This work proposes VERA, a VErdict-conditioned Reliability Axis that estimates reliability from hidden activations by distinguishing correct from incorrect judgments within each predicted-verdict group within each predicted-verdict group.
Abstract
Accurately estimating judgment reliability is a central challenge in adapting LLM judges to newly verified feedback while preserving previously learned behavior. However, existing approaches often rely on output-level confidence, which can be overconfident and poorly aligned with judgment correctness. We propose VERA, a VErdict-conditioned Reliability Axis that estimates reliability from hidden activations by distinguishing correct from incorrect judgments within each predicted-verdict group. Using VERA as a control signal, we develop a VERA-guided periodic adaptation framework that integrates reliability-ranked corrective updates, reliability-residual replay, and periodic refresh of the reliability directions. After VERA-guided adaptation on Chatbot Arena, 8B- and 14B-parameter judges outperform the strongest baseline on each of four held-out public benchmarks, with relative gains of up to 23.01%. The framework also improves focal-class recall by up to 16.1% relative to the strongest adaptive baselines on a separate proprietary temporal auditing task.
LLM-as-a-Judge is the standard paradigm for NLP evaluation, yet its systemic reliability remains poorly understood despite being widely treated as a deterministic ground truth. We present a comprehensive reliability audit, stresstesting six frontier models across four benchmarks, five prompt formats, two presentation o...
Aim: This study investigates how a deterministic pre-judgment rule, which assigns a verdict before LLM judges evaluate a response, affects estimates of inter-rater reliability, with particular attention to Cohen’s κ.
Methods: Using 600 paired judgments from the LoCoMo benchmark, we compared Cohen’s κ between two LLM j...
Akshaya Kumar· American Journal of Technolo...· 0 citations
A wrong verdict does not mean the judge lacks the information, and a simple diagnostic shows when it is worth recovering, and on rubric tasks that score one answer at a time, reading the internals gives no advantage.
LLMs are increasingly used as automated judges for model training and evaluation, yet individual judges exhibit systematic biases that undermine reliability. Much of prior work has studied biases in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge settings; in this paper, we focus on absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use case...
Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar et al.· 0 citations
Confidence scores determine whether an LLM answer is accepted, reviewed, or regenerated, yet scalar recalibration can only correct errors visible through the score itself. We introduce RADAR (Repair, Adopt, and Diagnose After Recalibration), a reliability framework that separates confidence repair from deciding whether...
Arijit Dey, Bhartendu Kumar, Ramya Hebbalaguppe et al.· 0 citations
The results show that high judge agreement can coexist with weak sensitivity to changes in the construct being evaluated, motivating joint reporting of invariance and sensitivity and auditing the validation set itself.
Jian-Lin Chen, Wen-Hui Chen, Zi-Yao Lin et al.· 4 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 23, 2026
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.