Behind Aggregate Scores: What Systematically Varying Arena-Hard's LLM Judge Reveals
arXiv:2610.30512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges are used to determine which of two answers is better. Trusting these verdicts requires knowing how repeatable they are and how much they depend on the judge's instructions. We show that similar aggregate scores can conceal substantial changes in individual verdicts, both when the same setup is repeated and when the instructions change. Using 500 Arena-Hard v2.0 prompts with two models' answers held fixed, we run GPT-4.1 as the judge unde
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2610.30512. Source account: arXiv:2610.30512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges are used to determine which of two answers is better. Trusting these verdicts requires knowing how repeatable they are and how much they depend on the judge's instructions. We show that similar aggregate scores can conceal substantial changes in individual verdicts, both when the same setup is repeated and when the instructions change. Using 500 Arena-Hard v2.0 prompts with two models' answers held fixed, we run GPT-4.1 as the judge unde
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Show HN: Teach a speech model (en) a name by saying it once, on your Mac” (Show HN, Nov 5, 2026); “Human-like cross-language generalisation in deep neural speaker embeddings and its acoustic foundations” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.