Daily Papers

Inserting advertisements (ads) into consumer-facing LLM output is emerging as a new business model, but there is little shared evidence on how such ad insertion should be evaluated or how it affects user preferences. We introduce LLMAdBench, a human-preference benchmark for studying advertising in LLM-generated content. The benchmark isolates a simple but practically important decision: given a user conversation, an LLM response, and a matched advertisement, where should the ad be placed? Our dataset compares pairs of responses that differ only in ad position while holding all other conditions fixed including the user query, base answer, advertisement, and disclosure condition. Human annotators evaluate each pair based on six criteria from both advertiser's and user's perspectives. The resulting benchmark contains more than 18000 human judgments across two disclosure conditions: explicitly labeling the ad as sponsored and merging it into the response without disclosure. We use LLMAdBench to evaluate eight frontier LLMs as preference judges and find that they are not reliable substitutes for human evaluation. Even the most stable models reverse roughly one quarter of their decisions when the presentation order is swapped, agreement across models is low, and their placement preferences differ systematically from those of human annotators. Moreover, LLMAdBench contains substantial learnable signal. In particular, a Qwen3-8B model fine-tuned on the human preferences improves substantially over its base model and outperforms all zero-shot frontier judges on the held-out prediction task. Beyond model evaluation, LLMAdBench provides quantitative evidence on the advertiser-user trade-off and shows that the sponsorship disclosure systematically changes users' preference over ad placement.

Preference tuning of large language models (LLMs) relies on high-quality human preference data, which is often expensive and time-consuming to gather. While existing methods can use trained reward models or proprietary model as judges for preference annotation, they have notable drawbacks: training reward models remain dependent on initial human data, and using proprietary model imposes license restrictions that inhibits commercial usage. In this paper, we introduce customized density ratio (CDR), a training-free and highly effective method that leverages off-the-shelf LLMs for preference data annotation. Our approach uses the log-density ratio between a better-aligned LLM and a less aligned LLM as a reward signal. We explores 221 different LLMs pairs and empirically demonstrate that increasing the performance gap between paired LLMs correlates with better reward generalization. Furthermore, we show that tailoring the density ratio reward function with specific criteria and preference exemplars enhances performance across domains and within target areas. In our experiment using density ratio from a pair of Mistral-7B models, CDR achieves a RewardBench score of 82.6, outperforming the best trained reward functions from same model class and demonstrating competitive performance against SoTA models in Safety (91.0) and Reasoning (88.0) domains. We use CDR to annotate an on-policy preference dataset with which we preference tune Llama-3-8B-Instruct with SimPO. Using reward signals from two relatively weak models, our approach pushes Llama-3-8B to achieve a 37.4% (+15.1%) win rate on ArenaHard and a 40.7% (+17.8%) win rate on Length-Controlled AlpacaEval 2.0, along with a score of 8.0 on MT-Bench.

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.

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Large language models (LLMs) as a judge enable scalable evaluation, but their judgments can be sensitive to response order and, even after removing such position effects, can still diverge systematically from human preferences.We introduce DIAL, a unified framework that combines abundant LLM comparisons with limited human comparisons to separate judge-specific position effects, learn shared structure in position-debiased LLM preferences, and adaptively calibrate that structure toward the human preference target. Theoretically, we study three aspects of DIAL: (i) identification of latent LLM preferences, position effects, and human calibration; (ii) adaptive estimation that balances LLM anchoring against limited human evidence; and (iii) fixed-weight uncertainty quantification for the calibrated human preference. Empirically, we evaluate position debiasing and human alignment separately in controlled simulations and on three human-preference benchmarks, showing that DIAL remains robust to unbalanced response order, achieves strong human-aligned rankings with limited labels, and adapts toward human evidence when LLM information is imperfect. Our real-data study collects over 410K judgments from 21 LLM judges in both display orders, providing a resource for future studies of LLM-judge bias, heterogeneity, and human alignment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods in model development. While their combination significantly enhances the efficiency of model training and evaluation, little attention has been given to the potential contamination brought by this new model development paradigm. In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators. To study this issue, we first define three common relatednesses between data generator LLM and judge LLM: being the same model, having an inheritance relationship, and belonging to the same model family. Through extensive experiments, we empirically confirm the bias of judges towards their related student models caused by preference leakage across multiple LLM baselines and benchmarks. Further analysis suggests that preference leakage is a pervasive issue that is harder to detect compared to previously identified biases in LLM-as-a-judge scenarios. All of these findings imply that preference leakage is a widespread and challenging problem in the area of LLM-as-a-judge. We release all codes and data at: https://github.com/David-Li0406/Preference-Leakage.

We propose a post-training method for lower-resource languages that preserves fluency of language models even when aligned by disfluent reward models. Preference-optimization is now a well-researched topic, but previous work has mostly addressed models for English and Chinese. Lower-resource languages lack both datasets written by native speakers and language models capable of generating fluent synthetic data. Thus, in this work, we focus on developing a fluent preference-aligned language model without any instruction-tuning data in the target language. Our approach uses an on-policy training method, which we compare with two common approaches: supervised finetuning on machine-translated data and multilingual finetuning. We conduct a case study on Norwegian Bokmål and evaluate fluency through native-speaker assessments. The results show that the on-policy aspect is crucial and outperforms the alternatives without relying on any hard-to-obtain data.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges for evaluating other models, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt paraphrases remains unmeasured. We introduce JudgeSense, a framework and benchmark for quantifying this property via the Judge Sensitivity Score (JSS), defined as the fraction of paraphrase pairs on which a judge returns an identical decision. Evaluating nine judge models on 494 validated paraphrase pairs, we find that coherence is the only task where judges meaningfully differ, with JSS ranging from 0.389 to 0.992. On factuality, all judges cluster near JSS about 0.63, driven by a polarity-inverted prompt artifact; after correction, factuality JSS rises to about 0.9. Pairwise tasks (preference and relevance) exhibit degenerate always-A behavior in 8 of 9 judges, indicating strong position bias. Model scale does not predict consistency. We release code, decision logs, and a validated paraphrase dataset to support standardized JSS reporting.

Reward models are a bottleneck for reinforcement learning in embodied AI. Long-horizon robotic manipulation requires scalable vision feedback beyond handcrafted rewards or task-specific annotations. Existing open-source VLM reward judges like RoboReward adopt simple 1--5 trajectory progress scoring, lacking pairwise preferences for RLHF, DPO and Bradley-Terry frameworks, while failing to optimize video scene understanding. Augmenting RoboReward with pairwise comparison and video-QA supervision causes inconsistency between pairwise preferences and pointwise scores, introducing training noise and hurting downstream performance---an issue aggregation methods such as TrustJudge cannot resolve. To address this, we propose TrustRoboReward, a multi-paradigm reward modeling framework equipped with Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing (POISE). We construct a unified four-paradigm dataset with trajectory progress scoring (Score-A), video-QA answer quality scoring (Score-B), and their pairwise counterparts (Pair-A, Pair-B). Pairwise labels align better with human judgment than pointwise scores, inspiring us to calibrate pointwise scores to avoid score-pair reversals against pairwise preferences. POISE rectifies pointwise scores and eliminates cross-paradigm reversal conflicts unresolved by TrustJudge. Theoretically, POISE reduces score-pair reversal conflicts from 20.15% to 0%, whereas TrustJudge retains 20.46% conflicts on the same corpus. Evaluated on our benchmark, Qwen3-VL-4B trained with POISE achieves an overall reward score of 77.96%, nearly matching GPT-5-mini (78.09%, gap 0.13%) and outperforming the strongest RoboReward-4B baseline by 10.13%. It also lifts test-time score-pair consistency to 71.90%, exceeding RoboReward-4B (57.26%) and GPT-5-mini (68.09%). Integrating TrustJudge aggregation during inference boosts the overall score to 78.57%, surpassing the GPT-5-mini teacher model.

Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpretability by decomposing evaluation into explicit criteria, most existing pipelines remain pointwise: they score each response independently and derive preferences by comparing aggregated scores. We show that this design is poorly matched to pairwise code preference prediction and can underperform a strong monolithic judge. We propose CriterAlign, a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation through direct criterion-level pairwise judgments, tie-driven criterion refinement, swap-consistency filtering, and final pairwise synthesis. We further introduce Human-Preference-Aligned Guidance (HPAG), synthesized offline from training examples by extracting recurring rationale gaps between human preferences and monolithic judge predictions, and injected into the criterion generator, criterion judge, and final judge. On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy, with ablations confirming the contributions of pairwise criterion design and HPAG.

The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked an explosion of interest in post-training and an avalanche of new preference optimization (PO) methods. These methods claim superior alignment by virtue of better correspondence with human pairwise preferences, often measured by LLM judges. In this work, we attempt to answer the following question -- do LLM-judge preferences translate to progress on other, more concrete metrics for alignment, and if not, why not? We define a concrete metric for alignment, and introduce SOS-Bench, the largest standardized, reproducible LLM meta-benchmark to date. We find that (1) LLM-judgments do not correlate with concrete measures of safety, world knowledge, and instruction following; (2) LLM judges have powerful implicit biases, prioritizing style over factuality and safety; and (3) the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage of post-training, and not the PO stage, has the greatest impact on alignment, with data scaling and prompt diversity as the driving factors. Our codebase and complete results can be found at https://github.com/penfever/sos-bench.

