# Codifying the Judge: Scalable Evaluation via Program Distillation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22561 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.22561/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 50 of its 65 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 50)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18665/) (2024)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Smarter, Better, Faster, Longer: A Modern Bidirectional Encoder for Fast, Memory Efficient, and Long Context Finetuning and Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13663/) (2024)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Snorkel: Rapid Training Data Creation with Weak Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.10160/) (2017)
- [Hybrid LLM: Cost-Efficient and Quality-Aware Query Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14618/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [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)
- [RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07863/) (2024)
- [Data Programming: Creating Large Training Sets, Quickly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1605.07723/) (2016)
- [RouterBench: A Benchmark for Multi-LLM Routing System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12031/) (2024)
- [Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19594/) (2024)
- [Qwen3.5-Omni Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15804/) (2026)
- [Large Language Model Routing with Benchmark Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15789/) (2023)
- [Ask Me Anything: A simple strategy for prompting language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02441/) (2022)
- [Routing to the Expert: Efficient Reward-guided Ensemble of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08692/) (2023)
- [DR Tulu: Reinforcement Learning with Evolving Rubrics for Deep Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.19399/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-as-a-judge has become the standard for automated evaluation, but it suffers from high cost, inference latency, and opaque decisions---limitations that undermine its scalability and reliability. We address these with a simple, efficient alternative: program distillation. Instead of prompting an LLM at evaluation time, we distill its decision logic into a committee of programs that can score candidates directly. These programmatic judges offer transparency, are easily inspected or edited, and eliminate per-sample API costs. Building on this notion, we introduce PAJAMA, a system that synthesizes programs as judges, aggregates their decisions into a joint verdict, and incorporates a fallback mechanism to selectively escalate low-confidence cases to an LLM. Across five datasets and eight model families, we show that programmatic judges match the performance of a 13B-size LLM judge at 47x higher throughput. When using program outputs as routing signals, PAJAMA improves both accuracy and throughput and advances the Pareto frontier. Beyond evaluation, programmatic judges produce cheap and effective reward signals: on RewardBench, a reward model distilled from programs' verdicts outperforms one trained on a proprietary LLM's labels at two orders of magnitude lower API cost.