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
阅读原始来源
来源记录
研究分析
研究主张
论文标识：2610.30512。 来源描述：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
评测与比较记录
可供比较的近期同类记录：“Memorilla: Latent Semantic Memory for LLMs” (Hacker News, 2026年11月6日)；“Show HN: Ru-Jev – an open model that scores caller-supplied options on CPU (MIT)” (Show HN, 2026年11月6日)。主题相近仅用于导航，未核验其是否属于同一需求或独立证据。
结论适用范围
结论只能在所述模型版本、任务、数据与推理预算内解释。社区票数、下载量或榜单位置不能证明另一工作流中的可靠性。
有效性与复现缺口
需核对样本选择、基线配置、不确定性、数据污染风险、负面结果以及代码或权重可获取性；此处没有本站复现实验记录。
复核路线
阅读论文或模型卡及评测附录，针对明确基线复现一个有限结论，再测试代表性用户任务并记录结论失效的场景。