# Auto-Prompt Ensemble for LLM Judge

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06538 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06538/

## 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 (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [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)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03495/) (2023)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18495/) (2024)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04048/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14520/) (2023)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18451/) (2024)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08673/) (2024)
- [Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18370/) (2024)
- [OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.06551/) (2024)
- [CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.18702/) (2023)
- [Are LLM-based Evaluators Confusing NLG Quality Criteria?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12055/) (2024)
- [HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15754/) (2024)
- [A Chinese Dataset for Evaluating the Safeguards in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12193/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Do We Need Frontier Models to Verify Mathematical Proofs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02450/) (2026)
- [JAF: Judge Agent Forest](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22269/) (2026)
- [SPEAR: Code-Augmented Agentic Prompt Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26275/) (2026)
- [Robust LLM Performance Certification via Constrained Maximum Likelihood Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03257/) (2026)
- [Auditing and Repairing LLM-as-Judge Failures in a Production Text-to-SQL Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30290/) (2026)

## 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.