Auto-evaluation is crucial for assessing response quality and offering feedback for model development. Recent studies have explored training large language models (LLMs) as generative judges to evaluate and critique other models' outputs. In this work, we investigate the idea of learning from both positive and negative data with preference optimization to enhance the evaluation capabilities of LLM judges across an array of different use cases. We achieve this by employing three approaches to collect the preference pairs for different use cases, each aimed at improving our generative judge from a different perspective. Our comprehensive study over a wide range of benchmarks demonstrates the effectiveness of our method. In particular, our generative judge achieves the best performance on 10 out of 13 benchmarks, outperforming strong baselines like GPT-4o and specialized judge models. Further analysis show that our judge model robustly counters inherent biases such as position and length bias, flexibly adapts to any evaluation protocol specified by practitioners, and provides helpful language feedback for improving downstream generator models.

Prompt engineering is effective but labor-intensive, motivating automated optimization methods. Existing methods typically require labeled datasets, which are often unavailable, and produce verbose, repetitive prompts. We introduce PrefPO, a minimal prompt optimization approach inspired by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Its preference-based approach reduces the need for labeled data and hyperparameter tuning-only a starting prompt and natural language criteria are needed. PrefPO uses an LLM discriminator to express pairwise preferences over model outputs and provide feedback to an LLM optimizer, iteratively improving performance. We evaluate PrefPO on 9 BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) tasks and IFEval-Hard, a newly-curated, challenging subset of IFEval. PrefPO matches or exceeds SOTA methods, including GEPA, MIPRO, and TextGrad, on 6/9 tasks and performs comparably to TextGrad on IFEval-Hard (82.4% vs 84.5%). Unlike other methods, PrefPO can optimize in both labeled and unlabeled settings. Without labels, PrefPO closely matches its labeled performance on 6/9 tasks, proving effective without ground truth. PrefPO also improves prompt hygiene: we find existing methods produce prompts 14.7x their original length or with 34% repetitive content; PrefPO reduces these issues by 3-5x. Furthermore, both LLM and human judges rate PrefPO's prompts higher than TextGrad's. Finally, we identify prompt hacking in prompt optimizers, where methods game evaluation criteria, and find PrefPO is susceptible at half the rate of TextGrad (37% vs 86%), generating fewer brittle, misaligned prompts.

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

Emotion preference learning uses pairwise comparisons between candidate descriptions to align multimodal large language models (MLLMs) with human judgments of open-ended emotion descriptions and to train reward models that capture human emotional preferences. However, conventional pairwise supervision is often sparse, typically providing only a single negative description for each positive description, and therefore offers limited coverage of the diverse ways in which an emotion description can be incorrect. In particular, models may be insufficiently exposed to semantically fluent but emotionally inconsistent descriptions. Beyond this data-level limitation, relying on a single MLLM judge introduces a distinct model-level concern: its judgments can be affected by model-specific biases when interpreting fine-grained or ambiguous multimodal emotional cues. To address these limitations, we propose Error-Augmented Preference Optimization (EAPO), a framework for improving the reliability of MLLM-based emotion preference judgment at both the data and model levels. First, we construct an error-augmented dataset by generating multiple controlled and emotion-aware negative descriptions from each preferred description. We then adapt multiple independent MLLM judges to this richer supervision and aggregate their preference margins using margin-calibrated soft fusion, which maps heterogeneous margins to a common scale before aggregation. Experiments on the MER2026-EmoPrefer Challenge dataset and our error-augmented dataset demonstrate that EAPO improves emotion preference prediction and enhances the robustness of MLLM judges when evaluating fluent descriptions that conflict with the video's multimodal emotional evidence. Our code is available at https://github.com/slash1028/EAPO-EmoPrefer.

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.

Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate expert-level medical knowledge, aligning their open-ended outputs with fine-grained clinician preferences remains challenging. Existing methods often rely on coarse objectives or unreliable automated judges that are weakly grounded in professional guidelines. We propose a two-stage framework to address this gap. First, we introduce HealthRubrics, a dataset of 7,034 physician-verified preference examples in which clinicians refine LLM-drafted rubrics to meet rigorous medical standards. Second, we distill these rubrics into HealthPrinciples: 119 broadly reusable, clinically grounded principles organized by clinical dimensions, enabling scalable supervision beyond manual annotation. We use HealthPrinciples for (1) offline alignment by synthesizing rubrics for unlabeled queries and (2) an inference-time tool for guided self-revision. A 30B parameter model that activates only 3B parameters at inference trained with our framework achieves 33.4% on HealthBench-Hard, outperforming much larger models including Deepseek-R1 and o3, establishing a resource-efficient baseline for clinical alignment.

LLM-as-judge is essential for evaluating open-ended text and steering post-training, yet improving the judge itself typically relies on expensive annotations, reward models, or distillation from stronger teachers. In this work, we eliminate external gold supervision from the RL training reward: the model's own evaluative capability generates learning signals for its optimization -- a closed-loop setting of bounded recursive self-improvement (RSI) termed Recursive Self-Evaluation (RecurSE). We study two central questions: when can self-improvement occur, and when must it stop? First, RecurSE pairs a trainable judge evaluating candidate responses under per-rule rubrics (Pass 1) with a synchronized policy-copy checker that audits the judge's reasoning against meta-rubrics to supply a scalar process reward (Pass 2). To enable learning, interface decoupling structurally isolates the checker's scalar score from the judge's verdict tokens, eliminating a degenerative token-copying shortcut that inflates self-assigned rewards. Second, because unanchored recursive learning is inherently bounded, Pairwise Advantage Validity (PAV) serves as an unbiased validation monitor that jointly tracks judge accuracy and checker fidelity to reliably identify the optimal early-stopping window. Across Qwen3.5-9B, Gemma-4-E4B-it, and Qwen3.6-27B, RecurSE achieves consistent generalization gains across held-out medical, pairwise, summarization, and professional benchmarks. Ablations demonstrate that synchronized judge-checker co-evolution outperforms frozen checkers, external meta-judges, self-consistency, and scaled teacher distillation. Furthermore, preference pairs curated by our judge effectively enhance downstream policy alignment. Bounded RSI for LLM-as-judge is thus viable when self-produced reward validity is explicitly decoupled and monitored.

LLM-as-a-judge panels aggregate votes from multiple models, with the expectation that diverse models yield more reliable evaluations. We develop a framework to measure the true informational value of such panels and quantify how far their reliability falls short of the independent-voting ideal. Testing a panel of 9 frontier LLMs from 7 model families on three natural language inference datasets (each with 100 human annotations per item), we find that the 9 judges effectively provide only about 2 independent votes' worth of information. Roughly three-quarters of the panel's nominal independence is lost because the models make the same mistakes on the same items. The consequences are stark: the panel's actual accuracy falls 8-22 percentage points short of what independent voting would achieve, and the best single judge matches or outperforms the full panel across all conditions. Neither adding more judges nor using smarter aggregation algorithms helps -- established methods close at most 11% of this gap, even with access to the correct answers. We quantify these findings using the Kish effective sample size (n_eff) and a Condorcet null model, and show the deficit is robust across prompt variants, temperatures, chain-of-thought reasoning, and a pairwise preference task (RewardBench). The bottleneck is correlated judges, not the aggregation algorithm, implying that scaling up panels cannot substitute for genuinely independent evaluation.

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 .

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit self-preference bias when serving as judges, meaning they tend to favor their own responses over those generated by other models. Existing methods typically measure this bias by calculating the difference between the scores a judge model assigns to its own responses and those it assigns to responses from other models. However, this approach conflates self-preference bias with response quality, as higher-quality responses from the judge model may also lead to positive score differences, even in the absence of bias. To address this issue, we introduce gold judgments as proxies for the actual quality of responses and propose the DBG score, which measures self-preference bias as the difference between the scores assigned by the judge model to its own responses and the corresponding gold judgments. Since gold judgments reflect true response quality, the DBG score mitigates the confounding effect of response quality on bias measurement. Using the DBG score, we conduct comprehensive experiments to assess self-preference bias across LLMs of varying versions, sizes, and reasoning abilities. Additionally, we investigate two factors that influence and help alleviate self-preference bias: response text style and the post-training data of judge models. Finally, we explore potential underlying mechanisms of self-preference bias from an attention-based perspective. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/zhiyuanc2001/self-preference.

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 multimodal large models (MLLMs) continue to advance across challenging tasks, a key question emerges: What essential capabilities are still missing? A critical aspect of human learning is continuous interaction with the environment -- not limited to language, but also involving multimodal understanding and generation. To move closer to human-level intelligence, models must similarly support multi-turn, multimodal interaction. In particular, they should comprehend interleaved multimodal contexts and respond coherently in ongoing exchanges. In this work, we present an initial exploration through the InterMT -- the first preference dataset for multi-turn multimodal interaction, grounded in real human feedback. In this exploration, we particularly emphasize the importance of human oversight, introducing expert annotations to guide the process, motivated by the fact that current MLLMs lack such complex interactive capabilities. InterMT captures human preferences at both global and local levels into nine sub-dimensions, consists of 15.6k prompts, 52.6k multi-turn dialogue instances, and 32.4k human-labeled preference pairs. To compensate for the lack of capability for multi-modal understanding and generation, we introduce an agentic workflow that leverages tool-augmented MLLMs to construct multi-turn QA instances. To further this goal, we introduce InterMT-Bench to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges with multi-turn, multimodal tasks. We demonstrate the utility of \InterMT through applications such as judge moderation and further reveal the multi-turn scaling law of judge model. We hope the open-source of our data can help facilitate further research on aligning current MLLMs to the next step. Our project website can be found at https://pku-intermt.github.io .

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.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its reliability. This exploratory study evaluates position bias in LLM judges across pairwise and list-wise comparison settings, introducing three metrics: repetition stability, position consistency, and preference fairness. Our experiments, involving 15 LLM judges across MTBench and DevBench with 22 tasks and approximately 40 solution-generating models, result in over 150,000 evaluation instances. We identify Judge-Level, Candidate-Level, and Task-Level factors contributing to bias. The findings confirm that position bias is not due to random chance and varies significantly across judges and tasks. While position bias is weakly influenced by the length of prompt components, it is strongly affected by the quality gap between solutions. Our agreement and disagreement analysis among judges further provides insights into the distribution of judging difficulty across the dataset, and highlights the potential for dataset modifications.

The alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values increasingly relies on using other LLMs as automated judges, or ``autoraters''. However, their reliability is limited by a foundational issue: they are trained on discrete preference labels, forcing a single ground truth onto tasks that are often subjective, ambiguous, or nuanced. We argue that a reliable autorater must learn to model the full distribution of preferences defined by a target population. In this paper, we propose a general framework for calibrating probabilistic autoraters to any given preference distribution. We formalize the problem and present two learning methods tailored to different data conditions: 1) a direct supervised fine-tuning for dense, probabilistic labels, and 2) a reinforcement learning approach for sparse, binary labels. Our empirical results show that finetuning autoraters with a distribution-matching objective leads to verbalized probability predictions that are better aligned with the target preference distribution, with improved calibration and significantly lower positional bias, all while preserving performance on objective tasks.

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.

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

The known stylistic biases in LLM judges, such as a preference for verbosity or specific sentence structures, present an underexplored security vulnerability. In this work, we introduce BITE (BIas exploraTion and Exploitation), a black-box adversarial framework that learns semantics-preserving edits to mislead an LLM judge and artificially inflate the scores it assigns. We cast the selection of stylistic edits as a contextual bandit problem and use a LinUCB policy to adaptively choose edits that maximize the judge's score without access to model parameters or gradients. Empirically, we test BITE across a diverse range of LLM judges and tasks, including both pointwise and pairwise comparisons on chatbot leaderboards and AI-reviewer benchmarks. BITE achieves an attack success rate exceeding 65% and raises scores by 1-2 points on a 9-point scale, all while preserving semantic equivalence. We further assess the attack's stealthiness, showing that BITE evades standard style-control methods and several detection baselines. Our findings expose a fundamental weakness in the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm and motivate robust, attack-aware evaluation. Our code is available at https://github.com/xianglinyang/llm-as-a-judge-attack.

Text-to-image models now generate graphic design at production scale, yet their supervision still comes primarily from photo-style preference datasets with a single overall verdict per comparison. Designers evaluate designs along several distinct axes (e.g., typography, layout, color harmony) that a single preference label collapses. We release TASTE (Typography, Aesthetics, Spatial, Tone, Etc.), a multi-dimensional preference dataset in which two disjoint cohorts of five professional designers each ranked outputs from four current text-to-image models across nine criteria along with per-image hallucination flags. We pair the dataset with two contributions. First, a criterion-agnostic signal-validation framework based on Kendall's τ, majority-vote probability, and Condorcet cycles against exact iid-uniform nulls; the analysis reveals significant but moderate designer agreement, with every TASTE criterion rejecting the random-rater null. Second, we benchmark preference models on TASTE and find that off-the-shelf VLM judges and dedicated T2I scorers fail to reach majority agreement with the designer panel, while a small MLP head trained directly on TASTE substantially narrows the gap to the single-rater ceiling, setting a baseline for future TASTE-trained preference models.

As AI systems approach superhuman capabilities, scalable oversight increasingly relies on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks where models evaluate and guide each other's training. A core assumption is that binary preference labels provide only semantic supervision about response quality. We challenge this assumption by demonstrating that preference labels can function as a covert communication channel. We show that even when a neutral student model generates semantically unbiased completions, a biased judge can transmit unintended behavioral traits through preference assignments, which even strengthen across iterative alignment rounds. Our findings suggest that robust oversight in superalignment settings requires mechanisms that can detect and mitigate subliminal preference transmission, particularly when judges may pursue unintended objectives.

We study training LLM judges from natural language feedback, especially for subjective tasks where the verdict depends strongly on which evaluation criteria the judge invokes and how it weighs them. The dominant approach, outcome-supervised RL (e.g., GRPO), credits every token in the rollout with a single scalar determined only by the accuracy of the final verdict, providing no separate credit at the criterion-choice tokens and ignoring the rich language feedback (e.g., preference rationales) that naturally accompanies preference labels. Self-Distillation (SD) is one natural way to use this language feedback: the same model, conditioned on this feedback, acts as a teacher providing dense, position-level supervision. However, not all positions carry equally useful signal. Using the per-position entropy shift between teacher and student, we identify two regimes: context sharpening, where the teacher concentrates probability on a particular feedback-aligned criterion expression, and context spreading, where the teacher distributes probability across multiple feedback-aligned alternatives. We interpret these patterns as follows: sharpening encourages memorization of a particular criterion expression, whereas spreading promotes semantic understanding by preserving these alternatives. Motivated by this asymmetry, we introduce position masking based on the entropy shift that retains the lower tail of the entropy-shift distribution. Experiments show that masking higher-entropy-shift positions improves out-of-distribution generalization over naive SD. The resulting self-distilled judges outperform judges trained with outcome-supervised RL by 2-9 percentage points on the evaluated subjective subcategories, while remaining competitive on objective ones.

Rubric-based reward models (RMs) evaluate responses against explicit criteria. However, existing methods often derive criteria from observed response candidates, introducing response-induced bias that may limit rubric generalizability. Their judges also struggle with mechanical constraints when relying on reading alone, and commonly used pairwise judges provide only relative preferences, complicating their direct use for policy optimization. We propose ReVeR, a pointwise rubric RM that derives hard rules and graded principles by reasoning about the instruction alone and evaluates responses independently through tool-augmented judging. Both components are trained through label-blind distillation, in which preference labels only filter a teacher's outputs, yielding ReVeR-Traces, a large-scale dataset of rubric-reasoning and judging trajectories. Experiments demonstrate that ReVeR outperforms pairwise rubric RMs in average preference accuracy, most clearly on instruction following, as well as in test-time scaling and downstream policy optimization. We further find that generator RL improves preference accuracy while reducing rubric fidelity, and that higher preference accuracy does not necessarily translate into better downstream policies. These findings highlight that rubric fidelity, preference accuracy, and downstream utility are distinct properties, shedding light on future RM research.

Reward-model training is the cost bottleneck in modern Reinforcement Learning Human Feedback (RLHF) pipelines, often requiring tens of billions of parameters and an offline preference-tuning phase. In the proposed method, a frozen, instruction-tuned 7B LLM is augmented with only a one line JSON rubric and a rank-16 LoRA adapter (affecting just 0.8% of the model's parameters), enabling it to serve as a complete substitute for the previously used heavyweight evaluation models. The plug-and-play judge achieves 96.2% accuracy on RewardBench, outperforming specialized reward networks ranging from 27B to 70B parameters. Additionally, it allows a 7B actor to outperform the top 70B DPO baseline, which scores 61.8%, by achieving 92% exact match accuracy on GSM-8K utilizing online PPO. Thorough ablations indicate that (i) six in context demonstrations deliver the majority of the zero-to-few-shot improvements (+2pp), and (ii) the LoRA effectively addresses the remaining disparity, particularly in the safety and adversarial Chat-Hard segments. The proposed model introduces HH-Rationales, a subset of 10,000 pairs from Anthropic HH-RLHF, to examine interpretability, accompanied by human generated justifications. GPT-4 scoring indicates that our LoRA judge attains approximately = 9/10 in similarity to human explanations, while zero-shot judges score around =5/10. These results indicate that the combination of prompt engineering and tiny LoRA produces a cost effective, transparent, and easily adjustable reward function, removing the offline phase while achieving new state-of-the-art outcomes for both static evaluation and online RLHF.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare, yet ensuring their safety and trustworthiness remains a barrier to deployment. Conversational medical assistants must avoid unsafe compliance without over-refusing benign queries. We present an iterative post-deployment alignment framework that applies Kahneman-Tversky Optimization (KTO) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to refine models against domain-specific safety signals. Using the CARES-18K benchmark for adversarial robustness, we evaluate four LLMs (Llama-3B/8B, Meditron-8B, Mistral-7B) across multiple cycles. Our results show up to 42% improvement in safety-related metrics for harmful query detection, alongside interesting trade-offs against erroneous refusals, thereby exposing architecture-dependent calibration biases. We also perform ablation studies to identify when self-evaluation is reliable and when external or finetuned judges are necessary to maximize performance gains. Our findings underscore the importance of adopting best practices that balance patient safety, user trust, and clinical utility in the design of conversational medical assistants.

