mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Localize-Then-Decide Guarantees for LLM Judgments

arXiv 2608.25824 ↗First posted 26 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators to assess output quality and preference alignment, yet providing reliable guarantees of agreement with human judgments remains challenging. Recent work introduces confidence-thresholding methods that provide such guarantees for pairwise comparisons, relying on the assumption that higher estimated confidence implies lower disagreement risk with humans. However, this assumption can break down when the number of candidate responses increases, since distributing probability mass across many alternatives can distort confidence estimates. To address this issue, we propose a Localize-Then-Decide framework. First, conformal prediction localizes a small shortlist that contains the human-preferred response with high probability. Then, a calibrated confidence-based rule selectively chooses a single response from this shortlist or abstains. This design restores the monotonic relationship between confidence and disagreement risk and enables high-probability agreement guarantees. Experiments with multiple candidate sizes across several datasets and judge LLMs demonstrate that our framework consistently achieves higher guarantee success rates and substantially higher coverage than single-stage baselines.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 51 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

Builds on

51 of 65 references.

References · 51

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  5. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  6. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,588
  7. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  8. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  9. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  10. 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
  11. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  12. 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
38 more
  1. 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
  2. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
  3. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  4. 2019Conformalized Quantile Regressioncited by 629
  5. 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 494
  6. 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 446
  7. 2021Adaptive Conformal Inference Under Distribution Shiftcited by 375
  8. 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
  9. 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 326
  10. 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
  11. 2024JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judgescited by 318
  12. 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 288
  13. 2021Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Controlcited by 271
  14. 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 269
  15. 2023A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Modelscited by 256
  16. 2023FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Setscited by 201
  17. 2024Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluatorscited by 153
  18. 2020Conformal Inference of Counterfactuals and Individual Treatment Effectscited by 151
  19. 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 144
  20. 2023Conformal Prediction with Large Language Models for Multi-Choice Question Answeringcited by 139
  21. 2024Language Models with Conformal Factuality Guaranteescited by 131
  22. 2024Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 126
  23. 2023Branch-Solve-Merge Improves Large Language Model Evaluation and Generationcited by 106
  24. 2024Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreementcited by 105
  25. 2024Foundational Autoraters: Taming Large Language Models for Better Automatic Evaluationcited by 74
  26. 2024Conformal Alignment: Knowing When to Trust Foundation Models with Guaranteescited by 54
  27. 2024Multicalibration for Confidence Scoring in LLMscited by 46
  28. 2022Enhancing Adversarial Training with Second-Order Statistics of Weightscited by 42
  29. 2020How does Weight Correlation Affect the Generalisation Ability of Deep Neural Networkscited by 32
  30. 2025Calibrating LLM Confidence by Probing Perturbed Representation Stabilitycited by 23
  31. 2024Efficient LLM Comparative Assessment: a Product of Experts Framework for Pairwise Comparisonscited by 22
  32. 2026SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judgingcited by 14
  33. 2025Enhancing Robust Fairness via Confusional Spectral Regularizationcited by 11
  34. 2025Adaptive Prediction-Powered AutoEval with Reliability and Efficiency Guaranteescited by 11
  35. 2025POT: Inducing Overthinking in LLMs via Black-Box Iterative Optimizationcited by 11
  36. 2025BadThink: Triggered Overthinking Attacks on Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 8
  37. 2025CluCERT: Certifying LLM Robustness via Clustering-Guided Denoising Smoothingcited by 6
  38. 2026OTora: A Unified Red Teaming Framework for Reasoning-Level Denial-of-Service in LLM Agentscited by 3

50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.