# Decision Models vs. LLMs as Rubric Judges: Cheaper, Faster, and Wrong in the Same Places

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.29769 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29769/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 26 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.07243/) (2018)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [ELI5: Long Form Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.09190/) (2019)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18403/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12624/) (2024)
- [USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00456/) (2020)
- [Unsupervised Evaluation of Interactive Dialog with DialoGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.12719/) (2020)
- [Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18370/) (2024)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [Topical-Chat: Towards Knowledge-Grounded Open-Domain Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11995/) (2023)
- [Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversight](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04313/) (2025)
- [Beyond correlation: The Impact of Human Uncertainty in Measuring the Effectiveness of Automatic Evaluation and LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03775/) (2024)
- [Autorubric: A Unifying Framework for Rubric-Based LLM Evaluation on Non-Verifiable Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00077/) (2026)
- [Are Large Language Models Good Essay Graders?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13120/) (2024)
- [Automated Long Answer Grading with RiceChem Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14316/) (2024)
- [LLMs Do Not Grade Essays Like Humans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23714/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Typed Decision Models: An Early Evidence Audit and Evaluation Checklist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32160/) (2026)
- [More Choices, Fewer Decisions: Ordinal-Scale Bias in JEV-like Direct-Decision Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38827/) (2026)
- [AnyJev Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00831/) (2026)
- [Evaluating System One Models for Agent Security Decisions: Reliability, Calibration, and Selective Automation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33401/) (2026)
- [From Probabilities to Decisions: Search and Multi-Teacher Distillation with Jev](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.09188/) (2026)
- [Can Decision Models Understand Stance? Evaluating Jev Against General-Purpose LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11901/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM judges now score outputs against rubrics, in benchmarks and as training rewards. Decision models return probabilities over permitted answers with a confidence score but no free text. Two such models are Jev and an open reproduction, Perplexity's Decider. We compare each with three flash-tier LLM judges on nine panels from seven benchmarks with human judgments, giving every judge identical criterion texts. The LLM judges run in two setups, reading a whole rubric at once or one criterion at a time. Our findings suggest both decision models can often stand in for them. The LLM judges cost 16 to 357 times as much and take 5 to 350 times as long, yet in both setups each decision model trails them significantly in at most 6 of 27 comparisons. The two kinds of judge err alike, agreeing more with one another than with the human-annotated judgment labels on ordinal criteria. Over 85% of flash-tier LLM verdicts on either decision model's most confident errors repeat them, where independent errors would give about half. Each decision model's confidence ranks its errors on most ordinal panels, so each is a natural first stage for a cascade deferring uncertain verdicts to an LLM judge. Yet with flash-tier fallbacks, such cascades gained a mere 2.7 points at best over the strongest single judge, even with oracle thresholds, suggesting they mainly save cost. A cascade needs a fallback that is right where its first stage errs, but the LLM judges are mostly wrong in the same places as Jev, and the Decider is already the strongest single judge on most panels. Even each vendor's higher-tier model repeats those errors, and as a fallback it lifted no cascade more than 1.7 points above both tiers' strongest single judge. Holding across setups, effort levels, and tiers, these findings suggest designing future decision models afresh to get right what LLM judges get wrong, and vice versa.