LLM judges are widely used to evaluate agentic tool-calling systems, yet their reliability on structured, dependency-driven workflows remains largely unexamined. We present AgentJudgeBench, the first benchmark to systematically study LLM-as-a-judge reliability for agentic tool-calling over workflow DAGs, as distinct from the broader LLM-as-a-judge task of open-ended text or preference evaluation. The benchmark comprises 3,808 instances spanning six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, evaluated with five generators (3B-70B open-weight models and GPT-5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under paired with- and without-ground-truth conditions. Judge alignment degrades monotonically with task difficulty, 1.5x faster without ground truth, and on hard queries without ground truth all six judges converge to a narrow 77-82% band regardless of scale, revealing a structural ceiling driven primarily by task difficulty, though its height is partly prompt-dependent for weaker generators, that model capacity alone cannot overcome. Ground-truth exposure is not uniformly beneficial: it reduces alignment for GPT-5.4 (1.5 pp) and Gemini-2.5-Pro (3.9 pp), consistent with over-anchoring. Among mitigation strategies, chain-of-thought reasoning and judge temperature both have negligible effect, while structured evaluation rubrics improve alignment by up to 6.5 pp but do not generalize uniformly across judge-generator pairs. With ground truth, QwQ-32B best matches the programmatic reference, while a human validation study identifies GPT-OSS-120B as the most human-aligned judge; without it, frontier judges lead only marginally within the shared ceiling. These results expose fundamental limitations of current LLM judges and yield practical guidelines for reliable evaluation in agentic systems.

Evaluating the occurrence and triggers of large language model (LLM) behaviors - such as sycophancy, self-preference, or over-confidence - is critical for predicting real-world model deployment risks. However, existing situated behavioral evaluations typically ignore cultural context, limiting their generalizability across an increasingly global user base. To address this gap, we propose CuBEs - Culturally-situated Behavior Evaluations that probe for response patterns across diverse user cultures. We first extend an automated testing pipeline to inject cultural context into behavioral test scenarios and subsequent evaluation. We assess the cultural adaptability of this pipeline by building a human-labeled dataset that captures nuanced dimensions of behavior understanding across 12 distinct cultures. Our dataset reveals significant cross-cultural variations that one-size-fits all judgments fail to capture. Through evaluating 13 open- and closed-source LLMs, we find that introducing cultural situatedness in the evaluation scenario creates significant variation in the presence of a behavior. For example, while our baseline experiments testing for political bias capture localized Western political dimensions like the American conservative-progressive divide, non-Western culturally situated evaluations surface entirely different axes of bias such as religious and colonial political issues. Our findings demonstrate that standard, culturally-agnostic evaluations fail to capture these shifts, highlighting the necessity of culturally situated behavioral testing for global deployments.

Evaluating the conversational abilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a challenging task. Current mainstream approaches primarily rely on the ``LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm, where an LLM is prompted to serve as an evaluator to assess dialogue quality. However, such methods often suffer from various biases, which undermine the reliability and consistency of the evaluation results. To mitigate these biases, recent methods employ multiple LLMs as judges and aggregate their judgments to select the optimal assessment. Although effective, this multi-judge approach incurs significant computational overhead during inference. In this paper, we propose an efficient multi-turn dialogue evaluator that captures the collective wisdom of multiple LLM judges by aggregating their preference knowledge into a single model. Our approach preserves the advantages of diverse multi-judge feedback while drastically reducing the evaluation cost, enabling fast and flexible dialogue quality assessment. Extensive experiments on seven single rating and pairwise comparison dialogue evaluation benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing baselines across diverse scenarios, showcasing its efficiency and robustness.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for summarization and dialogue evaluation. Prior work has documented biases such as position, verbosity, and style preferences, but largely focuses on outcomes, leaving judge explanations underexplored. We instead ask whether LLM judges are cue-invariant, i.e., whether their rankings and explanations remain stable when non-evidential cues are perturbed while holding the underlying texts fixed. We introduce a suite of cue interventions (Blind, Truth, Flip, Placebo, Reveal-After) and tie-aware metrics that quantify outcome anchoring and rationale anchoring, including label-aligned rhetoric and explanation drift, alongside consistency and stereotype-intrusion checks. We design anchoring attacks using verbosity and confidence cues, and compare two mitigations: structured chain-of-thought prompting and PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE (evidence lock, score, rank). Using a new dataset of 1,000 summaries from traditional extractive models and LLMs, we find substantial cue-anchored rationalization under label and placebo perturbations, while PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE markedly improves cue invariance over baselines.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

Recent advancements in multimodal reward models (RMs) have significantly propelled the development of visual generation. Existing frameworks typically adopt Bradley-Terry-style preference modeling or leverage generative VLMs as judges, and subsequently optimize visual generation models via reinforcement learning. However, current RMs suffer from inherent limitations: they often follow a one-size-fits-all paradigm that assumes a monolithic preference distribution or relies on fixed evaluation rubrics. As a result, they are insensitive to content-specific visual cues, leading to systematic misalignment with subjective and context-dependent human preferences. To this end, inspired by human assessment, we propose UnifiedReward-Flex, a unified personalized reward model for vision generation that couples reward modeling with flexible and context-adaptive reasoning. Specifically, given a prompt and the generated visual content, it first interprets the semantic intent and grounds on visual evidence, then dynamically constructs a hierarchical assessment by instantiating fine-grained criteria under both predefined and self-generated high-level dimensions. Our training pipeline follows a two-stage process: (1) we first distill structured, high-quality reasoning traces from advanced closed-source VLMs to bootstrap SFT, equipping the model with flexible and context-adaptive reasoning behaviors; (2) we then perform direct preference optimization (DPO) on carefully curated preference pairs to further strengthen reasoning fidelity and discriminative alignment. To validate the effectiveness, we integrate UnifiedReward-Flex into the GRPO framework for image and video synthesis, and extensive results demonstrate its superiority.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to replace costly human preference labels in pairwise evaluation. Despite their practicality, LLM judges remain prone to miscalibration and systematic biases. This paper proposes SCOPE (Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise Evaluation), a framework for selective pairwise judging with finite-sample statistical guarantees. Under exchangeability, SCOPE calibrates an acceptance threshold such that the error rate among non-abstained judgments is at most a user-specified level α. To provide SCOPE with a bias-neutral uncertainty signal, we introduce Bidirectional Preference Entropy (BPE), which queries the judge under both response positions, aggregates the implied preference probabilities to enforce invariance to response order, and converts the aggregated probability into an entropy-based uncertainty score. Across MT-Bench, RewardBench, and Chatbot Arena, BPE improves uncertainty quality over standard confidence proxies, providing a stronger selection signal that enables SCOPE to consistently meet the target risk level while retaining good coverage across judge scales. In particular, at α= 0.10, SCOPE consistently satisfies the risk bound across all benchmarks and judge scales (empirical risk approx 0.097 to 0.099), while retaining substantial coverage, reaching 0.89 on RewardBench with Qwen-14B and 0.98 on RewardBench with Qwen-32B. Compared to naïve baselines, SCOPE accepts up to 2.4times more judgments on MT-Bench with Qwen-7B under the same target risk constraint, demonstrating that BPE enables reliable and high-coverage LLM-based evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of generating text that challenges human performance in domains requiring creativity, yet evaluating creativity in LLM-generated content remains a significant challenge. Here, we investigate whether current automatic evaluation methods can reliably capture human judgments of creativity. We collect human evaluations of human- and AI-generated short stories from the WritingPrompts dataset across 11 dimensions of creativity, and compare these judgments with automated objective metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. Our experiments reveal substantial misalignment between automatic evaluations and human assessments. In particular, LLM-based judges exhibit a systematic preference for AI-generated stories, consistently favoring their stylistic characteristics over the unpredictability and other qualities of human-authored texts. Furthermore, correlation analyses show that widely used automatic metrics exhibit near-zero alignment with human judgments across both human- and AI-generated stories, suggesting that they fail to capture important dimensions of creativity. These findings highlight fundamental limitations in current approaches to the automatic evaluation of creative text and underscore the difficulty of reducing the multidimensional and subjective nature of creativity to computational metrics.

Language-model agents that run long tasks often redo work they have already done: they re-issue a tool call they made earlier and get back exactly the same observation, a step that adds no new information. We identify this failure as a loop. Loops appear natively in Qwen, Llama, and Gemini agents and become far more common once the agent's history is compressed to fit its context window. To reduce these loops, we propose DeLoop, a self-supervised training method. DeLoop builds on a simple observation: the agent's own rollout can provide the supervision needed to learn from its loops. We use a looping action as a negative example and the first later non-looping action in the same rollout as a positive example. DeLoop learns from these pairs through direct preference optimization and does not require task rewards, gold answers, or LLM judges. On CodeGym under compression, DeLoop reduces the share of Qwen3-8B tasks containing loops from 57.3% to 6.1%. It also uses about one third as many steps per task, with similar task success. On Qwen3-32B, DeLoop reduces loops and steps while raising task success from 37.7% to 44.8%.

Well-being encompasses mental, physical, and social dimensions essential to personal growth and informed life decisions. As individuals increasingly consult Large Language Models (LLMs) to understand well-being, a key challenge emerges: Can LLMs generate explanations that are not only accurate but also tailored to diverse audiences? High-quality explanations require both factual correctness and the ability to meet the expectations of users with varying expertise. In this work, we construct a large-scale dataset comprising 43,880 explanations of 2,194 well-being concepts, generated by ten diverse LLMs. We introduce a principle-guided LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework, employing dual judges to assess explanation quality. Furthermore, we show that fine-tuning an open-source LLM using Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) can significantly enhance the quality of generated explanations. Our results reveal: (1) The proposed LLM judges align well with human evaluations; (2) explanation quality varies significantly across models, audiences, and categories; and (3) DPO- and SFT-finetuned models outperform their larger counterparts, demonstrating the effectiveness of preference-based learning for specialized explanation tasks.

