mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents

arXiv 2506.22485 ↗First posted 23 Jun 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents. Unlike prior solutions focused on unstructured texts or limited compliance checks, this framework leverages modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents for accuracy, consistency, completeness, and clarity. Specialized agents, each responsible for discrete review criteria such as template compliance or factual correctness, operate in parallel or sequence as required. Evaluation outputs are enforced to a standardized, machine-readable schema, supporting downstream analytics and auditability. Continuous monitoring and a feedback loop with human reviewers allow for iterative system improvement and bias mitigation. Quantitative evaluation demonstrates that the AI Agent-as-Judge system approaches or exceeds human performance in key areas: achieving 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document, with a 95% agreement rate between AI and expert human judgment. While promising for a wide range of industries, the study also discusses current limitations, including the need for human oversight in highly specialized domains and the operational cost of large-scale LLM usage. The proposed system serves as a flexible, auditable, and scalable foundation for AI-driven document quality assurance in the enterprise context.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (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 0 of its 1 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2025.

Builds on

0 of 1 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs
  2. 2026Benchmarking Agentic Review Systems
  3. 2026Agent-as-a-Judge
  4. 2026LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform
  5. 2026Automated Textbook Auditing with Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  6. 2026BADGER: Bridging Agentic and Deterministic Evaluation for Generative Enterprise Reasoning
  7. 2024Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents
  8. 2026Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews