# When Trust Meets Truth: Trust-Truth Separability in LLM-as-Judge

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21097 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21097/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 19 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [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)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [ASQA: Factoid Questions Meet Long-Form Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.06092/) (2022)
- [A Question-Entailment Approach to Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.08079/) (2019)
- [Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.12509/) (2024)
- [Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.13828/) (2022)
- [Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22316/) (2025)
- [LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09443/) (2025)
- [Analyzing Uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge: Interval Evaluations with Conformal Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.18658/) (2025)
- [TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21117/) (2025)
- [The Silent Judge: Unacknowledged Shortcut Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.26072/) (2025)
- [Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.05593/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-as-Judge systems can produce multi-dimensional evaluations, such as trustworthiness, reliability, and factuality, and these outputs are often interpreted as independent evidence. We test this assumption for a common pair of judgments: trust scoring and binary truth classification. On correctness-controlled QA, LLM judges align trust scores with truth verdicts more tightly than human behavioral reference, suggesting weaker separations between trust and truth judgment. We then apply stress tests by changing only source cues of identical QA between Human and AI. Source attribution shifts not only trust scores but also truth verdicts and logit-derived correct-side probabilities. Results show that current LLM-as-Judge protocols should not treat trust scores as independent evidence for truth judgments.