Large language models excel on objectively verifiable tasks such as math and programming, where evaluation reduces to unit tests or a single correct answer. In contrast, real-world enterprise work is often subjective and context-dependent: success hinges on organizational goals, user intent, and the quality of intermediate artifacts produced across long, multi-tool workflows. We introduce LH-Bench, a three-pillar evaluation design that moves beyond binary correctness to score autonomous, long-horizon execution on subjective enterprise tasks. The pillars are: (i) expert-grounded rubrics that give LLM judges the domain context needed to score subjective work, (ii) curated ground-truth artifacts that enable stepwise reward signals (e.g., chapter-level annotation for content tasks), and (iii) pairwise human preference evaluation for convergent validation. We show that domain-authored rubrics provide substantially more reliable evaluation signals than LLM-authored rubrics (kappa = 0.60 vs. 0.46), and that human preference judgments confirm the same top-tier separation (p < 0.05), evidence that expert-grounded evaluation can scale without sacrificing reliability. We release public datasets and report results on two environments: Figma-to-code (33 real .fig tasks against the Figma API via MCP) and Programmatic content (41 courses comprising 183 individually-evaluated chapters on a course platform serving 30+ daily users).

LLM-as-a-judge enables evaluation across diverse tasks, but inference cost and confidence reliability become critical at scale. We study whether a decision-only judge can provide an economical first pass and identify when stronger evaluation is needed. Comparing jev-as-a-judge with sixteen generative and reward-model judges, with blinded human adjudication, we find it within three percentage points of a state-of-the-art LLM judge, our strongest comparator, on ordinary preference and evidence-grounded factuality at 0.36% of the comparator's fee. Larger gaps arise when judgments require checking a derivation or resisting an elaborately written wrong answer. On several benchmarks, JEV's gap to this comparator is concentrated in low-confidence decisions. A frozen cascade that accepts confident verdicts and escalates uncertain ones retains 99% of the comparator's accuracy at lower cost.

As AI-assisted video creation becomes increasingly practical, instruction-guided video editing has become essential for refining generated or captured footage to meet professional requirements. Yet the field still lacks both a large-scale human-annotated dataset with complete editing examples and a standardized evaluator for comparing editing systems. Existing resources are limited by small scale, missing edited outputs, or the absence of human quality labels, while current evaluation often relies on expensive manual inspection or generic vision-language model judges that are not specialized for editing quality. We introduce VEFX-Dataset, a human-annotated dataset containing 5,049 video editing examples across 9 major editing categories and 32 subcategories, each labeled along three decoupled dimensions: Instruction Following, Rendering Quality, and Edit Exclusivity. Building on VEFX-Dataset, we propose VEFX-Reward, a reward model designed specifically for video editing quality assessment. VEFX-Reward jointly processes the source video, the editing instruction, and the edited video, and predicts per-dimension quality scores via ordinal regression. We further release VEFX-Bench, a benchmark of 300 curated video-prompt pairs for standardized comparison of editing systems. Experiments show that VEFX-Reward aligns more strongly with human judgments than generic VLM judges and prior reward models on both standard IQA/VQA metrics and group-wise preference evaluation. Using VEFX-Reward as an evaluator, we benchmark representative commercial and open-source video editing systems, revealing a persistent gap between visual plausibility, instruction following, and edit locality in current models.

Reward modeling often requires jointly representing and reasoning over multiple evaluation criteria, yet verbalizing this process token by token can incur substantial inference cost. Recent work on latent reasoning suggests that continuous states may support this computation more compactly. We introduce LatentGRM, a latent evaluation framework built on semantic chunking, compression, and reconstruction. By using the structure of rubric-guided evaluations to guide compression, LatentGRM learns compact continuous trajectories that support autonomous pairwise judgments without generating textual assessments. A separate interpreter reconstructs evaluation text from these trajectories, providing an offline view of the information retained under compression. Under matched training data and backbones, LatentGRM achieves competitive aggregate preference accuracy relative to explicit Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) judges at both 4B and 8B scales. Across four benchmark domains, LatentGRM-8B compresses evaluation trajectories by 8.9--9.2x and reduces total judge inference time by 6.1--7.0x at vote@5. Controlled rubric interventions show that criterion-dependent preference information is carried through the latent sequence. Together, these results demonstrate that continuous latent evaluation can substantially reduce inference cost while preserving competitive judgment quality.

While text-to-image models like DALLE-3 and Stable Diffusion are rapidly proliferating, they often encounter challenges such as hallucination, bias, and the production of unsafe, low-quality output. To effectively address these issues, it is crucial to align these models with desired behaviors based on feedback from a multimodal judge. Despite their significance, current multimodal judges frequently undergo inadequate evaluation of their capabilities and limitations, potentially leading to misalignment and unsafe fine-tuning outcomes. To address this issue, we introduce MJ-Bench, a novel benchmark which incorporates a comprehensive preference dataset to evaluate multimodal judges in providing feedback for image generation models across four key perspectives: alignment, safety, image quality, and bias. Specifically, we evaluate a large variety of multimodal judges including smaller-sized CLIP-based scoring models, open-source VLMs (e.g. LLaVA family), and close-source VLMs (e.g. GPT-4o, Claude 3) on each decomposed subcategory of our preference dataset. Experiments reveal that close-source VLMs generally provide better feedback, with GPT-4o outperforming other judges in average. Compared with open-source VLMs, smaller-sized scoring models can provide better feedback regarding text-image alignment and image quality, while VLMs provide more accurate feedback regarding safety and generation bias due to their stronger reasoning capabilities. Further studies in feedback scale reveal that VLM judges can generally provide more accurate and stable feedback in natural language (Likert-scale) than numerical scales. Notably, human evaluations on end-to-end fine-tuned models using separate feedback from these multimodal judges provide similar conclusions, further confirming the effectiveness of MJ-Bench. All data, code, models are available at https://huggingface.co/MJ-Bench.

Recently, rubrics have been used to guide LLM judges in capturing subjective, nuanced, multi-dimensional human preferences, and have been extended from evaluation to reward signals for reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT). However, rubric generation remains hard to control: rubrics often lack coverage, conflate dimensions, misalign preference direction, and contain redundant or highly correlated criteria, degrading judge accuracy and producing suboptimal rewards during RFT. We propose RRD, a principled framework for rubric refinement built on a recursive decompose-filter cycle. RRD decomposes coarse rubrics into fine-grained, discriminative criteria, expanding coverage while sharpening separation between responses. A complementary filtering mechanism removes misaligned and redundant rubrics, and a correlation-aware weighting scheme prevents over-representing highly correlated criteria, yielding rubric sets that are informative, comprehensive, and non-redundant. Empirically, RRD delivers large, consistent gains across both evaluation and training: it improves preference-judgment accuracy on JudgeBench and PPE for both GPT-4o and Llama3.1-405B judges, achieving top performance in all settings with up to +17.7 points on JudgeBench. When used as the reward source for RFT on WildChat, it yields substantially stronger and more stable learning signals, boosting reward by up to 160% (Qwen3-4B) and 60% (Llama3.1-8B) versus 10-20% for prior rubric baselines, with gains that transfer to HealthBench-Hard and BiGGen Bench. Overall, RRD establishes recursive rubric refinement as a scalable and interpretable foundation for LLM judging and reward modeling in open-ended domains.

Multi-turn jailbreaks capture the real threat model for safety-aligned chatbots, where single-turn attacks are merely a special case. Yet existing approaches break under exploration complexity and intent drift. We propose SEMA, a simple yet effective framework that trains a multi-turn attacker without relying on any existing strategies or external data. SEMA comprises two stages. Prefilling self-tuning enables usable rollouts by fine-tuning on non-refusal, well-structured, multi-turn adversarial prompts that are self-generated with a minimal prefix, thereby stabilizing subsequent learning. Reinforcement learning with intent-drift-aware reward trains the attacker to elicit valid multi-turn adversarial prompts while maintaining the same harmful objective. We anchor harmful intent in multi-turn jailbreaks via an intent-drift-aware reward that combines intent alignment, compliance risk, and level of detail. Our open-loop attack regime avoids dependence on victim feedback, unifies single- and multi-turn settings, and reduces exploration complexity. Across multiple datasets, victim models, and jailbreak judges, our method achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) attack success rates (ASR), outperforming all single-turn baselines, manually scripted and template-driven multi-turn baselines, as well as our SFT (Supervised Fine-Tuning) and DPO (Direct Preference Optimization) variants. For instance, SEMA performs an average 80.1% ASR@1 across three closed-source and open-source victim models on AdvBench, 33.9% over SOTA. The approach is compact, reproducible, and transfers across targets, providing a stronger and more realistic stress test for large language model (LLM) safety and enabling automatic redteaming to expose and localize failure modes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/fmmarkmq/SEMA.

In classical Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), Reward Models (RMs) serve as the fundamental signal provider for model alignment. As Large Language Models evolve into agentic systems capable of autonomous tool invocation and complex reasoning, the paradigm of reward modeling faces unprecedented challenges--most notably, the lack of benchmarks specifically designed to assess RM capabilities within tool-integrated environments. To address this gap, we present Plan-RewardBench, a trajectory-level preference benchmark designed to evaluate how well judges distinguish preferred versus distractor agent trajectories in complex tool-using scenarios. Plan-RewardBench covers four representative task families -- (i) Safety Refusal, (ii) Tool-Irrelevance / Unavailability, (iii) Complex Planning, and (iv) Robust Error Recovery -- comprising validated positive trajectories and confusable hard negatives constructed via multi-model natural rollouts, rule-based perturbations, and minimal-edit LLM perturbations. We benchmark representative RMs (generative, discriminative, and LLM-as-Judge) under a unified pairwise protocol, reporting accuracy trends across varying trajectory lengths and task categories. Furthermore, we provide diagnostic analyses of prevalent failure modes. Our results reveal that all three evaluator families face substantial challenges, with performance degrading sharply on long-horizon trajectories, underscoring the necessity for specialized training in agentic, trajectory-level reward modeling. Ultimately, Plan-RewardBench aims to serve as both a practical evaluation suite and a reusable blueprint for constructing agentic planning preference data.

