RTLC -- Research, Teach-to-Learn, Critique: A three-stage prompting paradigm inspired by the Feynman Learning Technique that lifts LLM-as-judge accuracy on JudgeBench with no fine-tuning

LLM-as-a-judge is now the default measurement instrument for open-ended generation, but on the public JudgeBench benchmark even strong instruction-tuned judges barely scrape past random on objective-correctness pairwise items. We introduce RTLC, a three-stage prompting recipe -- Research, Teach-to-Learn, Critique -- that promotes a single black-box LLM into an ensemble-of-thought judge with no fine-tuning, retrieval, or external tools. Stage 1 wraps the input in a fixed pedagogical scaffold porting the Feynman Learning Technique (study $\to$ teach $\to$ find gaps $\to$ simplify) into LLM prompting. Stage 2 draws N=10 independent candidate verdicts at temperature 0.4. Stage 3 acts as its own critic, cross-comparing the candidate set against the original question to emit one critiqued verdict at temperature 0. On JudgeBench-GPT (350 hard pairwise items), Claude 3.7 Sonnet's pairwise accuracy climbs from 64.6% (single-shot vanilla prompt) to 78.6% (RTLC critique-of-10) -- an absolute 14.0-percentage-point gain. RTLC also beats N=10 self-consistency majority voting (77.7%) and a zero-shot first candidate (74.0%). A clean three-step ablation attributes +9.4 pp to the Teach-to-Learn scaffold, +3.7 pp to N=10 marginalisation, and +0.9 pp to explicit critique. We discuss the cost-accuracy frontier (RTLC sits above self-consistency at every working point), the error-budget breakdown across the four JudgeBench categories (knowledge, reasoning, math, coding), and how RTLC composes orthogonally with post-hoc judge-score calibration, with the two interventions compounding multiplicatively in practice.

Correcting Selection Bias in Sparse User Feedback for Large Language Model Quality Estimation: A Multi-Agent Hierarchical Bayesian Approach

[Abridged] Production LLM deployments receive feedback from a non-random fraction of users: thumbs sit mostly in the tails of the satisfaction distribution, and a naive average over them can land 40-50 percentage points away from true system quality. We treat this as a topic- and sentiment- stratified selection-bias problem and propose a three-agent hierarchical Bayesian pipeline that does not require ground-truth labels on individual interactions. A Topic Clustering Agent partitions the stream via UMAP + HDBSCAN over text embeddings; a Bias Modeling Agent fits a two-stage hierarchical Beta-Binomial under NUTS, inferring per-topic selection rates $s_c$ and quality $q_c$ with partial pooling; a Synthesis Agent reweights $q_c$ by true topic prevalence $\hatπ_c = n_c/N$ to report a bias-corrected aggregate posterior $\bar Q = \sum_c \hatπ_c q_c$ with credible interval, plus drift signals for online recalibration. Validation uses UltraFeedback (N=10,232 retained interactions, $C=18$ clusters, $Q^\star=0.6249$) with simulated topic- and sentiment-dependent selection biases. We compare five Bayesian variants against Naive and IPW baselines. A mild prior on the feedback channel (typical positive-feedback rate and negative-to-positive ratio, both readable from any production dashboard without labels) keeps Hierarchical-Informed within 4-13 pp of $Q^\star$ as the bias ratio sweeps from 1:1 to 30:1, with 95% credible intervals covering $Q^\star$ in 50/50 random-seed replicates at $κ_{\max}=10$. Without channel-side priors, every weak-prior variant misses $Q^\star$ by 22-33 pp: the per-cluster sufficient statistics admit a one-parameter family of equally good fits, and the prior on the bias channel (not on latent quality) is what breaks the degeneracy.

Two Ways to De-Bias an LLM-as-a-Judge: A Continuous-Score Comparison of Hierarchical Bayesian Calibration and Neural-ODE Score Transport

[Abridged] Using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an automatic rater (LLM-as-a-judge) is cheap but potentially biased: some judges run lenient, others strict, the middle of the scale gets compressed, and verbose answers may be over-rewarded. A common remedy is post-hoc calibration: leave the cheap judge in place and, on a modest set of paired anchors, fit a transformation from raw judge scores to an estimate of the human rating. We compare two correctors that take opposing views on how this mapping should be modeled: a parametric, small-anchor hierarchical Bayesian linear correction with per-score uncertainty, and a non-parametric Neural-ODE (FFJORD) score-transport flow. Both are run head-to-head on UltraFeedback fine-grained_score (1700 paired examples, 200 held out), with calibration split into three operational sub-questions: population-mean recovery, per-item accuracy, and distributional-shape match. The headline result is that the choice between methods is primarily a data-budget question. Both correctors close the raw $+0.71$-point mean offset to within $\pm 0.08$ of the GPT-4 reference, at 100 and at 1500 anchors. Past that, the methods swap roles. With 100 anchors, the linear corrector reconstructs the human-score distribution roughly twice as well by KL divergence (0.031 vs. 0.058) and ties the flow on MAE. With 1500 anchors the flow wins on every metric (MAE 0.320 vs. 0.359, Pearson 0.922 vs. 0.896, KL 0.026 vs. 0.037). The Bayesian linear corrector saturates well below 1500 anchors: residual $\tanh$-shaped non-linearity is, by construction, structure a linear correction cannot fit. The flow keeps improving as labels grow. We translate these findings into an explicit decision rule for production deployments.