Papers › An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge for LLM Evaluation: Fine-tuned Judge Model is not...

An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge for LLM Evaluation: Fine-tuned Judge Model is not a General Substitute for GPT-4

5 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.02839archive 2025-07-28

Hui Huang, Yingqi Qu, Xingyuan Bu, Hongli Zhou, Jing Liu, Muyun Yang, Bing Xu, Tiejun Zhao

Recently, there has been a growing trend of utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) to evaluate the quality of other LLMs. Many studies have employed proprietary close-sourced models, especially GPT-4, as the evaluator. Alternatively, other works have fine-tuned judge models based on open-source LLMs as the evaluator. While the fine-tuned judge models are claimed to achieve comparable evaluation capability with GPT-4, in this work, we conduct an empirical study of judge models. Our findings indicate that although the fine-tuned judge models achieve high performance on in-domain test sets, even surpassing GPT-4, they underperform GPT-4 across several dimensions, including generalizability, fairness, aspect-specific evaluation, and scalability. We also reveal that the fine-tuned judge model inherently operates as a task-specific classifier, consequently imposing the limitations. Finally, we introduce a integrated method, leveraging GPT-4 to compensate for the limitations and improve the fine-tuned judges. Experiment results show our method achieves accuracy on par with GPT-4 with only 50% of the API expense.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

18 samples harvested; 15 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 18 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from huihuichyan/unlimitedjudge. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections