyond text by integrating adaptive grounding with entities from real-world mathematical and physical domains. MMFormalizer recursively constructs formal propositions from perceptually grounded primitives through recursive grounding and axiom composition, with adaptive recursive termination ensuring that every abstraction is supported by visual evidence and anchored in dimensional or axiomatic grounding. We evaluate MMFormalizer on a new benchmark, PhyX-AF, comprising 115 curated samples from MathVerse, PhyX, Synthetic Geometry, and Analytic Geometry, covering diverse multimodal autoformalization tasks. Results show that frontier models such as GPT-5 and Gemini-3-Pro achieve the highest compile and semantic accuracy, with GPT-5 excelling in physical reasoning, while geometry remains the most challenging domain. Overall, MMFormalizer provides a scalable framework for unified multimodal autoformalization, bridging perception and formal reasoning. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multimodal autoformalization method capable of handling classical mechanics (derived from the Hamiltonian), as well as relativity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics. More details are available on our project page: MMFormalizer.github.io

This paper introduces LegalRikai: Open Benchmark, a new benchmark comprising four complex tasks that emulate Japanese corporate legal practices. The benchmark was created by legal professionals under the supervision of an attorney. This benchmark has 100 samples that require long-form, structured outputs, and we evaluated them against multiple practical criteria. We conducted both human and automated evaluations using leading LLMs, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.1. Our human evaluation revealed that abstract instructions prompted unnecessary modifications, highlighting model weaknesses in document-level editing that were missed by conventional short-text tasks. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that automated evaluation aligns well with human judgment on criteria with clear linguistic grounding, and assessing structural consistency remains a challenge. The result demonstrates the utility of automated evaluation as a screening tool when expert availability is limited. We propose a dataset evaluation framework to promote more practice-oriented research in the legal domain.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have given rise to the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm, showcasing their potential to deliver human-like judgments. However, in the field of machine translation (MT) evaluation, current LLM-as-a-judge methods fall short of learned automatic metrics. In this paper, we propose Multidimensional Multi-Agent Debate (M-MAD), a systematic LLM-based multi-agent framework for advanced LLM-as-a-judge MT evaluation. Our findings demonstrate that M-MAD achieves significant advancements by (1) decoupling heuristic MQM criteria into distinct evaluation dimensions for fine-grained assessments; (2) employing multi-agent debates to harness the collaborative reasoning capabilities of LLMs; (3) synthesizing dimension-specific results into a final evaluation judgment to ensure robust and reliable outcomes. Comprehensive experiments show that M-MAD not only outperforms all existing LLM-as-a-judge methods but also competes with state-of-the-art reference-based automatic metrics, even when powered by a suboptimal model like GPT-4o mini. Detailed ablations and analysis highlight the superiority of our framework design, offering a fresh perspective for LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/SU-JIAYUAN/M-MAD.

Can foundation models be guided to execute tasks involving legal reasoning? We believe that building a benchmark to answer this question will require sustained collaborative efforts between the computer science and legal communities. To that end, this short paper serves three purposes. First, we describe how IRAC-a framework legal scholars use to distinguish different types of legal reasoning-can guide the construction of a Foundation Model oriented benchmark. Second, we present a seed set of 44 tasks built according to this framework. We discuss initial findings, and highlight directions for new tasks. Finally-inspired by the Open Science movement-we make a call for the legal and computer science communities to join our efforts by contributing new tasks. This work is ongoing, and our progress can be tracked here: https://github.com/HazyResearch/legalbench.

Current robotic evaluation is still largely dominated by binary success rates, which collapse rich execution processes into a single outcome and obscure critical qualities such as progress, efficiency, and stability. To address this limitation, we propose PRM-as-a-Judge, a dense evaluation paradigm that leverages Process Reward Models (PRMs) to audit policy execution directly from trajectory videos by estimating task progress from observation sequences. Central to this paradigm is the OPD (Outcome-Process-Diagnosis) metric system, which explicitly formalizes execution quality via a task-aligned progress potential. We characterize dense robotic evaluation through two axiomatic properties: macro-consistency, which requires additive and path-consistent aggregation, and micro-resolution, which requires sensitivity to fine-grained physical evolution. Under this formulation, potential-based PRM judges provide a natural instantiation of dense evaluation, with macro-consistency following directly from the induced scalar potential. We empirically validate the micro-resolution property using RoboPulse, a diagnostic benchmark specifically designed for probing micro-scale progress discrimination, where several trajectory-trained PRM judges outperform discriminative similarity-based methods and general-purpose foundation-model judges. Finally, leveraging PRM-as-a-Judge and the OPD metric system, we conduct a structured audit of mainstream policy paradigms across long-horizon tasks, revealing behavioral signatures and failure modes that are invisible to outcome-only metrics.

