Right Order, Wrong Scale: Auditing LLM Judges for Occupational AI Measurement

arXiv Computer Science AI published Right Order, Wrong Scale: Auditing LLM Judges for Occupational AI Measurement. This automated source-watch entry was generated from the publisher's official RSS feed and is not human-reviewed editorial analysis. Source excerpt: arXiv:2610.02492v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges are increasingly used to assess whether AI outputs meet workplace requirements, but agreement on response rankings does not establish agreement on acceptance rates or occupational aggregates. We introduce O NET-BENCH, an audit suite derived from an existing survey of 45,796 worker ratings, and evaluate 33 pre-existing judge configurations across six model families on 4,501 test ratings. Twenty-five configurations achieve tie-aware pair accuracy of at least 0.60, although a train-fitted response-only TF-IDF baseline nearly matches the strongest judge. Despite this ordering agreement, judges estimate that 3.0%-97.9% of responses are acceptable, compared with 61.1% for occupation-matched workers. In one fine-tuned lineage, changing from pointwise scoring to a bundled few-shot/listwise protocol improves response ordering while…

• Read the original arXiv Computer Science AI article before relying on this summary.
• Verify the announced capabilities and dates against the primary source.
• Assess whether the change affects your agent stack or evaluation plan.