arXiv preprint ·
Opening LLM Judges: Recovering Preference Signals Beyond the Final Verdict
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
LLM judges are widely used to evaluate model outputs, but their verdicts can be unreliable: a judge may favor the worse answer for its position, length, or other surface features. When a judge is wrong, is the information needed to judge correctly absent from the model, or present in its internal representations but not reflected in the output? We study this across 64 open-weight evaluators and 14 datasets, including causal interventions on 41 judges (editing activations mid-run to see whether the verdict changes). On LLMBar, built so the superficially better answer is the worse one, the verdicts of 50 judges agree with human labels only 0.456 of the time, even after averaging both answer orders. Yet a small probe on the same judges' activations, with no weight updates, reaches 0.846, and 0.686 once surface features such as length and position are residualized out (0.507 with shuffled labels). The gap holds across eight benchmarks and model families, but is not universal: a score of how well surface features alone predict the human label, computed before any probe is trained, predicts the size of the gain (Spearman rho = 0.90). On rubric tasks that score one answer at a time, leaving no surface cue to exploit, reading the internals gives no advantage. The interventions also show that editing activations mid-network already changes the verdict, before it can be read off directly, and locate the pathways carrying position and length bias. At the same label budget, the recovered signal lets a judge flag cases where it is likely wrong and yields better labels for preference learning. A wrong verdict, then, does not mean the judge lacks the information, and a simple diagnostic shows when it is worth recovering.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Emergent One-Third Scaling Law as Attention Tries to Concentrate
Improving the Diversity of LLM Outputs without a Trade-off
Residual Streams Read, Recurrent States Remember: The Global Workspace in Mamba Models
Agent Safety From Within: Detecting Harmful Trajectories from LLM Internal States
Empowering Hybrid Attention Models on NPUs
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.