Daily Papers

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human bias that undermines the assessment of reliability and imposes scalability constraints. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Sage, a novel evaluation suite that assesses the quality of LLM judges without necessitating any human annotation. Inspired by axioms of rational choice theory, Sage introduces two new lenses for measuring LLM-as-a-Judge: local self-consistency (pair-wise preference stability) and global logical consistency (transitivity across a full set of preferences). We curate a dataset of 650 questions by combining structured benchmark problems with real-world user queries. Our experiments demonstrate both the stability of our metrics and their high correlation with supervised benchmarks like LLMBar and RewardBench2, confirming Sage's reliability as an evaluation suite for the robustness and accuracy of LLM-as-a-Judge. Based on Sage, we reveal that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant reliability problems when acting as judges in both scoring and pairwise settings; even the top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Pro and GPT-5, fail to maintain consistent preferences in nearly a quarter of difficult cases. We attribute this to a new phenomenon called situational preference, which explains why explicit rubrics or criteria can help the model judge consistently across answer pairs. Our further analysis shows that finetuned LLM-as-a-Judge is a feasible method to boost performance, and the panel-based judge as well as deep reasoning can enhance the judging consistency. We also find substantial inconsistency in human judgments, which indicates that human annotation may not be a reliable gold standard.

Neural language models trained on large crowdsourced corpora frequently exploit spurious surface patterns tied to target labels without true linguistic or causal relevance, boosting benchmark performance while failing on adversarial or out-of-distribution inputs. Existing approaches either require manual specification of the feature vocabulary or automate discovery only partially, leaving the gap between dataset-level correlation and model-level exploitation unaddressed. We present U N M ASK, a fully automated pipeline that discovers, causally verifies, and mitigates spurious correlations in text classifiers without additional human annotation. Given unlabeled training examples, U N M ASK generates candidate surface patterns as executable boolean expressions, filters them through a statistical validation protocol with independent replication, and establishes causal model dependence via verified counterfactual interventions. Causally confirmed features then serve as annotation-free group definitions for Deep Feature Reweighting, eliminating the group labels that standard DFR requires. Applied to BERT and RoBERTa trained on MNLI, our pipeline independently rediscovers established lexical-overlap and negation biases, verifying 9 of 10 features on BERT and 6 on RoBERTa, and improving HANS accuracy by up to 12.58 pp. On CivilComments-WILDS, programmatic groups match the 70.1% worst- group accuracy of hand-labeled DFR (Kirichenko et al., 2023) without demographic annotation. We further demonstrate that the discovery and validation stages generalize to reward model preference data, surfacing interpretable spurious correlations in RewardBench2.