As LLMs are increasingly used as judges in code applications, they should be evaluated in realistic interactive settings that capture partial context and ambiguous intent. We present TRACE (Tool for Rubric Analysis in Code Evaluation), a framework that evaluates LLM judges' ability to predict human preferences and automatically extracts rubric items to reveal systematic biases in how humans and models weigh each item. Across three modalities -- chat-based programming, IDE autocompletion, and instructed code editing -- we use TRACE to measure how well LLM judges align with developer preferences. Among 13 different models, the best judges underperform human annotators by 12-23%. TRACE identifies 35 significant sources of misalignment between humans and judges across interaction modalities, the majority of which correspond to existing software engineering code quality criteria. For example, in chat-based coding, judges are biased towards longer code explanations while humans prefer shorter ones. We find significant misalignment on the majority of existing code quality dimensions, showing alignment gaps between LLM judges and human preference in realistic coding applications.

Instruction-tuned large language models produce helpful, structured responses, but how robust is this helpfulness under trivial constraints? We show that simple lexical constraints (banning a single punctuation character or common word) cause instruction-tuned LLMs to collapse their responses, losing 14--48\% of comprehensiveness across seven models spanning five families (7B--70B, open- and closed-weight). A blinded human evaluation with 10 STEM-trained evaluators confirms genuine content loss, with information criteria degrading 1.5--2.3times more than surface criteria, a finding corroborated by over 4,100 automated pairwise comparisons (77--100\% baseline preference) across three LLM judges from two model families. Diagnostic analysis identifies this as a planning failure: two-pass generation recovers 59--96\% of response length, and linear probes on prompt representations predict response length with R^2 = 0.51--0.94 before generation begins. The same probes yield negative R^2 on base models, confirming that instruction tuning introduces the representational structure underlying the collapse. Base models show no systematic degradation under identical constraints, demonstrating that instruction tuning couples task competence to narrow surface-form templates. The effect extends to realistic deployment constraints (preamble suppression, corporate tone guidelines, legal compliance hedging, accessibility requirements) causing comparable degradation (-22\% to -34\%), with suppressing the conversational opener alone (``Certainly!'') causing 40\% collapse on our most fragile model despite restricting only the opening tokens. We further show that standard independent LLM-as-judge evaluation detects only a 3.5\% quality drop where pairwise evaluation reveals 23\%, exposing a methodological blind spot in current evaluation practice.

Aligning multimodal generative models with human preferences demands reward signals that respect the compositional, multi-dimensional structure of human judgment. Prevailing RLHF approaches reduce this structure to scalar or pairwise labels, collapsing nuanced preferences into opaque parametric proxies and exposing vulnerabilities to reward hacking. While recent Rubrics-as-Reward (RaR) methods attempt to recover this structure through explicit criteria, generating rubrics that are simultaneously reliable, scalable, and data-efficient remains an open problem. We introduce Auto-Rubric as Reward (ARR), a framework that reframes reward modeling from implicit weight optimization to explicit, criteria-based decomposition. Before any pairwise comparison, ARR externalizes a VLM's internalized preference knowledge as prompt-specific rubrics, translating holistic intent into independently verifiable quality dimensions. This conversion of implicit preference structure into inspectable, interpretable constraints substantially suppresses evaluation biases including positional bias, enabling both zero-shot deployment and few-shot conditioning on minimal supervision. To extend these gains into generative training, we propose Rubric Policy Optimization (RPO), which distills ARR's structured multi-dimensional evaluation into a robust binary reward, replacing opaque scalar regression with rubric-conditioned preference decisions that stabilize policy gradients. On text-to-image generation and image editing benchmarks, ARR-RPO outperforms pairwise reward models and VLM judges, demonstrating that explicitly externalizing implicit preference knowledge into structured rubrics achieves more reliable, data-efficient multimodal alignment, revealing that the bottleneck is the absence of a factorized interface, not a deficit of knowledge.

We present Sparrow, an information-seeking dialogue agent trained to be more helpful, correct, and harmless compared to prompted language model baselines. We use reinforcement learning from human feedback to train our models with two new additions to help human raters judge agent behaviour. First, to make our agent more helpful and harmless, we break down the requirements for good dialogue into natural language rules the agent should follow, and ask raters about each rule separately. We demonstrate that this breakdown enables us to collect more targeted human judgements of agent behaviour and allows for more efficient rule-conditional reward models. Second, our agent provides evidence from sources supporting factual claims when collecting preference judgements over model statements. For factual questions, evidence provided by Sparrow supports the sampled response 78% of the time. Sparrow is preferred more often than baselines while being more resilient to adversarial probing by humans, violating our rules only 8% of the time when probed. Finally, we conduct extensive analyses showing that though our model learns to follow our rules it can exhibit distributional biases.

LLMs are increasingly used as ``digital consumers'' to simulate public opinion, pre-test marketing decisions, and anticipate audience response. However, existing evaluations rarely ask whether a model can reconstruct the concrete reaction patterns that real consumers surface in public discourse. We introduce ConsumerSimBench, a benchmark built from 1,553 real Chinese social-media topics and 23,122 atomic, rule-audited criteria spanning four reaction families. Rather than scoring open-ended generations with a holistic preference judge, ConsumerSimBench decomposes each task into auditable yes-no decisions over concrete reaction points, raising three-judge agreement from 65.8% to 92.1% with 98.4% agreement between pointwise judge decisions and human-majority labels. Across 13 frontier generators, the strongest model, Gemini-3.1-Pro, covers only 47.8% of real reaction criteria, while GPT-5.2 and Claude-4.6 trail far behind despite their strength on technical benchmarks. The failures reveal a sharp gap between technical-benchmark performance and socially grounded consumer intuition. A direct structured reasoning prompt decreases coverage, while a generate--reflect multi-agent pipeline improves MiMo-V2.5-Pro from 32.9% to 37.6% on a subset. ConsumerSimBench reframes consumer simulation as a forecasting problem over real public-discourse reactions, showing that frontier LLMs remain far from reliably predicting what consumers will actually care about in high-context Chinese consumer discourse.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a popular technique for training high-quality AI assistants. However, RLHF may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful responses, a behavior known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in RLHF-trained models and whether human preference judgements are responsible. We first demonstrate that five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophantic behavior across four varied free-form text-generation tasks. To understand if human preferences drive this broadly observed behavior of RLHF models, we analyze existing human preference data. We find that when a response matches a user's views, it is more likely to be preferred. Moreover, both humans and preference models (PMs) prefer convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones a negligible fraction of the time. Optimizing model outputs against PMs also sometimes sacrifices truthfulness in favor of sycophancy. Overall, our results indicate that sycophancy is a general behavior of RLHF models, likely driven in part by human preference judgements favoring sycophantic responses.

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs learn to make human-like preference judgements in strategic scenarios as compared with known empirical results. Solar and Mistral are shown to exhibit stable value-based preference consistent with humans and exhibit human-like preference for cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma (including stake-size effect) and traveler's dilemma (including penalty-size effect). We establish a relationship between model size, value-based preference, and superficiality. Finally, results here show that models tending to be less brittle have relied on sliding window attention suggesting a potential link. Additionally, we contribute a novel method for constructing preference relations from arbitrary LLMs and support for a hypothesis regarding human behavior in the traveler's dilemma.

Aligning the output of Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences (e.g., by means of reinforcement learning with human feedback, or RLHF) is essential for ensuring their effectiveness in real-world scenarios. Despite significant advancements in LLM alignment techniques, the impact of different type of preference data on model performance has yet to be systematically explored. In this study, we investigate the scalability, data efficiency, and effectiveness of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) in fine-tuning pre-trained LLMs, aiming to reduce their dependency on extensive amounts of preference data, which is expensive to collect. We (1) systematically compare the performance of models fine-tuned with varying percentages of a combined preference judgement dataset to define the improvement curve of DPO and assess its effectiveness in data-constrained environments; and (2) provide insights for the development of an optimal approach for selective preference data usage. Our study reveals that increasing the amount of data used for training generally enhances and stabilizes model performance. Moreover, the use of a combination of diverse datasets significantly improves model effectiveness. Furthermore, when models are trained separately using different types of prompts, models trained with conversational prompts outperformed those trained with question answering prompts.

As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies, resulting in less explainable and controllable models with potential safety risks. In this work, we dissect the preferences of human and 32 different LLMs to understand their quantitative composition, using annotations from real-world user-model conversations for a fine-grained, scenario-wise analysis. We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. On the contrary, advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. Additionally, LLMs of similar sizes tend to exhibit similar preferences, regardless of their training methods, and fine-tuning for alignment does not significantly alter the preferences of pretrained-only LLMs. Finally, we show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated. In both training-free and training-based settings, aligning a model with the preferences of judges boosts scores, while injecting the least preferred properties lowers them. This results in notable score shifts: up to 0.59 on MT-Bench (1-10 scale) and 31.94 on AlpacaEval 2.0 (0-100 scale), highlighting the significant impact of this strategic adaptation. Interactive Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/GAIR/Preference-Dissection-Visualization Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/GAIR/preference-dissection Code: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/Preference-Dissection

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.

