Blog
Evaluating LLMs using semantic entropy
LLM-as-a-judge is a technique where you use one large language model (LLM) to evaluate the quality of another. Instead of using human reviewers or simple metrics, a "judge" LLM is given a specific set of criteria and a prompt to assess a response. It can then assign a score, rank multiple options or provide a qualitative review.
This approach offers businesses a scalable, cost-effective and fast way to automate quality control for their AI-powered products, such as chatbots or content generators. It helps ensure consistency and can quickly flag issues like factual errors or an inappropriate tone.
What’s in it for you?
LLM-as-a-judge offers a scalable, cost-effective and rapid method for automating quality control of AI outputs, saving time and human resources.
What are the trade-offs?
Using an LLM-as-a-judge can risk bias, inconsistency and hallucinations, along with issues of high cost and latency.
How is it being used?
Businesses are using it to evaluate AI responses for relevance, tone and accuracy and sometimes to compare different AI models.
What is LLM-as-a-judge?
LLM-as-a-judge is a method where you use a large language model to automatically evaluate the quality of another AI's work. Instead of using human reviewers, you're using one AI to grade another.
Think of it like this: your new AI chatbot needs to answer customer questions. You give the "judge" AI a rubric — rules on accuracy, politeness and relevance, for instance. The judge AI then analyzes thousands of the chatbot's answers, scoring them and providing feedback instantly.
This process is a game-changer for businesses because it offers a faster, more cost-effective and consistent way to ensure your AI products meet quality standards.
What’s in it for you?
There are four key advantages of using an LLM-as-a-judge:
Speed. It can give you feedback on your AI's performance almost instantly. Instead of waiting days or weeks for a team of human reviewers to evaluate thousands of responses, an LLM judge can do the same work in minutes. This dramatically reduces your development and testing cycles, letting you get new AI products to market much faster.
Scale. It's not practical to hire a large team of human experts to review every single output from your AI. An LLM judge, however, can handle an immense volume of data — from a few dozen to millions of interactions — without a significant increase in cost or effort. This allows you to maintain quality control across your entire operation, no matter how large it gets.
Cost efficiency. Hiring, training and managing a team of human reviewers is expensive — especially for specialized tasks. An LLM judge, while not free to run, is significantly more cost-effective at scale. The cost per evaluation drops dramatically as volume increases; this can free up your budget for other strategic investments.
- Consistency. No matter how well-trained human reviewers are, consistency will always be an issue. An LLM judge applies the same precise rules and criteria to every single piece of data, which ensures consistent evaluation. This creates a more reliable quality benchmark you can trust.
What are the trade-offs of LLM-as-a-judge?
While the technique offers speed and scale at a reasonable cost, there are still some important trade-offs you need to be aware of:
You’re still dependent on the AI. The judge AI is only as good as the rules you give it. If your instructions are unclear or incomplete, the judge's evaluations will be inconsistent. For example, if you tell it to rate "helpfulness" but don't define what that means in your business context, the AI might make up its own rules, leading to unreliable results. You're replacing human bias with a different kind of bias, one that comes from the AI's training data.
It lacks context. An LLM judge doesn't have the lived experience of a human. It can't truly understand the nuance of customer emotions, a complex ethical dilemma or a highly specialized industry-specific term. For critical, high-stakes areas like legal or medical advice, a human expert is still the gold standard because they can spot subtle errors that an AI might miss. The judge's "reasoning" is often just a convincing-sounding output, not genuine understanding.
It can be expensive and slow. While it's cheaper than a huge team of humans, using a large, powerful "judge" AI can still be costly. You're paying for every interaction. Additionally, asking it to perform a detailed evaluation with a lot of data takes time, which can add significant latency, especially in real-time applications. If you're using a judge to evaluate a high volume of requests, the cost and time can add up quickly.
Think of LLM-as-a-judge as a quality control manager trained in a vacuum — they understand your rules but they lack common sense that is often valuable when evaluating AI results.
How is LLM-as-a-judge being used?
Businesses use LLM-as-a-judge to automate and scale quality control for their AI systems, especially in areas where human evaluation is too slow or expensive. Some examples include:
In customer service and support LLM judges can help evaluate customer interactions, checking a chatbot's answers are helpful, accurate and polite. If a response is flagged as unhelpful or incomplete an alert can be send to a human, who can then intervene. This allows businesses to monitor and improve their customer service AI in real-time.
LLM-as-a-judge has been employed in some experiments with using generative AI to produce marketing content and copy at scale.
In highly regulated industries like finance, accuracy is critical. A judge AI might be used to check a model’s accuracy or reliability, or to help automate compliance with existing rules.
Tech companies sometimes use LLM judges to evaluate the quality of code generated by AI coding assistants. The judge can provide some level of validation that the code is functional, well-structured.
