Green Shielding introduces CUE criteria and the HCM-Dx benchmark to demonstrate that routine prompt variations systematically alter LLM diagnostic behavior along clinically relevant dimensions, producing Pareto-like tradeoffs in plausibility versus coverage.
citation dossier
Justice or prejudice? quantifying biases in llm-as-a-judge
17Pith papers citing it
17reference links
cs.AItop field · 9 papers
UNVERDICTEDtop verdict bucket · 16 papers
why this work matters in Pith
Pith has found this work in 17 reviewed papers. Its strongest current cluster is cs.AI (9 papers). The largest review-status bucket among citing papers is UNVERDICTED (16 papers). For highly cited works, this page shows a dossier first and a bounded explorer second; it never tries to render every citing paper at once.
representative citing papers
A new auditing framework reveals widespread behavioral entanglement among LLMs and shows that reweighting ensembles based on measured independence improves verification accuracy by up to 4.5%.
LLM safety judges flip verdicts on equivalent policy rewrites up to 9.1% of the time and cannot distinguish meaningful from meaningless changes, requiring new invariance-based reliability metrics.
SelectiveRM applies optimal transport with a joint consistency discrepancy and partial mass relaxation to produce reward models that optimize a tighter upper bound on clean risk while autonomously dropping noisy preference samples.
AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
AI models exhibit identity-contingent withholding, providing better clinical guidance on benzodiazepine tapering to physicians than laypeople in identical scenarios, with a measured decoupling gap of +0.38 and 13.1 percentage point drop in safety-critical action hit rates.
LLM agents resolve fewer than half of issues while satisfying design constraints despite passing tests, as shown by a benchmark of 495 issues and 1787 constraints from six repositories.
Both humans and LLMs trust content more when labeled human-authored than AI-generated, with LLMs showing denser attention to labels and higher uncertainty under AI labels, mirroring human heuristic patterns.
Community members from the UK blind community, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu helped define what counts as culturally appropriate depictions of artifacts, and the authors tested whether those definitions can be turned into repeatable LLM-as-a-judge measurements.
A systematization of knowledge unifies nine LLM metrics into three orthogonal latent dimensions via an MTMM-geometric framework to improve construct validity in evaluation.
TRUST is a decentralized AI auditing framework that decomposes reasoning into HDAGs, maps agent interactions via the DAAN protocol to CIGs, and uses stake-weighted multi-tier consensus to achieve 72.4% accuracy while proving a Safety-Profitability Theorem that rewards honest auditors.
An LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework for math reasoning outperforms symbolic methods by accurately assessing diverse answer representations and formats.
LLM judges for code tasks show high sensitivity to prompt biases that systematically favor certain options, changing accuracy and model rankings even when code is unchanged.
Reliable AI needs structured Knowledge Objects to externalize and enable human validation of implicit knowledge that current methods cannot verify.
LLM-based SE tools lack stable ground truth and deterministic outputs, making standard evaluation assumptions invalid and requiring new approaches for reliable assessment.
An LLM produces consistent categorical judgments and appropriate confidence declines when evaluating powerline segmentation quality under controlled visual degradations, suggesting it can serve as a reliable watchdog.
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
citing papers explorer
-
Green Shielding: A User-Centric Approach Towards Trustworthy AI
Green Shielding introduces CUE criteria and the HCM-Dx benchmark to demonstrate that routine prompt variations systematically alter LLM diagnostic behavior along clinically relevant dimensions, producing Pareto-like tradeoffs in plausibility versus coverage.
-
How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles
A new auditing framework reveals widespread behavioral entanglement among LLMs and shows that reweighting ensembles based on measured independence improves verification accuracy by up to 4.5%.
-
Beyond Accuracy: Policy Invariance as a Reliability Test for LLM Safety Judges
LLM safety judges flip verdicts on equivalent policy rewrites up to 9.1% of the time and cannot distinguish meaningful from meaningless changes, requiring new invariance-based reliability metrics.
-
Optimal Transport for LLM Reward Modeling from Noisy Preference
SelectiveRM applies optimal transport with a joint consistency discrepancy and partial mass relaxation to produce reward models that optimize a tighter upper bound on clean risk while autonomously dropping noisy preference samples.
-
When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?
AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
-
IatroBench: Pre-Registered Evidence of Iatrogenic Harm from AI Safety Measures
AI models exhibit identity-contingent withholding, providing better clinical guidance on benzodiazepine tapering to physicians than laypeople in identical scenarios, with a measured decoupling gap of +0.38 and 13.1 percentage point drop in safety-critical action hit rates.
-
Does Pass Rate Tell the Whole Story? Evaluating Design Constraint Compliance in LLM-based Issue Resolution
LLM agents resolve fewer than half of issues while satisfying design constraints despite passing tests, as shown by a benchmark of 495 issues and 1787 constraints from six repositories.
-
Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judge
Both humans and LLMs trust content more when labeled human-authored than AI-generated, with LLMs showing denser attention to labels and higher uncertainty under AI labels, mirroring human heuristic patterns.
-
Evaluating AI-Generated Images of Cultural Artifacts with Community-Informed Rubrics
Community members from the UK blind community, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu helped define what counts as culturally appropriate depictions of artifacts, and the authors tested whether those definitions can be turned into repeatable LLM-as-a-judge measurements.
-
Coordinates of Capability: A Unified MTMM-Geometric Framework for LLM Evaluation
A systematization of knowledge unifies nine LLM metrics into three orthogonal latent dimensions via an MTMM-geometric framework to improve construct validity in evaluation.
-
TRUST: A Framework for Decentralized AI Service v.0.1
TRUST is a decentralized AI auditing framework that decomposes reasoning into HDAGs, maps agent interactions via the DAAN protocol to CIGs, and uses stake-weighted multi-tier consensus to achieve 72.4% accuracy while proving a Safety-Profitability Theorem that rewards honest auditors.
-
Rethinking Math Reasoning Evaluation: A Robust LLM-as-a-Judge Framework Beyond Symbolic Rigidity
An LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework for math reasoning outperforms symbolic methods by accurately assessing diverse answer representations and formats.
-
Bias in the Loop: Auditing LLM-as-a-Judge for Software Engineering
LLM judges for code tasks show high sensitivity to prompt biases that systematically favor certain options, changing accuracy and model rankings even when code is unchanged.
-
Reliable AI Needs to Externalize Implicit Knowledge: A Human-AI Collaboration Perspective
Reliable AI needs structured Knowledge Objects to externalize and enable human validation of implicit knowledge that current methods cannot verify.
-
Evaluation of LLM-Based Software Engineering Tools: Practices, Challenges, and Future Directions
LLM-based SE tools lack stable ground truth and deterministic outputs, making standard evaluation assumptions invalid and requiring new approaches for reliable assessment.
-
LLM-as-Judge for Semantic Judging of Powerline Segmentation in UAV Inspection
An LLM produces consistent categorical judgments and appropriate confidence declines when evaluating powerline segmentation quality under controlled visual degradations, suggesting it can serve as a reliable watchdog.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.