mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Auto-Prompt Ensemble for LLM Judge

arXiv 2510.06538 ↗First posted 8 Oct 2025cs.AI cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We present a novel framework that improves the reliability of LLM judges by selectively augmenting LLM with auxiliary evaluation dimensions. Existing LLM judges often miss crucial evaluation dimensions because they fail to recognize the implicit standards underlying human assessments. To address this challenge, we propose the Auto-Prompt Ensemble (APE), an adaptive framework that automatically learns evaluation dimensions from its failure cases. APE incorporates a confidence-based ensemble mechanism to decide when to adopt the judgments from additional evaluation dimensions through a novel confidence estimation approach called Collective Confidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that APE improves the reliability of LLM Judge across diverse standard benchmarks. For instance, APE enhances GPT-4o agreement rate on Reward Bench from 87.2% to 90.5% in the zero-shot setting. Overall, APE provides a principled approach for LLM Judge to leverage test-time computation, and bridge the evaluation gap between human and LLM judges.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2025.

Builds on

24 of 29 references.

References · 24

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  4. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  5. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  6. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  7. 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,045
  8. 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
  9. 2023Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Searchcited by 653
  10. 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 505
  11. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 496
  12. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 422
12 more
  1. 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 420
  2. 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
  3. 2024Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMscited by 327
  4. 2023PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimizationcited by 316
  5. 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 302
  6. 2024HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward modelscited by 236
  7. 2024Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreementcited by 105
  8. 2024OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluatorscited by 94
  9. 2023CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generationcited by 66
  10. 2024Are LLM-based Evaluators Confusing NLG Quality Criteria?cited by 36
  11. 2024HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decompositioncited by 33
  12. 2024A Chinese Dataset for Evaluating the Safeguards in Large Language Modelscited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.