Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces a distribution-calibrated aggregation scheme that leverages inference-time compute to transform noisy LLM judge outputs into reliable ratings matching human consensus. By modeling three-way preferences with a Bradley-Terry-Davidson formulation, the method effectively distinguishes narrow margins from strong consensus, reducing mean absolute error and increasing pairwise accuracy. The key takeaway for practitioners is that strategically allocating compute and using principled aggregation can significantly improve the robustness of automated evaluation pipelines.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Distribution-Calibrated Inference Time Compute for Thinking LLM-as-a-Judge

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2512.03019v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level, and common aggregation rules (majority vote, soft self-consistency, or instruction-based self-aggregation) are inconsistent when ties are allowed. We study inference-time compute (ITC) for evaluators that generate n independent thinking--rating samples per item, and propose a principled, distribution-calibrated aggregation scheme. Our method models three-way preferences with a Bradley-Terry-Davidson formulation on rating counts, leveraging both polarity (margin among non-ties) and decisiveness (non-tie rate) to distinguish narrow margins from strong consensus. Across various evaluation benchmarks, our approach consistently reduces MAE and increases pairwise accuracy versus standard baselines, and when evaluated against human-consensus meta-labels, matches or exceeds individual human raters. These results show that carefully allocating ITC and aggregating with distribution-aware methods turns noisy individual model judgments into reliable ratings for evaluation.

Abstract:Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level, and common aggregation rules (majority vote, soft self-consistency, or instruction-based self-aggregation) are inconsistent when ties are allowed. We study inference-time compute (ITC) for evaluators that generate n independent thinking--rating samples per item, and propose a principled, distribution-calibrated aggregation scheme. Our method models three-way preferences with a Bradley-Terry-Davidson formulation on rating counts, leveraging both polarity (margin among non-ties) and decisiveness (non-tie rate) to distinguish narrow margins from strong consensus. Across various evaluation benchmarks, our approach consistently reduces MAE and increases pairwise accuracy versus standard baselines, and when evaluated against human-consensus meta-labels, matches or exceeds individual human raters. These results show that carefully allocating ITC and aggregating with distribution-aware methods turns noisy individual model judgments into reliable ratings for evaluation.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2512.03019 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2512.03019v2 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.03019 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 230 words

Related coverage