arXiv — cs.AI preprintsInternational7 October 2026
How Much Do LLM-as-a-Judge Design Choices Matter? A Systematic Comparison of Prompt Designs, Rating Scales, and Models
This is an official announcement record
Firsthand records what arXiv — cs.AI preprints announced and links to the original. The wording below is theirs, not ours.
arXiv:2610.05094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design these judges. Typically, researchers choose the prompt, rating scale, and model intuitively. If these choices change the judge's verdicts, two studies can reach different conclusions about the same facts. To address this risk and to provide an empirical basis for judge designs, we evaluate 10 reasoning models across multiple designs on two tasks: a scalar rating of sentence sentiment and toxicity
Read the official announcement
Opens arxiv.org
More from arXiv — cs.AI preprints
- GAMEGO: Training Game-Dev Agents with Synthetic Trajectories Anchored in Real-World Assets7 October 2026
- Text2Dashboard: A Governed Agent Architecture for Natural-Language Dashboard Generation over Enterprise DataBrain7 October 2026
- FluidPD: In-Place Elasticity for SLO-Aware Prefill-Decode Disaggregated LLM Serving7 October 2026
- Anchor Divergence for Semantic Geometry in Contrastive Learning7 October 2026
- RadOnc-Agent: An LLM-Orchestrated Framework for AI Workflows Across the Radiotherapy Care Pathway7 October 2026
This content is for informational purposes only and is not professional advice. Specifications, prices, plan tiers, and features change frequently and may differ from what is shown here; verify current details on the manufacturer's or company's official page before purchasing. Ratings are based on analysis of published documentation, not independent lab testing.