PaperActive

From Rubrics to Reliable Scores: Evidence-Grounded Text Evaluation with LLM Judges

quality89

Updated 4 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294GPQAAW9RKSZ8X9P74ZTV

Published: 11 Sept 2026; T1 · 4 h ago
arXiv: 2601.08654; T1 · 4 h ago
Category: cs.CL; T1 · 4 h ago

Abstract

-cross Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Authors 6

Yihan Hong, Huaiyuan Yao, Bolin Shen, Wanpeng Xu, Hua Wei, Yushun Dong

Specification

Official page: arxiv.org/abs/2601.08654
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Arxiv announce type: replace
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
arXiv id: 2601.08654
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Categories: cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
PDF: arxiv.org/pdf/2601.08654
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Primary category: cs.CL
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Published: 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh

Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →

Provenance

Attributed facts

Source tiers

T19

Freshest observation

4 h ago

Conflicts

None

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08654	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
-cross Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
replace	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
2601.08654	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
Yihan Hong, Huaiyuan Yao, Bolin Shen, Wanpeng Xu, Hua Wei, Yushun Dong	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.08654	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.CL	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
11 Sept 2026	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →

Source documents
Source	Document	Type	Tier	Last observed	Snapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)	rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI	feed	T1· Official	2 h ago	1

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.