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.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has been a central technique for recent large language model (LLM) alignment. However, its heavy dependence on costly human or LLM-as-Judge preference feedback could stymie its wider applications. In this work, we introduce Self-Contrast, a feedback-free large language model alignment method via exploiting extensive self-generated negatives. With only supervised fine-tuning (SFT) targets, Self-Contrast leverages the LLM itself to generate massive diverse candidates, and harnesses a pre-trained embedding model to filter multiple negatives according to text similarity. Theoretically, we illustrate that in this setting, merely scaling negative responses can still effectively approximate situations with more balanced positive and negative preference annotations. Our experiments with direct preference optimization (DPO) on three datasets show that, Self-Contrast could consistently outperform SFT and standard DPO training by large margins. And as the number of self-generated negatives increases, the performance of Self-Contrast continues to grow. Code and data are available at https://github.com/THUDM/Self-Contrast.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled the development of powerful agentic systems capable of automating complex workflows across various fields. However, these systems are highly vulnerable to indirect prompt injection attacks, where malicious instructions embedded in external data can hijack agent behavior. In this work, we present ReasAlign, a model-level solution to improve safety alignment against indirect prompt injection attacks. The core idea of ReasAlign is to incorporate structured reasoning steps to analyze user queries, detect conflicting instructions, and preserve the continuity of the user's intended tasks to defend against indirect injection attacks. To further ensure reasoning logic and accuracy, we introduce a test-time scaling mechanism with a preference-optimized judge model that scores reasoning steps and selects the best trajectory. Comprehensive evaluations across various benchmarks show that ReasAlign maintains utility comparable to an undefended model while consistently outperforming Meta SecAlign, the strongest prior guardrail. On the representative open-ended CyberSecEval2 benchmark, which includes multiple prompt-injected tasks, ReasAlign achieves 94.6% utility and only 3.6% ASR, far surpassing the state-of-the-art defensive model of Meta SecAlign (56.4% utility and 74.4% ASR). These results demonstrate that ReasAlign achieves the best trade-off between security and utility, establishing a robust and practical defense against prompt injection attacks in real-world agentic systems. Our code and experimental results could be found at https://github.com/leolee99/ReasAlign.

Aligning with human preference datasets has been critical to the success of large language models (LLMs). Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) employs a costly reward model to provide feedback for on-policy sampling responses. Recently, offline methods that directly fit responses with binary preferences in the dataset have emerged as alternatives. However, existing methods do not explicitly model preference strength information, which is crucial for distinguishing different response pairs. To overcome this limitation, we propose Online Self-Preferring (OSP) language models to learn from self-generated response pairs and self-judged preference strengths. For each prompt and corresponding self-generated responses, we introduce a ranked pairing method to construct multiple response pairs with preference strength information. We then propose the soft-preference cross-entropy loss to leverage such information. Empirically, we demonstrate that leveraging preference strength is crucial for avoiding overfitting and enhancing alignment performance. OSP achieves state-of-the-art alignment performance across various metrics in two widely used human preference datasets. OSP is parameter-efficient and more robust than the dominant online method, RLHF when limited offline data are available and generalizing to out-of-domain tasks. Moreover, OSP language models established by LLMs with proficiency in self-preferring can efficiently self-improve without external supervision.

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.

Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM-based judges. However, existing studies typically investigate limited biases under a single judge formulation, either generative or discriminative, lacking a comprehensive evaluation. To bridge this gap, we propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges. JudgeBiasBench defines a taxonomy of judgment biases across 4 dimensions, and constructs bias-augmented evaluation instances through a controlled bias injection pipeline, covering 12 representative bias types. We conduct extensive experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns that often compromise the reliability of automated evaluation. To mitigate judgment bias, we propose bias-aware training that explicitly incorporates bias-related attributes into the training process, encouraging judges to disentangle task-relevant quality from bias-correlated cues. By adopting reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges, our methods effectively reduce judgment biases while largely preserving general evaluation capability.

Aligning language models with human preferences presents significant challenges, particularly in achieving personalization without incurring excessive computational costs. Existing methods rely on reward signals and additional annotated data, limiting their scalability and adaptability to diverse human values. To address these challenges, we introduce Persona-judge, a novel discriminative paradigm that enables training-free personalized alignment with unseen preferences. Instead of optimizing policy parameters through external reward feedback, Persona-judge leverages the intrinsic preference judgment capabilities of the model. Specifically, a draft model generates candidate tokens conditioned on a given preference, while a judge model, embodying another preference, cross-validates the predicted tokens whether to be accepted. Experimental results demonstrate that Persona-judge, using the inherent preference evaluation mechanisms of the model, offers a scalable and computationally efficient solution to personalized alignment, paving the way for more adaptive customized alignment. Our code is available here.

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

Learning from preference feedback is a common practice for aligning large language models~(LLMs) with human value. Conventionally, preference data is learned and encoded into a scalar reward model that connects a value head with an LLM to produce a scalar score as preference or reward. However, scalar models lack interpretability and are known to be susceptible to biases in datasets. This paper investigates leveraging the generation capability of LLMs to address both limitations in one shot. Specifically, we prompt the pre-trained LLM to generate positive and negative judgments, both supported with rationales in natural language form. The self-generated contrastive judgment pairs are used to train the generative judge with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). This proposal of training the generative Judge using self-generated Contrastive judgments (Con-J) ensures natural interpretability due to the generated rationales together with the judgments, as well as high robustness against bias without the need for an additional reward head. Experimental results show that the performance of Con-J is comparable to the scalar reward model trained on the same collection of preference data, and demonstrate its superior interpretability and robustness in encoding human preferences.

Using language models to scalably approximate human preferences on text quality (LLM-as-a-judge) has become a standard practice applicable to many tasks. A judgment is often extracted from the judge's textual output alone, typically with greedy decoding. However, LLM judges naturally provide distributions over judgment tokens, inviting a breadth of inference methods for extracting fine-grained preferences. We find that taking the mean of the judgment distribution consistently outperforms taking the mode (i.e. greedy decoding) in all evaluation settings (i.e. pointwise, pairwise, and listwise). We further explore novel methods of deriving preferences from judgment distributions, and find that methods incorporating risk aversion often improve performance. Lastly, we analyze LLM-as-a-judge paired with chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, showing that CoT can collapse the spread of the judgment distribution, often harming performance. Our findings show that leveraging distributional output improves LLM-as-a-judge, as opposed to using the text interface alone.

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.

Evaluating large language model (LLM) based chat assistants is challenging due to their broad capabilities and the inadequacy of existing benchmarks in measuring human preferences. To address this, we explore using strong LLMs as judges to evaluate these models on more open-ended questions. We examine the usage and limitations of LLM-as-a-judge, such as position and verbosity biases and limited reasoning ability, and propose solutions to migrate some of them. We then verify the agreement between LLM judges and human preferences by introducing two benchmarks: MT-bench, a multi-turn question set; and Chatbot Arena, a crowdsourced battle platform. Our results reveal that strong LLM judges like GPT-4 can match both controlled and crowdsourced human preferences well, achieving over 80\% agreement, the same level of agreement between humans. Hence, LLM-as-a-judge is a scalable and explainable way to approximate human preferences, which are otherwise very expensive to obtain. Additionally, we show our benchmark and traditional benchmarks complement each other by evaluating several variants of LLaMA/Vicuna. We will publicly release 80 MT-bench questions, 3K expert votes, and 30K conversations with human preferences from Chatbot Arena.

The use of LLMs as automated judges ("LLM-as-a-judge") is now widespread, yet standard judges suffer from a multitude of reliability issues. To address these challenges, we introduce Verdict, an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators. Verdict leverages the composition of modular reasoning units (such as verification, debate, and aggregation) and increased inference-time compute to improve LLM judge quality. Across a variety of challenging tasks such as content moderation, fact-checking, and hallucination detection, Verdict judges achieves performance competitive with orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges, prompted judges, and reasoning models. Our framework establishes a foundation for scalable, interpretable, and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for both researchers and practitioners.

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.

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.

Recently, the role of LLM-as-judge in evaluating large language models has gained prominence. However, current judge models suffer from narrow specialization and limited robustness, undermining their capacity for comprehensive evaluations. In this work, we present CompassJudger-2, a novel generalist judge model that overcomes these limitations via a task-driven, multi-domain data curation strategy. Central to our approach is supervising judgment tasks with verifiable rewards, guiding intrinsic critical reasoning through rejection sampling to foster robust, generalizable judgment capabilities. We introduce a refined learning objective with margin policy gradient loss to enhance performance. Empirically, CompassJudger-2 achieves superior results across multiple judge and reward benchmarks, and our 7B model demonstrates competitive judgment accuracy with significantly larger models like DeepSeek-V3 and Qwen3-235B-A22B. Additionally, we propose JudgerBenchV2, a comprehensive benchmark evaluating cross-domain judgment accuracy and rank consistency to standardize judge model evaluation. These contributions advance robust, scalable LLM judgment and establish new performance and evaluation standards.

In legal decisions, split votes (SV) occur when judges cannot reach a unanimous decision, posing a difficulty for lawyers who must navigate diverse legal arguments and opinions. In high-stakes domains, understanding the alignment of perceived difficulty between humans and AI systems is crucial to build trust. However, existing NLP calibration methods focus on a classifier's awareness of predictive performance, measured against the human majority class, overlooking inherent human label variation (HLV). This paper explores split votes as naturally observable human disagreement and value pluralism. We collect judges' vote distributions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and present SV-ECHR, a case outcome classification (COC) dataset with SV information. We build a taxonomy of disagreement with SV-specific subcategories. We further assess the alignment of perceived difficulty between models and humans, as well as confidence- and human-calibration of COC models. We observe limited alignment with the judge vote distribution. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exploration of calibration to human judgements in legal NLP. Our study underscores the necessity for further research on measuring and enhancing model calibration considering HLV in legal decision tasks.