Great scientists have strong judgement and foresight, closely tied to what we call scientific taste. Here, we use the term to refer to the capacity to judge and propose research ideas with high potential impact. However, most relative research focuses on improving an AI scientist's executive capability, while enhancing an AI's scientific taste remains underexplored. In this work, we propose Reinforcement Learning from Community Feedback (RLCF), a training paradigm that uses large-scale community signals as supervision, and formulate scientific taste learning as a preference modeling and alignment problem. For preference modeling, we train Scientific Judge on 700K field- and time-matched pairs of high- vs. low-citation papers to judge ideas. For preference alignment, using Scientific Judge as a reward model, we train a policy model, Scientific Thinker, to propose research ideas with high potential impact. Experiments show Scientific Judge outperforms SOTA LLMs (e.g., GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro) and generalizes to future-year test, unseen fields, and peer-review preference. Furthermore, Scientific Thinker proposes research ideas with higher potential impact than baselines. Our findings show that AI can learn scientific taste, marking a key step toward reaching human-level AI scientists.

We reveal and address the frequently overlooked yet important issue of disguised procedural unfairness, namely, the potentially inadvertent alterations on the behavior of neutral (i.e., not problematic) aspects of data generating process, and/or the lack of procedural assurance of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individuals. Inspired by John Rawls's advocacy for pure procedural justice, we view automated decision-making as a microcosm of social institutions, and consider how the data generating process itself can satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. We propose a framework that decouples the objectionable data generating components from the neutral ones by utilizing reference points and the associated value instantiation rule. Our findings highlight the necessity of preventing disguised procedural unfairness, drawing attention not only to the objectionable data generating components that we aim to mitigate, but also more importantly, to the neutral components that we intend to keep unaffected.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, most LLM judges operate solely on intrinsic text-based reasoning, limiting their ability to verify complex constraints or perform accurate computation. Motivated by the success of tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) in numerous tasks, we propose TIR-Judge, an end-to-end RL framework for training LLM judges that integrates a code executor for precise evaluation. TIR-Judge is built on three principles: (i) diverse training across verifiable and non-verifiable domains, (ii) flexible judgment formats (pointwise, pairwise, listwise), and (iii) iterative RL that bootstraps directly from the initial model without distillation. On seven public benchmarks, TIR-Judge surpasses strong reasoning-based judges by up to 6.4% (pointwise) and 7.7% (pairwise), and achieves listwise performance comparable to Claude-Opus-4 despite having only 8B parameters. Remarkably, TIR-Judge-Zero - trained entirely without distilled judge trajectories, matches the performance of distilled variants, demonstrating that tool-augmented judges can self-evolve through iterative reinforcement learning.

This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information. We adopt adversarial training to prevent the system from relying on it. We evaluate our deconfounded models by employing interpretability techniques and comparing to expert annotations. Quantitative experiments and qualitative analysis show that our deconfounded model consistently aligns better with expert rationales than baselines trained for prediction only. We further contribute a set of reference expert annotations to the validation and testing partitions of an existing benchmark dataset of European Court of Human Rights cases.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

The "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. LLM annotations are widely used, not only in NLP research but also in fields like medicine, psychology, and social science. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. In this paper, we propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. Additionally, we introduce a versatile and interpretable measure for comparing LLM judges. To demonstrate our procedure, we curated a diverse collection of ten datasets, consisting of language and vision-language tasks, and conducted experiments with six LLMs and four prompting techniques. Our results show that LLMs can sometimes replace humans with closed-source LLMs (such as GPT-4o), outperforming open-source LLMs, and that prompting techniques yield judges of varying quality. We hope this study encourages more rigorous and reliable practices.

Evaluating the open-ended outputs of large language models (LLMs) has become a bottleneck as model capabilities, task diversity, and modality coverage rapidly expand. Existing "LLM-as-a-Judge" evaluators are typically narrow in a few tasks, aspects, or modalities, and easily suffer from low consistency. In this paper, we argue that explicit, fine-grained aspect specification is the key to both generalizability and objectivity in automated evaluation. To this end, we propose a hierarchical aspect taxonomy encompassing 112 distinct aspects that unifies evaluation across four representative settings -- Natural Language Generation, Image Understanding, Image Generation, and Interleaved Text-and-Image Generation. Building upon this taxonomy, we create FRABench, a benchmark comprising 60.4k pairwise samples with 325k evaluation labels obtained from a combination of human and LLM annotations. FRABench provides the first large-scale, multi-modal resource for training and meta-evaluating fine-grained LMM judges. Leveraging FRABench, we develop GenEval, a fine-grained evaluator generalizable across tasks and modalities. Experiments show that GenEval (i) attains high agreement with GPT-4o and expert annotators, (ii) transfers robustly to unseen tasks and modalities, and (iii) reveals systematic weaknesses of current LMMs on evaluation.

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

Building AI systems that can plan, act, and create in the physical world requires more than pattern recognition. Such systems must understand the causal mechanisms and constraints governing physical processes in order to guide sequential decisions. This capability relies on internal representations, analogous to an internal language model, that relate observations, actions, and resulting environmental changes. However, many existing benchmarks treat visual perception and programmatic reasoning as separate problems, focusing either on visual recognition or on symbolic tasks. The domain of origami provides a natural testbed that integrates these modalities. Constructing shapes through folding operations requires visual perception, reasoning about geometric and physical constraints, and sequential planning, while remaining sufficiently structured for systematic evaluation. We introduce OrigamiBench, an interactive benchmark in which models iteratively propose folds and receive feedback on physical validity and similarity to a target configuration. Experiments with modern vision-language models show that scaling model size alone does not reliably produce causal reasoning about physical transformations. Models fail to generate coherent multi-step folding strategies, suggesting that visual and language representations remain weakly integrated.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks. Beyond directly answering user queries, LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models. Such an evaluation capability is crucial both for benchmarking different LLMs and for improving response quality through response ranking. However, despite the growing adoption of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, its effectiveness in coding scenarios remains underexplored due to the absence of dedicated benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce CodeJudgeBench, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge models across three critical coding tasks: code generation, code repair, and unit test generation. Through comprehensive benchmarking of 26 LLM-as-a-Judge models, we find that recent thinking models significantly outperform non-thinking models on our carefully designed code judging tasks. Notably, even relatively small thinking models, such as Qwen3-8B, can outperform specially trained LLM-as-a-Judge models up to 70B in size. Nevertheless, all models still exhibit significant randomness in their judgment of coding tasks. For pairwise judging tasks, simply changing the order in which responses are presented can substantially impact accuracy. In addition, when judging code and unit tests written by different LLMs, LLM-as-a-Judge models also show variance in performance. This sensitivity raises concerns about the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge in coding scenarios. Lastly, we study optimal prompting strategies for LLM-as-a-Judge. We find that using pair-wise comparison outperforms scalar point-wise judging. Furthermore, retaining comments and reasoning in the full, unprocessed LLM response leads to improved judge performance.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

This is the first paper in a series of work we have accomplished over the past three years. In this paper, we have constructed a consistent formal plane geometry system. This will serve as a crucial bridge between IMO-level plane geometry challenges and readable AI automated reasoning. Within this formal framework, we have been able to seamlessly integrate modern AI models with our formal system. AI is now capable of providing deductive reasoning solutions to IMO-level plane geometry problems, just like handling other natural languages, and these proofs are readable, traceable, and verifiable. We propose the geometry formalization theory (GFT) to guide the development of the geometry formal system. Based on the GFT, we have established the FormalGeo, which consists of 88 geometric predicates and 196 theorems. It can represent, validate, and solve IMO-level geometry problems. we also have crafted the FGPS (formal geometry problem solver) in Python. It serves as both an interactive assistant for verifying problem-solving processes and an automated problem solver. We've annotated the formalgeo7k and formalgeo-imo datasets. The former contains 6,981 (expand to 133,818 through data augmentation) geometry problems, while the latter includes 18 (expand to 2,627 and continuously increasing) IMO-level challenging geometry problems. All annotated problems include detailed formal language descriptions and solutions. Implementation of the formal system and experiments validate the correctness and utility of the GFT. The backward depth-first search method only yields a 2.42% problem-solving failure rate, and we can incorporate deep learning techniques to achieve lower one. The source code of FGPS and datasets are available at https://github.com/BitSecret/FGPS.

Deepfake detection models often generate natural-language explanations, yet their reasoning is frequently ungrounded in visual evidence, limiting reliability. Existing evaluations measure classification accuracy but overlook reasoning fidelity. We propose DeepfakeJudge, a framework for scalable reasoning supervision and evaluation, that integrates an out-of-distribution benchmark containing recent generative and editing forgeries, a human-annotated subset with visual reasoning labels, and a suite of evaluation models, that specialize in evaluating reasoning rationales without the need for explicit ground truth reasoning rationales. The Judge is optimized through a bootstrapped generator-evaluator process that scales human feedback into structured reasoning supervision and supports both pointwise and pairwise evaluation. On the proposed meta-evaluation benchmark, our reasoning-bootstrapped model achieves an accuracy of 96.2\%, outperforming 30x larger baselines. The reasoning judge attains very high correlation with human ratings and 98.9\% percent pairwise agreement on the human-annotated meta-evaluation subset. These results establish reasoning fidelity as a quantifiable dimension of deepfake detection and demonstrate scalable supervision for interpretable deepfake reasoning. Our user study shows that participants preferred the reasonings generated by our framework 70\% of the time, in terms of faithfulness, groundedness, and usefulness, compared to those produced by other models and datasets. All of our datasets, models, and codebase are https://github.com/KjAeRsTuIsK/DeepfakeJudge{open-sourced}.

