Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Diagnosing LLM Judge Reliability: Conformal Prediction Sets and Transitivity Violations

LLM-as-judge frameworks are increasingly used for automatic NLG evaluation, yet their per-instance reliability remains poorly understood. We present a two-pronged diagnostic toolkit applied to SummEval: $\textbf{(1)}$ a transitivity analysis that reveals widespread per-input inconsistency masked by low aggregate violation rates ($\barρ = 0.8$-$4.1\%$), with $33$-$67\%$ of documents exhibiting at least one directed 3-cycle; and $\textbf{(2)}$ split conformal prediction sets over 1-5 Likert scores providing theoretically-guaranteed $\geq(1{-}α)$ coverage, with set width serving as a per-instance reliability indicator ($r_s = {+}0.576$, $N{=}1{,}918$, $p < 10^{-100}$, pooled across all judge...

AuthorsManan Gupta, Dhruv Kumar
Primary categorycs.AI
Published16 April 2026
Last updated at source16 April 2026
cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/ec1a2e2f-6660-45b8-abaa-cc1e5c425b5f" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.