2026
A 200 Is Not Proof: verifying a deploy you cannot look at
Verify with a behaviour only the new code can produce. If you cannot name one, you have not designed a verifiable change.
An examination of whether a strong language model can stand in for a human rater on open-ended questions. The paper introduces MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena, then measures how often model judgements agree with human preference and where they systematically go wrong.
@inproceedings{zheng2023judging,
author = {Lianmin Zheng and Wei-Lin Chiang and Ying Sheng and Siyuan Zhuang and Zhanghao Wu and Yonghao Zhuang and Zi Lin and Zhuohan Li and Dacheng Li and Eric P. Xing and Joseph E. Gonzalez and Ion Stoica},
title = {Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena},
booktitle = {Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023), Datasets and Benchmarks Track},
year = {2023},
eprint = {2306.05685},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05685}
}Ejentic did not author this paper. Credit belongs to the authors named above; the note is ours.
2026
Verify with a behaviour only the new code can produce. If you cannot name one, you have not designed a verifiable change.
2026
A plausible number is worse than no number. A visitor cannot tell the difference, which is the problem, not the defence.
2026
Read this before you let an agent call anything a customer will see the output of. The failure mode is not a crash, it is an API returning 200 with a body that means "I did not understand you". There is no exception to catch and no status code to branch on. The result we quote most often is the last one: the fix was one line of schema, not a better model.