# LLJ Cards: Best practices for the Use of LLMs as Judges

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24516 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.24516/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 68 of its 112 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 68)

- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [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)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00093/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04048/) (2023)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [Measurement and Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.05511/) (2019)
- [All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.00061/) (2021)
- [SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14598/) (2024)
- [Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07736/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17012/) (2023)
- [The PRISM Alignment Dataset: What Participatory, Representative and Individualised Human Feedback Reveals About the Subjective and Multicultural Alignment of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16019/) (2024)
- [On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05699/) (2021)
- [Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14016/) (2024)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02825/) (2025)
- [When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06626/) (2023)
- [LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09766/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these systems have been widely adopted by researchers and practitioners across a broad range of measurement tasks, driven by their strong performance, scalability, and cost-effectiveness relative to human judgment. However, a growing body of work has shown that the use of LLJs raise concerns about their validity and reliability as evaluators. Existing efforts to address these challenges have largely focused on developing bias-mitigation techniques and refining prompting strategies. While these approaches represent an important step forward, they primarily offer technical fixes and leave a more fundamental challenge unaddressed: the lack of standardized, transparent, and reproducible evaluation practices. In this paper, we introduce LLJ Cards, a framework that synthesizes best practices from measurement theory, natural language generation, and machine learning literature into practical guidelines for LLJ-based evaluations. While LLJs offer a promising path toward scalable evaluation, their effective use requires grounding in rigorous evaluation principles to ensure validity, reliability, and reproducibility. LLJ Cards addresses this need by providing a structured framework for applying these principles in the design and reporting of automated evaluations.