Dependence-Aware Label Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge via Ising Models
Krishna Balasubramanian, Aleksandr Podkopaev, Shiva Kasiviswanathan
Abstract
Large-scale AI evaluation increasingly relies on aggregating binary judgments from annotators, including LLMs used as judges. Most classical methods, e.g., Dawid-Skene or (weighted) majority voting, assume annotators are conditionally independent given the true label , an assumption often violated by LLM judges due to shared data, architectures, prompts, and failure modes. Ignoring such dependencies can yield miscalibrated posteriors and even confidently incorrect predictions. We study label aggregation through a hierarchy of dependence-aware models based on Ising graphical models and latent factors. For class-dependent Ising models, the Bayes log-odds is generally quadratic in votes; for class-independent couplings, it reduces to a linear weighted vote with correlation-adjusted parameters. We present finite- examples showing that methods based on conditional independence can flip the Bayes label despite matching per-annotator marginals. We prove separation results demonstrating that these methods remain strictly suboptimal as the number of judges grows, incurring nonvanishing excess risk under latent factors. Finally, we evaluate the proposed method on three real-world datasets, demonstrating improved performance over the classical baselines.
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 9bba0a3b-8a6b-4a78-9d73-ecc27ad6a6e2Builds on8
- G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human AlignmentYang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 549 citations
- 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
- How to Correctly Report LLM-as-a-Judge EvaluationsChungpa Lee, Thomas Zeng, Jongwon Jeong, Jy-yong Sohn et al.ICML 2026 · 24 citations
- Beyond Majority Voting: LLM Aggregation by Leveraging Higher-Order InformationRui Ai, Yuqi Pan, David Simchi-Levi, Milind Tambe et al.ICML 2026 · 20 citations
- Efficient Inference for Noisy LLM-as-a-Judge EvaluationYiqun Chen, Sizhu Lu, Sijia Li, Moran Guo et al.ICML 2026 · 5 citations
Related papers
- CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM EvaluationJitian Zhao, Changho Shin, Tzu-Heng Huang, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi GNVV et al.ICML 2026 · 7 citations
- A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground TruthMingyuan Xu, Xinzi Tan, Jiawei Wu, Doudou ZhouICML 2026
- STABLEVAL: Disagreement-Aware and Stable Evaluation of AI SystemsSailendra Akash Bonagiri, Gerard Anderias, Saee Patil, Angelina Lai et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
- Who can we trust? LLM-as-a-jury for Comparative AssessmentMengjie Qian, Guangzhi Sun, Mark Gales, Kate KnillICML 2026 · 5 citations
- Statistical Estimation from Dependent DataAnthimos Vardis Kandiros, Yuval Dagan, Nishanth Dikkala, Surbhi Goel et al.ICML 2021 · 11 citations
