Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.11594 v1 pith:VHUKO2FR submitted 2024-10-15 cs.LG cs.AI

Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords methoduncertaintyllm-as-a-judgeevaluationsacrossllmsquantificationquantifying
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

LLM-as-a-Judge is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various tasks. We address the challenge of quantifying the uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. While uncertainty quantification has been well-studied in other domains, applying it effectively to LLMs poses unique challenges due to their complex decision-making capabilities and computational demands. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty. We evaluate our method across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating a strong correlation between the accuracy of LLM evaluations and the derived uncertainty scores. Our findings suggest that this method can significantly improve the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. VLM Judges Can Rank but Cannot Score: Task-Dependent Uncertainty in Multimodal Evaluation

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    VLM judges exhibit task-dependent uncertainty in their scores, with conformal prediction revealing wide intervals for complex tasks and a decoupling between good ranking performance and poor absolute scoring reliability.

  2. Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks

    cs.CL 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLM judges show low intra-rater reliability, producing inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary ratings across repeated evaluations on NLG tasks.