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many open questions about the strengths and weaknesses of this paradigm, and what potential biases it may hold. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the performance of various LLMs acting as judges. We leverage TriviaQA as a benchmark for assessing objective knowledge reasoning of LLMs and evaluate them alongside human annotations which we found to have a high inter-annotator agreement. Our study includes 9 judge models and 9 exam taker models -- both base and instruction-tuned. We assess the judge model's alignment across different model sizes, families, and judge prompts. Among other results, our research rediscovers the importance of using Cohen's kappa as a metric of alignment as opposed to simple percent agreement, showing that judges with high percent agreement can still assign vastly different scores. We find that both Llama-3 70B and GPT-4 Turbo have an excellent alignment with humans, but in terms of ranking exam taker models, they are outperformed by both JudgeLM-7B and the lexical judge Contains, which have up to 34 points lower human alignment. Through error analysis and various other studies, including the effects of instruction length and leniency bias, we hope to provide valuable lessons for using LLMs as judges in the future.

Automatic evaluation with large language models, commonly known as LLM-as-a-judge, is now standard across reasoning and alignment tasks. Despite evaluating many samples in deployment, these evaluators typically (i) treat each case independently, missing the opportunity to accumulate experience, and (ii) rely on a single fixed prompt for all cases, neglecting the need for sample-specific evaluation criteria. We introduce Learning While Evaluating (LWE), a framework that allows evaluators to improve sequentially at inference time without requiring training or validation sets. LWE maintains an evolving meta-prompt that (i) produces sample-specific evaluation instructions and (ii) refines itself through self-generated feedback. Furthermore, we propose Selective LWE, which updates the meta-prompt only on self-inconsistent cases, focusing computation where it matters most. This selective approach retains the benefits of sequential learning while being far more cost-effective. Across two pairwise comparison benchmarks, Selective LWE outperforms strong baselines, empirically demonstrating that evaluators can improve during sequential testing with a simple selective update, learning most from the cases they struggle with.

Legislation can be viewed as a body of prescriptive rules expressed in natural language. The application of legislation to facts of a case we refer to as statutory reasoning, where those facts are also expressed in natural language. Computational statutory reasoning is distinct from most existing work in machine reading, in that much of the information needed for deciding a case is declared exactly once (a law), while the information needed in much of machine reading tends to be learned through distributional language statistics. To investigate the performance of natural language understanding approaches on statutory reasoning, we introduce a dataset, together with a legal-domain text corpus. Straightforward application of machine reading models exhibits low out-of-the-box performance on our questions, whether or not they have been fine-tuned to the legal domain. We contrast this with a hand-constructed Prolog-based system, designed to fully solve the task. These experiments support a discussion of the challenges facing statutory reasoning moving forward, which we argue is an interesting real-world task that can motivate the development of models able to utilize prescriptive rules specified in natural language.

LLM-as-a-judge has emerged as a cornerstone technique for evaluating large language models by leveraging LLM reasoning to score prompt-response pairs. Since LLM judgments are stochastic, practitioners commonly query each pair multiple times to estimate mean scores accurately. This raises a critical challenge: given a fixed computational budget B, how to optimally allocate queries across K prompt-response pairs to minimize estimation error? % We present a principled variance-adaptive approach leveraging multi-armed bandit theory and concentration inequalities. Our method dynamically allocates queries based on estimated score variances, concentrating resources where uncertainty is highest. Further, our algorithm is shown to achieve a worst-case score-estimation error of Oleft(frac{sum_{i=1^K σ_i^2}{B}}right), σ_i^2 being the unknown score variance for pair i in [K] with near-optimal budget allocation. % Experiments on Summarize-From-Feedback and HelpSteer2 demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms uniform allocation, reducing worst-case estimation error while maintaining identical budgets. Our work establishes a theoretical foundation for efficient LLM evaluation with practical implications for AI safety, model alignment, and automated assessment at scale.

