Skip to content
AI Atlas

Vibe Patenting: Evaluating LLM Judges for Professional Patent-Drafting Agents

Published 16 Sept 2026arXiv:2609.13422

data quality89

Updated 12 h ago · first seen 15 Sept 2026

paper_01M2JK0CBVP4KN5RG59AW05VQG

Abstract

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate and improve AI-generated outputs, yet their reliability for complex professional work remains unclear. We study this problem through Vibe Patenting, an end-to-end patent-drafting testbed for AI-agent evaluation. A separately-invoked LLM judge evaluates generated patent drafts and provides structured feedback for iterative revision. Across multiple inventions and drafting-agent configurations, judge-guided revision consistently improves judge-assessed quality, while unguided revision tends to saturate. Notably, iterative judge feedback enables a low-reasoning agent to approach the performance of a substantially more expensive high-reasoning agent. Stronger models and increased reasoning generally improve judge-assessed drafting quality, while domain-specific agentic workflows provide further gains. We validate the judge against independent evaluation by a professional patent attorney and find meaningful but strongly metric-dependent agreement and systematic calibration differences. These results highlight both the utility and limitations of LLM judges as evaluators and optimization signals for complex professional workflows.

Authors

Authors 5

Gene V. VinokurJing LiuToshiaki Koike-AkinoVlad BlaykhmanYe Wang

Linked names open researcher pages (created from the paper's author list; name-only, no affiliation unless a source states it). Unlinked names have no researcher record yet.

Organizations

Organizations 0

No organization stated. arXiv metadata does not carry affiliations; an organization is linked only when a model card or lab page cites the paper.

Models

Models introduced or described 0

Inbound described_by relations from model cards and documentation.

No model links this paper yet

Model pages link papers through their model cards and documentation; the relation is written only when a source states it.

Datasets

Datasets used 0

No dataset relation recorded.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks used 0

No benchmark relation recorded.

Code

Repositories & frameworks 0

No repository linked.

Timeline

Timeline 3

Full timeline →

Sources

Sources 2

Source documents
SourceDocumentTypeTierLast observedSnapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI feedT1· Official2 h ago5
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.LG feedT1· Official2 h ago4

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