# Leveraging LLMs as Meta-Judges: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating LLM Judgments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17087 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.17087/

## Key facts

- Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 23 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06782/) (2024)
- [Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18153/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12624/) (2024)
- [Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19594/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.19736/) (2023)
- [Exploring LLM Prompting Strategies for Joint Essay Scoring and Feedback Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15845/) (2024)
- [MQAG: Multiple-choice Question Answering and Generation for Assessing Information Consistency in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.12307/) (2023)
- [Self-rationalization improves LLM as a fine-grained judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05495/) (2024)
- [MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19305/) (2024)
- [MME-CRS: Multi-Metric Evaluation Based on Correlation Re-Scaling for Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.09403/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? On Bias Amplifications and Resistance in Multi-Agent Based LLM-as-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19477/) (2025)
- [Calibrate, Don't Curate: Label-Efficient Estimation from Noisy LLM Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09702/) (2026)
- [From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08625/) (2026)
- [Meta-Judging with Large Language Models: Concepts, Methods, and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17312/) (2026)
- [Using LLM-as-a-Judge/Jury to Advance Scalable, Clinically-Validated Safety Evaluations of Model Responses to Users Demonstrating Psychosis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02359/) (2026)
- [Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26212/) (2026)
- [TF1-EN-3M: Three Million Synthetic Moral Fables for Training Small, Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.20605/) (2025)
- [Becoming Experienced Judges: Selective Test-Time Learning for Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.06751/) (2025)
- [TabAgent: A Framework for Replacing Agentic Generative Components with Tabular-Textual Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16429/) (2026)
- [CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.03650/) (2026)
- [Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03565/) (2026)
- [Vintage Code, Modern Judges: Meta-Validation in Low Data Regimes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.27244/) (2025)
- [TaskEval: Synthesised Evaluation for Foundation-Model Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.04442/) (2025)
- [Towards Multi-modal Multi-turn Safety: From Agentic Interaction to Strategic Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04736/) (2026)
- [Counsel: A Meta-Evaluation Dataset for Agentic Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21627/) (2026)
- [ABot-AgentOS: A General Robotic Agent OS with Lifelong Multi-modal Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.10350/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are being widely applied across various fields, but as tasks become more complex, evaluating their responses is increasingly challenging. Compared to human evaluators, the use of LLMs to support performance evaluation offers a more efficient alternative. However, most studies focus mainly on aligning LLMs' judgments with human preferences, overlooking the existence of biases and mistakes in human judgment. Furthermore, how to select suitable LLM judgments given multiple potential LLM responses remains underexplored. To address these two aforementioned issues, we propose a three-stage meta-judge selection pipeline: 1) developing a comprehensive rubric with GPT-4 and human experts, 2) using three advanced LLM agents to score judgments, and 3) applying a threshold to filter out low-scoring judgments. Compared to methods using a single LLM as both judge and meta-judge, our pipeline introduces multi-agent collaboration and a more comprehensive rubric. Experimental results on the JudgeBench dataset show about 15.55% improvement compared to raw judgments and about 8.37% improvement over the single-agent baseline. Our work demonstrates the potential of LLMs as meta-judges and lays the foundation for future research on constructing preference datasets for LLM-as-a-judge reinforcement learning.