# Who's Your Judge? On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Judgments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25154 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25154/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 43 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 43)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Defending Against Neural Fake News](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12616/) (2019)
- [GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04043/) (2019)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05130/) (2023)
- [Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00650/) (2019)
- [HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08673/) (2024)
- [Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07183/) (2024)
- [Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17710/) (2024)
- [Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02554/) (2023)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [In Prospect and Retrospect: Reflective Memory Management for Long-term Personalized Dialogue Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08026/) (2025)
- [AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12708/) (2024)
- [HelpSteer3-Preference: Open Human-Annotated Preference Data across Diverse Tasks and Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11475/) (2025)
- [Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13006/) (2024)
- [Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03025/) (2023)
- [One Token to Fool LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.08794/) (2025)
- [Is Chain-of-Thought Reasoning of LLMs a Mirage? A Data Distribution Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.01191/) (2025)
- [DetectRL: Benchmarking LLM-Generated Text Detection in Real-World Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.23746/) (2024)
- [TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07642/) (2025)
- [SMoA: Improving Multi-agent Large Language Models with Sparse Mixture-of-Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03284/) (2024)
- [ANTIQUE: A Non-Factoid Question Answering Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.08957/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [SCRIBE: Structured Mid-Level Supervision for Tool-Using Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03555/) (2026)
- [PPTArena: A Benchmark for PowerPoint Editing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.03042/) (2025)
- [Beyond Pipelines: A Survey of the Paradigm Shift toward Model-Native Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16720/) (2025)
- [FairJudge: An Adaptive, Debiased, and Consistent LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06625/) (2026)
- [Security in LLM-as-a-Judge: A Comprehensive SoK](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.29403/) (2026)
- [Hitting a Moving Target: Test-Time Adaptation for AI Text Detection under Continual Distribution Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25152/) (2026)
- [Training-free Dropout Sampling for Semantic Token Acceptance in Speculative Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03333/) (2026)
- [CLM-as-a-Judge: Evaluating an Open Contrastive Decision Model on Public Judge Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07177/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM)-based judgments leverage powerful LLMs to efficiently evaluate candidate content and provide judgment scores. However, the inherent biases and vulnerabilities of LLM-generated judgments raise concerns, underscoring the urgent need for distinguishing them in sensitive scenarios like academic peer reviewing. In this work, we propose and formalize the task of judgment detection and systematically investigate the detectability of LLM-generated judgments. Unlike LLM-generated text detection, judgment detection relies solely on judgment scores and candidates, reflecting real-world scenarios where textual feedback is often unavailable in the detection process. Our preliminary analysis shows that existing LLM-generated text detection methods perform poorly given their incapability to capture the interaction between judgment scores and candidate content -- an aspect crucial for effective judgment detection. Inspired by this, we introduce textitJ-Detector, a lightweight and transparent neural detector augmented with explicitly extracted linguistic and LLM-enhanced features to link LLM judges' biases with candidates' properties for accurate detection. Experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of textitJ-Detector and show how its interpretability enables quantifying biases in LLM judges. Finally, we analyze key factors affecting the detectability of LLM-generated judgments and validate the practical utility of judgment detection in real-world scenarios.