# Binarization Flattens the Score Space

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35797 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35797/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [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)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [SciBench: Evaluating College-Level Scientific Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10635/) (2023)
- [Goodhart's Law in Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.09144/) (2023)
- [Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12474/) (2026)
- [Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Errors Undermine LLM Evaluation Panels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29800/) (2026)
- [Compute as Teacher: Turning Inference Compute Into Reference-Free Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.14234/) (2025)
- [Reproducing, Analyzing, and Detecting Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04923/) (2026)
- [Rubric Dropout: A Simple Way to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Rubric-as-Reward RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11669/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) judges are often used as rewards to train policies on objectives that deterministic verifiers cannot capture. However, these rewards are often collapsed to pass/fail (0, 1), which reports the verdict but not how well a response met each criterion. We model each pass/fail verdict as a score on an unreported scale, compared with one cutoff. A stretch of that scale moves every score proportionally toward or away from the cutoff, but never across it, so no verdict changes. A policy is therefore free to apply any stretch without changing anything the panel reports. Under a joint-Gaussian model, a third grade adds a second threshold and removes this affine stretch ambiguity. On MATH and SciBench outputs from one seven-criterion judge, all 14 constructed criterionwise stretches were invisible after binarization but visible with three grades. At n=1,024, a test given both population laws had at least 96.5% power at a 1.5× stress. Retaining grades closes one blind spot created by binarization, but verdicts alone remain insufficient as some changes are still indistinguishable from genuine improvement. These include arbitrary within-grade changes and fixed-covariance, loading-aligned mean shifts -- the signature of a sycophancy-shaped lift the panel reads as competence. The shared-factor reference approximation fit MATH and SciBench but not HealthBench, delineating its empirical scope. We recommend keeping at least three grades (for example, asking the judge whether each criterion is fully, partially, or not met and rewarding 0, 0.5, 1), and externally validating gains along the remaining direction, which no finer scale removes.