Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Incentivizing Agentic Reasoning in LLM Judges via Tool-Integrated Reinforcement Learning

Ran Xu, Jingjing Chen, Jiayu Ye, Yu Wu +3 more

Published

Oct 27, 2025

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

57/100 (Medium)

Extraction confidence

65% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Feb 21, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Coding Human Eval Pairwise Preference

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
57/100
Moderate-confidence candidate

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, most LLM judges operate solely on intrinsic text-based reasoning, limiting their ability to verify complex constraints or perform accurate computation. Motivated by the success of tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) in numerous tasks, we propose TIR-Judge, an end-to-end RL framework for training LLM judges that integrates a code executor for precise evaluation. TIR-Judge is built on three principles: (i) diverse training across verifiable and non-verifiable domains, (ii) flexible judgment formats (pointwise, pairwise, listwise), and (iii) iterative RL that bootstraps directly from the initial model without distillation. On seven public benchmarks, TIR-Judge surpasses strong reasoning-based judges by up to 6.4% (pointwise) and 7.7% (pairwise), and achieves listwise performance comparable to Claude-Opus-4 despite having only 8B parameters. Remarkably, TIR-Judge-Zero - trained entirely without distilled judge trajectories, matches the performance of distilled variants, demonstrating that tool-augmented judges can self-evolve through iterative reinforcement learning.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Human Eval

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Pairwise Preference
Rater population
Not reported
Unit of annotation
Pairwise
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Human Eval
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Secondary protocol comparison source

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation.
  • However, most LLM judges operate solely on intrinsic text-based reasoning, limiting their ability to verify complex constraints or perform accurate computation.
  • Motivated by the success of tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) in numerous tasks, we propose TIR-Judge, an end-to-end RL framework for training LLM judges that integrates a code executor for precise evaluation.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Human evaluation) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Pairwise preference evaluation

Contribution summary

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation.
  • Motivated by the success of tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) in numerous tasks, we propose TIR-Judge, an end-to-end RL framework for training LLM judges that integrates a code executor for precise evaluation.
  • On seven public benchmarks, TIR-Judge surpasses strong reasoning-based judges by up to 6.4% (pointwise) and 7.7% (pairwise), and achieves listwise performance comparable to Claude-Opus-4 despite having only 8B parameters.

Why it matters for eval

  • Motivated by the success of tool-integrated reasoning (TIR) in numerous tasks, we propose TIR-Judge, an end-to-end RL framework for training LLM judges that integrates a code executor for precise evaluation.
  • On seven public benchmarks, TIR-Judge surpasses strong reasoning-based judges by up to 6.4% (pointwise) and 7.7% (pairwise), and achieves listwise performance comparable to Claude-Opus-4 despite having only 8B parameters.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Human Eval

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.