mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

RoPoLL: Robust Panel of LLM Judges

arXiv 2606.30931 ↗First posted 29 Jun 2026cs.AI cs.LG cs.MAcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The LLM Jury, a Panel of LLM Evaluators (PoLL) reporting consensus scores, has become a practical alternative to single-judge LLM evaluation, yet its statistical behavior remains poorly understood. We formalize the LLM Jury under the Huber contamination model and show that PoLL incurs unbounded bias under any positive contamination, regardless of jury size, whenever a single judge fails in a biased, LLM-typical way (mode collapse, sycophancy, safety refusal). Framing jury consensus as classical robust mean estimation, we propose RoPoLL (Robust Panel of LLM-as-Judge), which preserves the PoLL panel but replaces the aggregation function with a robust mean estimator, instantiated with the geometric median (GM): tuning-free, with the optimal finite-sample breakdown point 1/2. A finite-sample error bound and a matching information-theoretic minimax lower bound agree on the parametric rate sigma*sqrt(d/N) and differ on the breakdown floor by a factor of sqrt(d), a statistical-computational gap that polynomial-time RoPoLL pays relative to the intractable Tukey halfspace median. Across 13 open-weight judges (4B-675B), three reward-model benchmarks, and four corruption regimes at rates up to 50%, RoPoLL dominates PoLL on every biased corruption type: by about 19% on cross-dimensional attacks at matched compute, and by orders of magnitude on heavy-tailed Byzantine adversaries. A 3-judge RoPoLL committee at 38B beats Mistral-Large-3 (675B) by 1.31x on HelpSteer-2 under 30% bimodal-random corruption, an 18x parameter advantage at better accuracy; a Noisy-GT control confirms the premium is paid against biased contamination, not benign imprecision.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.

Builds on

20 of 49 references.

References · 20

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  4. 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
  5. 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 711
  6. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  7. 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 446
  8. 2023UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedbackcited by 406
  9. 2018The Hidden Vulnerability of Distributed Learning in Byzantiumcited by 329
  10. 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 326
  11. 2024HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward modelscited by 236
  12. 2023FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Setscited by 201
8 more
  1. 2024Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluatorscited by 153
  2. 2023PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluationscited by 114
  3. 2023Wider and Deeper LLM Networks are Fairer LLM Evaluatorscited by 94
  4. 2023Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Modelscited by 91
  5. 2015Robust Covariance and Scatter Matrix Estimation under Huber's Contamination Modelcited by 47
  6. 2018Mean Estimation with Sub-Gaussian Rates in Polynomial Timecited by 33
  7. 2021Robust Training in High Dimensions via Block Coordinate Geometric Median Descentcited by 20
  8. 2025HelpSteer3: Human-Annotated Feedback and Edit Data to Empower Inference-Time Scaling in Open-Ended General-Domain Taskscited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.