# Can We Trust This Evaluation? Instance-Level Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14029 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.14029/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 27 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02136/) (2016)
- [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)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11747/) (2023)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [Bias-Reduced Uncertainty Estimation for Deep Neural Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.08206/) (2018)
- [LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13711/) (2023)
- [Wider and Deeper LLM Networks are Fairer LLM Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01862/) (2023)
- [Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.12509/) (2024)
- [Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04424/) (2024)
- [Diagnosing the Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge via Item Response Theory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00521/) (2026)
- [A Novel Characterization of the Population Area Under the Risk Coverage Curve (AURC) and Rates of Finite Sample Estimators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15361/) (2024)
- [SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.13110/) (2026)
- [CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.00039/) (2026)
- [Calibrating LLM Judges: Linear Probes for Fast and Reliable Uncertainty Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.22245/) (2025)
- [Data Quality in Crowdsourcing and Spamming Behavior Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.17582/) (2024)
- [Judge, Retrieve, or Abstain: Uncertainty-Guarded LLM Judging with Provable Risk Guarantees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17994/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-as-a-judge evaluation commonly aggregates multiple judges' decisions into a majority vote, yet this panel decision process does not guarantee that the evaluation of an individual item is reliable. We propose Structured Cross-fitted Uncertainty Risk (SCUR), a label-free approach for estimating instance-level evaluation reliability based on the judge panel's behavior. A latent measurement model serves as the backbone for measurement system analysis, from which SCUR derives three complementary signals capturing panel uncertainty, measurement cross-entropy, and perturbation sensitivity. These three sources of evidence are combined into a risk score. We evaluate the SCUR approach on five real-world benchmarks using majority-vote error ranking, selective trust, and risk stratification. Furthermore, we show our approach to be more effective at detecting high-consensus risk items, which are the blind spots for many other LLM-as-a-judge evaluation methods.