mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Human-in-the-Loop Nugget Annotation for Accountable LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluations

arXiv 2606.29033 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2026cs.IRcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating AI/Agentic system outputs reliably requires human judgment, but how one incorporates the human determines whether one gets a real quality signal or expensive theater. The common approaches either accidentally anchor human experts (leading to rubber-stamping) or leave them unsupported in cognitively demanding labeling tasks. We present a prototype of an annotation tool that implements a different division of labor: humans identify what information matters (nuggets), while LLMs handle high-volume matching of nuggets to system outputs. This plays to each party's strengths while maintaining genuine human oversight. We describe the Human-AI workflow, key design decisions, and how resulting nugget banks are used with automated judges.

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. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2026.

Builds on

No reference list 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. 2026Agent-as-a-Judge
  3. 2026Human-on-the-Bridge: Scalable Evaluation for AI Agents
  4. 2026Auditing Automated Evaluation, Error Propagation, and Runtime Mitigation in Tool-Using Language Agents
  5. 2025CentaurEval: Benchmarking Human-in-the-Loop Value in Agentic Coding
  6. 2024Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents
  7. 2026Context Over Content: Exposing Evaluation Faking in Automated Judges
  8. 2026Counsel: A Meta-Evaluation Dataset for Agentic Tasks