Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). Traditional methods, usually matching-based or small model-based, often fall short in open-ended and dynamic scenarios. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the “LLM-as-a-judge” paradigm, where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection for various machine learning evaluation scenarios. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of LLM-based judgment and assessment, offering an in-depth overview to review this evolving field. We first provide the definition from both input and output perspectives. Then we introduce a systematic taxonomy to explore LLM-as-a-judge along three dimensions: what to judge, how to judge, and how to benchmark. Finally, we also highlight key challenges and promising future directions for this emerging area.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly surpassing human knowledge in many domains. While improving these models traditionally relies on costly human data, recent self-rewarding mechanisms have shown that LLMs can improve by judging their own responses instead of relying on human labelers. However, existing methods have primarily focused on improving model responses rather than judgment capabilities, resulting in rapid saturation during iterative training. To address this issue, we introduce a novel Meta-Rewarding step to the self-improvement process, where the model judges its own judgements and uses that feedback to refine its judgment skills. Surprisingly, this unsupervised approach improves the model’s ability to judge and follow instructions, as demonstrated by a win rate improvement of Llama-3-8B-Instruct from 22.9% to 39.4% on AlpacaEval 2, and 20.6% to 29.1% on Arena-Hard. These results strongly suggest the potential for self-improving models without human supervision.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable success in mathematical reasoning. Despite progress in methods like chain-of-thought prompting and self-consistency sampling, these advances often focus on final correctness without ensuring that the underlying reasoning process is coherent and reliable. This paper introduces Step-KTO, a training framework that combines process-level and outcome-level binary feedback to guide LLMs toward more trustworthy reasoning trajectories. By providing binary evaluations for both the intermediate reasoning steps and the final answer, Step-KTO encourages the model to adhere to logical progressions rather than relying on superficial shortcuts. Our experiments on challenging mathematical benchmarks show that Step-KTO significantly improves both final answer accuracy and the quality of intermediate reasoning steps. For example, on the MATH-500 dataset, Step-KTO achieves a notable improvement in Pass@1 accuracy over strong baselines. These results highlight the promise of integrating stepwise process feedback into LLM training, paving the way toward more interpretable and dependable reasoning capabilities.