Judging Against the Reference: Uncovering Knowledge-Driven Failures in LLM-Judges on QA Evaluation
While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for question answering (QA) and other reference-conditioned evaluation tasks, little is known about their ability to adhere to a provided reference. We identify a critical failure mode of such reference-based LLM QA evaluation: when the provided reference conflicts with the judge model's parametric knowledge, the resulting scores become unreliable, substantially degrading evaluation fidelity. To study this phenomenon systematically, we introduce a controlled swapped-reference QA framework that induces reference-belief conflicts. Specifically, we replace the reference answer with an incorrect entity and construct diverse pairings of original and swapped references with correspondingly aligned candidate answers. Surprisingly, grading reliability drops sharply under swapped references across a broad set of judge models. We empirically show that this vulnerability is driven by judges' over-reliance on parametric knowledge, leading judges to disregard the given reference under conflict. Finally, we find that this failure persists under common prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting a fundamental limitation of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and motivating reference-based protocols that enforce stronger adherence to the provided reference.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Question AnsweringSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
KD-Judge: A Knowledge-Driven Automated Judge Framework for Functional Fitness Movements on Edge Devices
Functional fitness movements are widely used in training, competition, and health-oriented exercise programs, yet consistently enforcing repetition (rep) standards remains challenging due to subjective human judgment, ti…
CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging
Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpre…
On the Limits of LLM-as-Judge for Scientific Novelty Assessment
LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its e…
Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets
Language models are increasingly promoted from examinees to examiners: they write the test suites, answer keys, rubrics, and reward functions that define correctness for other systems. We measure the capability that role…
InternReviewer & InternAdvocate: Objective Reward and Evaluation for Agentic Reinforcement Learning in Peer Review and Rebuttal
Generating professional scholarly content, such as peer reviews and rebuttals, requires an intricate synergy between domain reasoning and factual grounding. This work presents a comprehensive framework for the developmen…