Premise selection is a crucial yet challenging step in mathematical formalization, especially for users with limited experience. Due to the lack of available formalization projects, existing approaches that leverage language models often suffer from data scarcity. In this work, we introduce an innovative method for training a premise retriever to support the formalization of mathematics. Our approach employs a BERT model to embed proof states and premises into a shared latent space. The retrieval model is trained within a contrastive learning framework and incorporates a domain-specific tokenizer along with a fine-grained similarity computation method. Experimental results show that our model is highly competitive compared to existing baselines, achieving strong performance while requiring fewer computational resources. Performance is further enhanced through the integration of a re-ranking module. To streamline the formalization process, we will release a search engine that enables users to query Mathlib theorems directly using proof states, significantly improving accessibility and efficiency. Codes are available at https://github.com/ruc-ai4math/Premise-Retrieval.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a common paradigm to use Large Language Models (LLMs) alongside private and up-to-date knowledge bases. In this work, we address the challenges of using LLM-as-a-Judge when evaluating grounded answers generated by RAG systems. To assess the calibration and discrimination capabilities of judge models, we identify 7 generator failure modes and introduce GroUSE (Grounded QA Unitary Scoring of Evaluators), a meta-evaluation benchmark of 144 unit tests. This benchmark reveals that existing automated RAG evaluation frameworks often overlook important failure modes, even when using GPT-4 as a judge. To improve on the current design of automated RAG evaluation frameworks, we propose a novel pipeline and find that while closed models perform well on GroUSE, state-of-the-art open-source judges do not generalize to our proposed criteria, despite strong correlation with GPT-4's judgement. Our findings suggest that correlation with GPT-4 is an incomplete proxy for the practical performance of judge models and should be supplemented with evaluations on unit tests for precise failure mode detection. We further show that finetuning Llama-3 on GPT-4's reasoning traces significantly boosts its evaluation capabilities, improving upon both correlation with GPT-4's evaluations and calibration on reference situations.

Legal reasoning requires both precise interpretation of statutory language and consistent application of complex rules, presenting significant challenges for AI systems. This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages. In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes. The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the ontology schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers using a programmatic implementation that operationalizes the ontological knowledge. This bridging of natural language understanding with symbolic reasoning provides explicit and verifiable inspection points, significantly enhancing transparency compared to end-to-end approaches. Evaluation on statutory tax calculation tasks demonstrates substantial improvements, with foundational models achieving 76.4\% accuracy compared to 18.8\% baseline performance, effectively narrowing the performance gap between reasoning and foundational models. These findings suggest that modular architectures with formalized knowledge representations can make sophisticated legal reasoning more accessible through computationally efficient models while enhancing consistency and explainability in AI legal reasoning, establishing a foundation for future research into more transparent, trustworthy, and effective AI systems for legal domain.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, raising important questions about their biases in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We present a comprehensive benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets. Through investigation of bandwagon, authority, position, and distraction biases, we uncover four key findings: (1) despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, LRMs remain susceptible to the above biases; (2) LRMs demonstrate better robustness than LLMs specifically on fact-related datasets; (3) LRMs exhibit notable position bias, preferring options in later positions; and (4) we identify a novel "superficial reflection bias" where phrases mimicking reasoning (e.g., "wait, let me think...") significantly influence model judgments. To address these biases, we design and evaluate three mitigation strategies: specialized system prompts that reduce judging biases by up to 19\% in preference alignment datasets and 14\% in fact-related datasets, in-context learning that provides up to 27\% improvement on preference tasks but shows inconsistent results on factual tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that reduces biases by up to 10\% in preference datasets and 16\% in fact-related datasets, with self-reflection proving particularly effective for LRMs. Our work provides crucial insights for developing more reliable LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, especially as LRMs become increasingly deployed as automated judges.

As millions of Muslims turn to LLMs like GPT, Claude, and DeepSeek for religious guidance, a critical question arises: Can these AI systems reliably reason about Islamic law? We introduce IslamicLegalBench, the first benchmark evaluating LLMs across seven schools of Islamic jurisprudence, with 718 instances covering 13 tasks of varying complexity. Evaluation of nine state-of-the-art models reveals major limitations: the best model achieves only 68% correctness with 21% hallucination, while several models fall below 35% correctness and exceed 55% hallucination. Few-shot prompting provides minimal gains, improving only 2 of 9 models by >1%. Moderate-complexity tasks requiring exact knowledge show the highest errors, whereas high-complexity tasks display apparent competence through semantic reasoning. False premise detection indicates risky sycophancy, with 6 of 9 models accepting misleading assumptions at rates above 40%. These results highlight that prompt-based methods cannot compensate for missing foundational knowledge. IslamicLegalBench offers the first systematic framework to evaluate Islamic legal reasoning in AI, revealing critical gaps in tools increasingly relied on for spiritual guidance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

