# Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12624 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12624/

## Key facts

- Cited by 205 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 37 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [FinanceBench: A New Benchmark for Financial Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.11944/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Sensitivity to The Order of Options in Multiple-Choice Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11483/) (2023)
- [Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05470/) (2023)
- [Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16950/) (2024)
- [Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12272/) (2024)
- [Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10076/) (2023)
- [Are Large Language Model-based Evaluators the Solution to Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07462/) (2023)
- [Cognitive Mirage: A Review of Hallucinations in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06794/) (2023)
- [LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07889/) (2023)
- [Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03025/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Understand Real-World Complex Instructions?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.09150/) (2023)
- [The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05618/) (2024)
- [Quantifying Variance in Evaluation Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10229/) (2024)
- [Evaluation Metrics in the Era of GPT-4: Reliably Evaluating Large Language Models on Sequence to Sequence Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13800/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 205)

- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18370/) (2024)
- [Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13006/) (2024)
- [SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18927/) (2024)
- [Rethinking Rubric Generation for Improving LLM Judge and Reward Modeling for Open-ended Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05125/) (2026)
- [Archon: An Architecture Search Framework for Inference-Time Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15254/) (2024)
- [One Token to Fool LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.08794/) (2025)
- [No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05061/) (2025)
- [Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13341/) (2024)
- [Multi-Attribute Steering of Language Models via Targeted Intervention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12446/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.00915/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22316/) (2025)
- [What is the Role of Small Models in the LLM Era: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.06857/) (2024)
- [Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02856/) (2025)
- [Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.27106/) (2025)
- [DeepResearch Bench II: Diagnosing Deep Research Agents via Rubrics from Expert Reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08536/) (2026)
- [WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15549/) (2024)
- [Are LLM-Judges Robust to Expressions of Uncertainty? Investigating the effect of Epistemic Markers on LLM-based Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20774/) (2024)
- [JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09569/) (2024)
- [Towards Reasoning Ability of Small Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11569/) (2025)
- [LLMs Can Generate a Better Answer by Aggregating Their Own Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04104/) (2025)
- [Safer or Luckier? LLMs as Safety Evaluators Are Not Robust to Artifacts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09347/) (2025)
- [MultiLoKo: a multilingual local knowledge benchmark for LLMs spanning 31 languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10356/) (2025)
- [UniCorn: Towards Self-Improving Unified Multimodal Models through Self-Generated Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03193/) (2026)
- [Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Errors Undermine LLM Evaluation Panels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29800/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many open questions about the strengths and weaknesses of this paradigm, and what potential biases it may hold. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the performance of various LLMs acting as judges, focusing on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high. Investigating thirteen judge models of different model sizes and families, judging answers of nine different 'examtaker models' - both base and instruction-tuned - we find that only the best (and largest) models achieve reasonable alignment with humans. However, they are still quite far behind inter-human agreement and their assigned scores may still differ with up to 5 points from human-assigned scores. In terms of their ranking of the nine exam-taker models, instead, also smaller models and even the lexical metric contains may provide a reasonable signal. Through error analysis and other studies, we identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency. The fact that even the best judges differ from humans in this comparatively simple setup suggest that caution may be wise when using judges in more complex setups. Lastly, our research rediscovers the importance of using alignment metrics beyond simple percent alignment, showing that judges with high percent agreement can still assign vastly different scores.