# AsymmetryZero: A Framework for Operationalizing Human Expert Preferences as Semantic Evals

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04083 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.04083/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11520/) (2021)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14520/) (2023)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05470/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01724/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17012/) (2023)
- [LLM-Rubric: A Multidimensional, Calibrated Approach to Automated Evaluation of Natural Language Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00274/) (2024)
- [Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06709/) (2025)
- [APEX-Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.14242/) (2026)
- [Who Judges the Judge? LLM Jury-on-Demand: Building Trustworthy LLM Evaluation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.01786/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Much of the focus in RL today is on evaluation design: building meaningful evals that serve simultaneously as benchmarks and as well-defined reward signals for post-training. Yet, many real-world tasks are governed by subjective, procedural, and domain-specific requirements that are difficult to encode as exact-match targets or open-ended preference judgments frequently used in RL pipelines today. In this work, we present AsymmetryZero, a framework for operationalizing human expert preferences as semantic evals. AsymmetryZero represents each task as a stable evaluation contract that makes grading criteria explicit: what is being graded, how each criterion is judged, and how criterion-level decisions are aggregated into a task outcome. The same contract can be executed using Inspect for model-only evaluations, as well as the Harbor Framework for agentic evaluations, enabling comparable scores and shared audit artifacts across both settings. We argue that the central challenge in post-training today is the faithful encoding of expert requirements into the evaluation itself. To that end, we present a study using Harbor that holds task contracts fixed and compares a five-model frontier jury against a five-model compact jury across four frontier-class solvers (Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4, Grok-4.20, Gemini-3.1-Pro). We find that criterion-level frontier-vs-compact agreement ranges from 75.9% to 89.6% (strict common-subset agreement: 77.8% to 92.1%), while compact juries exhibit substantially higher internal dissent (3--2 split rate 28.7%--32.4%) than frontier juries (6.1%--11.5%). Verifier traces further show that compact juries reduce per-criterion judging cost to roughly 4.2%--5.6% of frontier and latency to roughly 21.7%--27.1%, even as aggregated task-level outcomes often remain comparatively stable.