arXiv preprint ·
Pinned and Still Unstable: Within-Judge Verdict Variance and the Noise Floor of LLM-as-Judge Leaderboards
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Modern LLM evaluation assumes that pinning a judge to a fixed model snapshot and decoding at temperature zero yields reproducible verdicts. We show this assumption fails as a property of how LLM-as-Judge is operationalized on cloud serving infrastructure, not of any particular model family. Across four frontier judges all served via a single major enterprise cloud platform and three standard benchmarks (Arena-Hard, AlpacaEval 2, MT-Bench), identical inputs to the same pinned, temperature-zero judge produce different verdicts across re-runs: per-item flip rates of roughly 5% on average and about 40% on the close-call items that decide leaderboard margins, with a per-judge magnitude spanning a 40x range (from 0.13% to nearly 10%). We introduce metrics tailored to this instability: per-item flip rate, a two-part stability profile (waver fraction and conditional intensity), and adjacency separability - and report what the variance does and does not do to rankings. For a single judge the aggregate ranking is stable (0% top-K instability, 0% pooled winner flip); what degrades is precision: under a paired hierarchical bootstrap, roughly one-fifth to three-quarters of adjacent leaderboard positions are statistically indistinguishable, a noise floor we attribute primarily to finite prompt sampling rather than to the judge. Across judges, leaderboards agree on the coarse ordering but diverge in the middle (Kendall's tau as low as 0.42-0.64 between families on Arena-Hard), and of 13 published head-to-head ranking claims we re-judge, 5 fail under a defensible judge swap or re-run. We argue that leaderboards report unhedged point estimates that misrepresent the noise floor of the instrument, and we propose a minimal, low-cost reporting protocol: several judge re-runs, published stability profiles and adjacency intervals, and results under at least two judges from different families.
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 Computation & Language / NLP
Improving the Diversity of LLM Outputs without a Trade-off
Steering Language Model Goals with Value Transplant
Counterexamples to Local Reconstruction Gain as a Proxy for Final Fidelity in Residual Completion
Reading Too Much into Context: Passive Exposure Can Steer LLM Decisions
Who Gets a Token, and What Does It Carry? Unequal Name Support and Concept Access in Large Language Models
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP 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.