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

arXiv:2601.08654 · cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG · Submitted 2026-01-13 · Read on arXiv

cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG

Submitted: 2026-01-13

Updated: 2026-09-09

Comments: Accepted to EMNLP 2026 Main Conference

Code: https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers

License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

The gist: 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

Terminology

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.

Related papers