The research in AI-based formal mathematical reasoning has shown an unstoppable growth trend. These studies have excelled in mathematical competitions like IMO, showing significant progress. However, these studies intertwined multiple skills simultaneously, i.e., problem-solving, reasoning, and writing formal specifications, making it hard to precisely identify the LLMs' strengths and weaknesses in each task. This paper focuses on formal verification, an immediate application scenario of formal reasoning, and decomposes it into six sub-tasks. We constructed 18k high-quality instruction-response pairs across five mainstream formal specification languages (Coq, Lean4, Dafny, ACSL, and TLA+) in six formal-verification-related tasks by distilling GPT-4o. They are split into a 14k+ fine-tuning dataset FM-alpaca and a 4k benchmark FM-Bench. We found that LLMs are good at writing proof segments when given either the code, or the detailed description of proof steps. Also, the fine-tuning brought about a nearly threefold improvement at most. Interestingly, we observed that fine-tuning with formal data also enhances mathematics, reasoning, and coding abilities. We hope our findings inspire further research. Fine-tuned models are released to facilitate subsequent studies

Autoformalization addresses the scarcity of data for Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) by translating mathematical problems from natural language into formal statements. Efforts in recent work shift from directly prompting large language models to training an end-to-end formalizer model from scratch, achieving remarkable advancements. However, existing formalizer still struggles to consistently generate valid statements that meet syntactic validity and semantic consistency. To address this issue, we propose the Autoformalizer with Tool Feedback (ATF), a novel approach that incorporates syntactic and consistency information as tools into the formalization process. By integrating Lean 4 compilers for syntax corrections and employing a multi-LLMs-as-judge approach for consistency validation, the model is able to adaptively refine generated statements according to the tool feedback, enhancing both syntactic validity and semantic consistency. The training of ATF involves a cold-start phase on synthetic tool-calling data, an expert iteration phase to improve formalization capabilities, and Direct Preference Optimization to alleviate ineffective revisions. Experimental results show that ATF markedly outperforms a range of baseline formalizer models, with its superior performance further validated by human evaluations. Subsequent analysis reveals that ATF demonstrates excellent inference scaling properties. Moreover, we open-source Numina-ATF, a dataset containing 750K synthetic formal statements to facilitate advancements in autoformalization and ATP research.

Despite impressive visual fidelity, modern video generative models frequently produce sequences that violate intuitive physical laws, such as objects floating, teleporting, or morphing in ways that defy causality. While humans can easily detect such implausibilities, there remains no robust method for quantitatively assessing physical realism in video. In this work, we explore whether Video-Language Models (VLMs) can be trained to serve as reliable judges of physical plausibility. We find that existing VLMs struggle to identify physics violations, exposing fundamental limitations in their temporal and causal reasoning. To address this, we introduce TRAVL, a fine-tuning recipe that combines a balanced training dataset with a trajectory-aware attention module to improve motion encoding and discrimination in VLMs. To evaluate physical reasoning more rigorously, we propose ImplausiBench, a benchmark of 300 videos (150 real, 150 generated) that removes linguistic biases and isolates visual-temporal understanding. Performance is reported both with gold-standard human judgments and stricter LLM-as-judge metrics. Together, TRAVL and ImplausiBench offer a unified framework for probing and improving physical plausibility in multimodal models, shedding light on a challenging and underexplored aspect of visual-temporal understanding.

Model-based evaluation is at the heart of successful model development -- as a reward model for training, and as a replacement for human evaluation. To train such evaluators, the standard approach is to collect a large amount of human preference judgments over model responses, which is costly and the data becomes stale as models improve. In this work, we present an approach that aims to im-prove evaluators without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Starting from unlabeled instructions, our iterative self-improvement scheme generates contrasting model outputs and trains an LLM-as-a-Judge to produce reasoning traces and final judgments, repeating this training at each new iteration using the improved predictions. Without any labeled preference data, our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM (Llama3-70B-Instruct) from 75.4 to 88.3 (88.7 with majority vote) on RewardBench. This outperforms commonly used LLM judges such as GPT-4 and matches the performance of the top-performing reward models trained with labeled examples.

As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us. To ensure that such decisions are aligned with human values, it is imperative for us to understand not only what decisions they make but also how they come to those decisions. Reasoning language models, which provide both final responses and (partially transparent) intermediate thinking traces, present a timely opportunity to study AI procedural reasoning. Unlike math and code problems which often have objectively correct answers, moral dilemmas are an excellent testbed for process-focused evaluation because they allow for multiple defensible conclusions. To do so, we present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of rubric criteria that experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios. MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations to cover cases on AI advising humans moral decisions as well as making moral decisions autonomously. Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics. Our results show that scaling laws and existing benchmarks on math, code, and scientific reasoning tasks fail to predict models' abilities to perform moral reasoning. Models also show partiality towards specific moral frameworks (e.g., Benthamite Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology), which might be side effects of popular training paradigms. Together, these benchmarks advance process-focused reasoning evaluation towards safer and more transparent AI.

