Tuning LLM Judge Design Decisions for 1/1000 of the Cost
David Salinas, Omar Swelam, Frank Hutter
Abstract
Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs enabling the ranking of models without human intervention. While several approaches have been proposed, many confounding factors are present between different papers. For instance the model, the prompt and other hyperparameters are typically changed at the same time making appleto-apple comparisons challenging. In this paper, we propose to systematically analyze and tune the hyperparameters of LLM judges. To alleviate the high cost of evaluating a judge, we propose to leverage multi-objective multi-fidelity which allows to find judges that trade accuracy for cost and also significantly reduce the cost of the search. Our method identifies judges that not only outperform existing benchmarks in accuracy and cost-efficiency but also utilize openweight models, ensuring greater accessibility and reproducibility. The code to reproduce our experiments is available at this repository https: //github.com/geoalgo/judgetuning .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 46257993-2145-4a17-9859-27ea3e594a70Cited by top-tier papers3
- From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgeDawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi et al.EMNLP 2025 · 37 citations
- Learning to Evaluate: Cost-Effective Model Evaluation on Unlabeled Data with Meta-LearningTrinh Pham, Viet Huynh, Hongzhi Yin, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen et al.KDD 2026 · 1 citation
- Judging What We Cannot Solve: A Consequence-Based Approach for Oracle-Free Evaluation of Research-Level MathGuijin Son, Donghun Yang, Hitesh Patel, Hyunwoo Ko et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on8
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human PreferenceWei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos et al.ICML 2024 · 1,212 citations
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
- Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement via Prompt EvolutionChrisantha Fernando, Dylan Banarse, Henryk Michalewski, Simon Osindero et al.ICML 2024 · 432 citations
- PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning OptimizationYidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Wenjin Yao, Zhengran Zeng et al.ICLR 2024 · 368 citations
Related papers
- JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable JudgesLianghui Zhu, Xinggang Wang, Xinlong WangICLR 2025
- JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-Based JudgesSijun Tan, Siyuan Zhuang, Kyle Montgomery, William Yuan Tang et al.ICLR 2025
- JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System RankingAriel Gera, Odellia Boni, Yotam Perlitz, Roy Bar-Haim et al.ACL 2025
- ProJudge: A Multi-Modal Multi-Discipline Benchmark and Instruction-Tuning Dataset for Mllm-Based Process JudgesJiaxin Ai, Pengfei Zhou, Zhaopan Xu, Ming Li et al.ICCV 2025 · 9 citations
- Arena-lite: Efficient and Reliable Large Language Model Evaluation via Tournament-Based Direct ComparisonsSeonil Son, Ju-Min Oh, Heegon Jin, Cheolhun Jang et al.EMNLP 2025