Automatic evaluation methods based on large language models (LLMs) are emerging as the standard tool for assessing the instruction-following abilities of LLM-based agents. The most common method in this paradigm, pairwise comparisons with a baseline model, critically depends on the assumption of transitive preferences. However, the validity of this assumption remains largely unexplored. In this study, we investigate the presence of non-transitivity within the AlpacaEval framework and analyze its effects on model rankings. We find that LLM judges exhibit non-transitive preferences, leading to rankings that are sensitive to the choice of the baseline model. To mitigate this issue, we show that round-robin tournaments combined with Bradley-Terry models of preference can produce more reliable rankings. Notably, our method increases both the Spearman correlation and the Kendall correlation with Chatbot Arena (95.0% -> 96.4% and 82.1% -> 86.3% respectively). To address the computational cost of round-robin tournaments, we propose Swiss-Wise Iterative Matchmaking (Swim) tournaments, using a dynamic matching strategy to capture the benefits of round-robin tournaments while maintaining computational efficiency.

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%.

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.

Automated ideation systems are often evaluated on the novelty of the ideas they produce, and that judgment is increasingly delegated to large language models. Such judges are typically built ad hoc and validated, if at all, on human-authored papers rather than on the generated ideas they are meant to score. So, how do novelty judges perform? Not well. We present a systematic controlled study of novelty evaluation design choices. We first build an evaluation set automatically, mining OpenReview for passages where reviewers explicitly affirm or dispute a paper's originality and keeping only submissions with unanimous agreement at the extremes of their research area; we pair these with ideas from a vanilla LLM generator. Across six judges, we find that small prompt design choices have large consequences; e.g., simply telling the judge that reviewers found one idea novel and the other not can change its verdict on more than half of the identical idea pairs it is shown, shifting pairwise accuracy by over 50 points and occasionally pushing it below chance. The same change helps one judge and hurts another. Retrieval and larger reasoning budgets help little, and two purpose-built novelty evaluators are outperformed by our cheapest prompted baseline. These results raise questions about reported novelty gains of automated ideation systems, and call for robust novelty evaluation methods.

Safety benchmarks such as HarmBench rely on LLM judges to classify model responses as harmful or safe, yet the judge configuration, namely the combination of judge model and judge prompt, is typically treated as a fixed implementation detail. We show this assumption is problematic. Using a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design, we construct 12 judge prompt variants along two axes, evaluation structure and instruction framing, and apply them using a single judge model, Claude Sonnet 4-6, producing 28,812 judgments over six target models and 400 HarmBench behaviors. We find that prompt wording alone, holding the judge model fixed, shifts measured harmful-response rates by up to 24.2 percentage points, with even within-condition surface rewording causing swings of up to 20.1 percentage points. Model safety rankings are moderately unstable, with mean Kendall tau = 0.89, and category-level sensitivity ranges from 39.6 percentage points for copyright to 0 percentage points for harassment. A supplementary multi-judge experiment using three judge models shows that judge-model choice adds further variance. Our results demonstrate that judge prompt wording is a substantial, previously under-examined source of measurement variance in safety benchmarking.

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.

Generative models, such as large language models and text-to-image diffusion models, are increasingly used to create visual designs like user interfaces (UIs) and presentation slides. Finetuning and benchmarking these generative models have often relied on datasets of human-annotated design preferences. Yet, due to the subjective and highly personalized nature of visual design, preference varies widely among individuals. In this paper, we study this problem by introducing DesignPref, a dataset of 12k pairwise comparisons of UI design generation annotated by 20 professional designers with multi-level preference ratings. We found that among trained designers, substantial levels of disagreement exist (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.25 for binary preferences). Natural language rationales provided by these designers indicate that disagreements stem from differing perceptions of various design aspect importance and individual preferences. With DesignPref, we demonstrate that traditional majority-voting methods for training aggregated judge models often do not accurately reflect individual preferences. To address this challenge, we investigate multiple personalization strategies, particularly fine-tuning or incorporating designer-specific annotations into RAG pipelines. Our results show that personalized models consistently outperform aggregated baseline models in predicting individual designers' preferences, even when using 20 times fewer examples. Our work provides the first dataset to study personalized visual design evaluation and support future research into modeling individual design taste.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators, commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, have also attracted growing attention. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human judgments, providing accurate and reliable assessments. However, LLM-based judgment models often exhibit judgment preference bias during the evaluation phase, tending to favor responses generated by themselves, undermining the reliability of their judgments. This paper introduces the Group-Based Polling Optimization (Genii), an unsupervised multi-agent collaborative optimization framework that mitigates the inherent judgment preference bias of judgment models. Specifically, Genii integrates various LLM-based judgment models into a multi-agent system and simulates the interactive client-server polling mechanism to optimize each client agent unsupervisedly. Our experiments demonstrate that Genii outperforms supervised models trained on annotated judgment data, while requiring no human-labeled annotations. Genii consistently improves performance across different client agents during the polling, even when weaker models act as server agents. Further analysis reveals that Genii effectively mitigates judgment preference bias of LLM-based judgment models, demonstrating its effectiveness. All codes are available at https://github.com/NEUIR/Genii.

Popular ASR test sets adopt inconsistent conventions for numbers, disfluencies, entities, and casing, while standard normalizers erase the format distinctions users care about. Current benchmarks therefore cannot measure whether a model follows user preferences for output style. We introduce PreferenceASR, a test set evaluating ASR systems on their ability to follow natural-language preference instructions across four categories: normalization, entities, disfluencies, and case. Built from seven open-source corpora via a two-stage LLM-assisted pipeline with human verification, it is evaluated with a preference-aware normalizer that selectively skips steps matching the active instruction. Benchmarking four models shows rankings shift across preference types, exposing quality differences traditional evaluation obscures. We publicly release the dataset.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust and challenging benchmarks. Leaderboards like Chatbot Arena rank LLMs based on how well their responses align with human preferences. However, many tasks such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, or persuasiveness, are highly subjective and often lack majoritarian human agreement. Judges may have irreconcilable disagreements about what constitutes a better response. To address the challenge of ranking LLMs on highly subjective tasks, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, the Language Model Council (LMC). The LMC operates through a democratic process to: 1) formulate a test set through equal participation, 2) administer the test among council members, and 3) evaluate responses as a collective jury. We deploy a council of 20 newest LLMs on an open-ended emotional intelligence task: responding to interpersonal dilemmas. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable, robust, and less biased than those from any individual LLM judge, and is more consistent with a human-established leaderboard compared to other benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.

LLMs are typically trained to answer user questions or follow instructions similarly to how human experts respond. However, in the standard alignment framework they lack the basic ability of explicit thinking before answering. Thinking is important for complex questions that require reasoning and planning -- but can be applied to any task. We propose a training method for equipping existing LLMs with such thinking abilities for general instruction following without use of additional human data. We achieve this by an iterative search and optimization procedure that explores the space of possible thought generations, allowing the model to learn how to think without direct supervision. For each instruction, the thought candidates are scored using a judge model to evaluate their responses only, and then optimized via preference optimization. We show that this procedure leads to superior performance on AlpacaEval and Arena-Hard, and shows gains from thinking on non-reasoning categories such as marketing, health and general knowledge, in addition to more traditional reasoning & problem-solving tasks.

Preference learning algorithms (e.g., RLHF and DPO) are frequently used to steer LLMs to produce generations that are more preferred by humans, but our understanding of their inner workings is still limited. In this work, we study the conventional wisdom that preference learning trains models to assign higher likelihoods to more preferred outputs than less preferred outputs, measured via ranking accuracy. Surprisingly, we find that most state-of-the-art preference-tuned models achieve a ranking accuracy of less than 60% on common preference datasets. We furthermore derive the idealized ranking accuracy that a preference-tuned LLM would achieve if it optimized the DPO or RLHF objective perfectly. We demonstrate that existing models exhibit a significant alignment gap -- i.e., a gap between the observed and idealized ranking accuracies. We attribute this discrepancy to the DPO objective, which is empirically and theoretically ill-suited to fix even mild ranking errors in the reference model, and derive a simple and efficient formula for quantifying the difficulty of learning a given preference datapoint. Finally, we demonstrate that ranking accuracy strongly correlates with the empirically popular win rate metric when the model is close to the reference model used in the objective, shedding further light on the differences between on-policy (e.g., RLHF) and off-policy (e.g., DPO) preference learning algorithms.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

The integration of language models in the legal domain holds considerable promise for streamlining processes and improving efficiency in managing extensive workloads. However, the specialized terminology, nuanced language, and formal style of legal texts can present substantial challenges. This study examines whether preference-based training techniques, specifically Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and Direct Preference Optimization, can enhance models' performance in generating Icelandic legal summaries that align with domain-specific language standards and user preferences. We compare models fine-tuned with preference training to those using conventional supervised learning. Results indicate that preference training improves the legal accuracy of generated summaries over standard fine-tuning but does not significantly enhance the overall quality of Icelandic language usage. Discrepancies between automated metrics and human evaluations further underscore the importance of qualitative assessment in developing language models for the legal domain.

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.

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.