Matched via arXiv identifier search
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- May 27, 2026 (4d ago)
Risk flags
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- Dependency manifest missing
Lujun Li, Lama Sleem, Yangjie Xu, Yewei Song, Aolin Jia, Jerome Francois, Radu State
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as an effective and low-cost paradigm for evaluating text quality and factual correctness. Prior studies have shown substantial agreement between LLM judges and human experts, even on tasks that are difficult to assess automatically. In practice, researchers commonly employ fixed temperature configurations during the evaluation process-with values of 0.1 and 1.0 being the most prevalent cho ...
ices-a convention that is largely empirical rather than principled. However, recent researches suggest that LLM performance exhibits non-trivial sensitivity to temperature settings, that lower temperatures do not universally yield optimal outcomes, and that such effects are highly task-dependent. This raises a critical research question: does temperature influence judge performance in LLM centric evaluation? To address this, we systematically investigate the relationship between temperature and judge performance through a series of controlled experiments, and further adopt a causal inference framework within our empirical statistical analysis to rigorously examine the direct causal effect of temperature on judge behavior, offering actionable engineering insights for the design of LLM-centric evaluation pipelines.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as an effective and low-cost paradigm for evaluating text quality and factual correctness.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.