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. Therefore, we identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM-which systematically quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge by using automated and principle-guided modification. Our experiments cover multiple popular language models, and the results indicate that while advanced models have achieved commendable overall performance, significant biases persist in certain specific tasks. Empirical results suggest that there remains room for improvement in the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge. Moreover, we also discuss the explicit and implicit influence of these biases and give some suggestions for the reliable application of LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.

The ability to precisely derive mathematical objects is a core requirement for downstream STEM applications, including mathematics, physics, and chemistry, where reasoning must culminate in formally structured expressions. Yet, current LM evaluations of mathematical and scientific reasoning rely heavily on simplified answer formats such as numerical values or multiple choice options due to the convenience of automated assessment. In this paper we provide three contributions for improving reasoning over mathematical objects: (i) we build and release training data and benchmarks for deriving mathematical objects, the Principia suite; (ii) we provide training recipes with strong LLM-judges and verifiers, where we show that on-policy judge training boosts performance; (iii) we show how on-policy training can also be used to scale test-time compute via aggregation. We find that strong LMs such as Qwen3-235B and o3 struggle on Principia, while our training recipes can bring significant improvements over different LLM backbones, while simultaneously improving results on existing numerical and MCQA tasks, demonstrating cross-format generalization of reasoning abilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated notable capabilities across various tasks, showcasing complex problem-solving abilities. Understanding and executing complex rules, along with multi-step planning, are fundamental to logical reasoning and critical for practical LLM agents and decision-making systems. However, evaluating LLMs as effective rule-based executors and planners remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce LogicGame, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the comprehensive rule understanding, execution, and planning capabilities of LLMs. Unlike traditional benchmarks, LogicGame provides diverse games that contain a series of rules with an initial state, requiring models to comprehend and apply predefined regulations to solve problems. We create simulated scenarios in which models execute or plan operations to achieve specific outcomes. These game scenarios are specifically designed to distinguish logical reasoning from mere knowledge by relying exclusively on predefined rules. This separation allows for a pure assessment of rule-based reasoning capabilities. The evaluation considers not only final outcomes but also intermediate steps, providing a comprehensive assessment of model performance. Moreover, these intermediate steps are deterministic and can be automatically verified. LogicGame defines game scenarios with varying difficulty levels, from simple rule applications to complex reasoning chains, in order to offer a precise evaluation of model performance on rule understanding and multi-step execution. Utilizing LogicGame, we test various LLMs and identify notable shortcomings in their rule-based logical reasoning abilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. This underscores the need for robust evaluation methodologies to accurately assess LLM-based applications. Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation. Recent research has explored leveraging LLMs to mimic human reasoning and decision-making processes for evaluation purposes known as LLM-as-a-judge framework. However, these existing frameworks have two significant limitations. First, they lack the flexibility to adapt to different text styles, including various answer and ground truth styles, thereby reducing their generalization performance. Second, the evaluation scores produced by these frameworks are often skewed and hard to interpret, showing a low correlation with human judgment. To address these challenges, we propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications. This system iteratively refines evaluation prompts and balances the trade-off between the adaptive requirements of downstream tasks and the alignment with human perception. Our experimental results show that the proposed multi-agent LLM Judge framework not only enhances evaluation accuracy compared to existing methods but also produces evaluation scores that better align with human perception.

Recent advancements in large reasoning models (LRMs) have introduced an intermediate "thinking" process prior to generating final answers, improving their reasoning capabilities on complex downstream tasks. However, the potential of LRMs as evaluators for machine translation (MT) quality remains underexplored. We provides the first systematic analysis of LRM-as-a-judge in MT evaluation. We identify key challenges, revealing LRMs require tailored evaluation materials, tend to "overthink" simpler instances and have issues with scoring mechanisms leading to overestimation. To address these, we propose to calibrate LRM thinking by training them on synthetic, human-like thinking trajectories. Our experiments on WMT24 Metrics benchmarks demonstrate that this approach largely reduces thinking budgets by ~35x while concurrently improving evaluation performance across different LRM scales from 7B to 32B (e.g., R1-Distill-Qwen-7B achieves a +8.7 correlation point improvement). These findings highlight the potential of efficiently calibrated LRMs to advance fine-grained automatic MT evaluation.

As a seemingly self-explanatory task, problem-solving has been a significant component of science and engineering. However, a general yet concrete formulation of problem-solving itself is missing. With the recent development of AI-based problem-solving agents, the demand for process-level verifiability is rapidly increasing yet underexplored. To fill these gaps, we present a principled formulation of problem-solving as a deterministic Markov decision process; a novel framework, FPS (Formal Problem-Solving), which utilizes existing FTP (formal theorem proving) environments to perform process-verified problem-solving; and D-FPS (Deductive FPS), decoupling solving and answer verification for better human-alignment. The expressiveness, soundness and completeness of the frameworks are proven. We construct three benchmarks on problem-solving: FormalMath500, a formalization of a subset of the MATH500 benchmark; MiniF2F-Solving and PutnamBench-Solving, adaptations of FTP benchmarks MiniF2F and PutnamBench. For faithful, interpretable, and human-aligned evaluation, we propose RPE (Restricted Propositional Equivalence), a symbolic approach to determine the correctness of answers by formal verification. We evaluate four prevalent FTP models and two prompting methods as baselines, solving at most 23.77% of FormalMath500, 27.47% of MiniF2F-Solving, and 0.31% of PutnamBench-Solving.

Autoformalization, which translates natural language mathematics into machine-verifiable formal statements, is critical for using formal mathematical reasoning to solve math problems stated in natural language. While Large Language Models can generate syntactically correct formal statements, they often fail to preserve the original problem's semantic intent. This limitation arises from the LLM approaches' treating autoformalization as a simplistic translation task which lacks mechanisms for self-reflection and iterative refinement that human experts naturally employ. To address these issues, we propose ReForm, a Reflective Autoformalization method that tightly integrates semantic consistency evaluation into the autoformalization process. This enables the model to iteratively generate formal statements, assess its semantic fidelity, and self-correct identified errors through progressive refinement. To effectively train this reflective model, we introduce Prospective Bounded Sequence Optimization (PBSO), which employs different rewards at different sequence positions to ensure that the model develops both accurate autoformalization and correct semantic validations, preventing superficial critiques that would undermine the purpose of reflection. Extensive experiments across four autoformalization benchmarks demonstrate that ReForm achieves an average improvement of 17.2 percentage points over the strongest baselines. To further ensure evaluation reliability, we introduce ConsistencyCheck, a benchmark of 859 expert-annotated items that not only validates LLMs as judges but also reveals that autoformalization is inherently difficult: even human experts produce semantic errors in up to 38.5% of cases.

In this work, we propose an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) system to search for models not only with good prediction accuracy but also fair. We first investigate the necessity and impact of unfairness mitigation in the AutoML context. We establish the FairAutoML framework. The framework provides a novel design based on pragmatic abstractions, which makes it convenient to incorporate existing fairness definitions, unfairness mitigation techniques, and hyperparameter search methods into the model search and evaluation process. Following this framework, we develop a fair AutoML system based on an existing AutoML system. The augmented system includes a resource allocation strategy to dynamically decide when and on which models to conduct unfairness mitigation according to the prediction accuracy, fairness, and resource consumption on the fly. Extensive empirical evaluation shows that our system can achieve a good `fair accuracy' and high resource efficiency.

We introduce a corpus of 7,032 sentences rated by human annotators for formality, informativeness, and implicature on a 1-7 scale. The corpus was annotated using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Reliability in the obtained judgments was examined by comparing mean ratings across two MTurk experiments, and correlation with pilot annotations (on sentence formality) conducted in a more controlled setting. Despite the subjectivity and inherent difficulty of the annotation task, correlations between mean ratings were quite encouraging, especially on formality and informativeness. We further explored correlation between the three linguistic variables, genre-wise variation of ratings and correlations within genres, compatibility with automatic stylistic scoring, and sentential make-up of a document in terms of style. To date, our corpus is the largest sentence-level annotated corpus released for formality, informativeness, and implicature.

Effective judges of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are crucial for model development. Current methods for training VLM judges mainly rely on large-scale human preference annotations. However, such an approach is costly, and the annotations easily become obsolete as models rapidly improve. In this work, we present a framework to self-train a VLM judge model without any human preference annotations, using only self-synthesized data. Our method is iterative and has three stages: (1) generate diverse multimodal instruction-response pairs at varying quality levels, (2) generate reasoning traces and judgments for each pair, removing the ones that do not match our expected quality levels, and (3) training on correct judge answers and their reasoning traces. We evaluate the resulting judge on Multimodal RewardBench and VL-RewardBench across domains: correctness, preference, reasoning, safety, and visual question-answering. Our method improves a Llama-3.2-11B multimodal judge from 0.38 to 0.51 in overall accuracy on VL-RewardBench, often outperforming much larger models including Llama-3.2-90B, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, with particularly strong gains in general, hallucination, and reasoning dimensions. The overall strength of these human-annotation-free results suggest the potential for a future self-judge that evolves alongside rapidly improving VLM capabilities.