LLM-as-a-Judge systems are increasingly employed for automated evaluation, yet remain susceptible to systematic biases that undermine their reliability. We demonstrate that the judge can effectively debias itself without additional training. We propose two lightweight strategies: bias-aware prompting, which explicitly alerts the judge to potential target biases prior to evaluation, and self-debiasing, in which the judge critiques the initial judgment for bias influence. To broaden the evaluation scope, we introduce three novel benchmarks—authority bias (fabricated citations), confidence bias (assertive phrasing), and formatting bias (structured presentation)—and evaluate across seven bias types in total. Across three frontier models, self-debiasing improves performance in 20 out of 21 model–bias combinations with gains up to 15 percentage points, while bias-aware prompting also yields consistent improvements. The recent fine-tuned external critic, however, does not generalize as reliably to the newly-introduced bias types (degradation observed in 5 out of 9 cases). Our findings demonstrate that prompting a judge to reason about bias, either preemptively or retrospectively, is a robust and generalizable approach for enhancing evaluation integrity.

Traditional Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems score each passage independently against the query, assembling context sets that may be individually relevant yet collectively incoherent. We introduce Coherence-Aware Graph Encoding (CAGE), a reranking framework that models "between-chunk coherence" across four dimensions: Intra-Domain Relevance, Noise Resistance, Informational Bonding, and Factual Consistency. Our pipeline transforms retrieved passages into directed heterogeneous entity graphs, amplifies factual anchors via min-out-degree reweighting, encodes structural patterns through a Relational Graph Convolutional Network, and fuses inter-chunk coherence with query relevance for final ranking. Evaluated across four multi-hop benchmarks, CAGE matches or outperforms strong baselines including monoT5 in Recall@5 on bridge-dominated datasets and consistently improves downstream Exact Match, demonstrating that structurally coherent context yields more precise answers even when retrieval recall is comparable or lower.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a common technique for grounding language model outputs in domain-specific information. However, RAG is often challenged by reasoning-intensive question-answering (QA), since common retrieval methods like cosine similarity maximize relevance at the cost of introducing redundant content, which can reduce information recall. To address this, we introduce Diversity-Focused Retrieval-Augmented Generation (DF-RAG) that systematically incorporates diversity into the retrieval step to improve performance on complex, reasoning-intensive QA benchmarks. DF-RAG builds upon the Maximal Marginal Relevance framework to select information chunks that are both relevant to the query and maximally dissimilar from each other. A key innovation of DF-RAG is its ability to optimize the level of diversity for each query dynamically at test time without requiring any additional fine-tuning or prior information. We show that DF-RAG improves F1 performance on reasoning-intensive QA benchmarks by 4–10% over vanilla RAG using cosine similarity and also outperforms other established baselines. Furthermore, we estimate an Oracle ceiling of up to 18% absolute F1 gains over vanilla RAG, of which DF-RAG captures up to 91.3%.

Text-to-SQL systems typically assume a one-to-one mapping between natural-language queries and correct SQL translations. In practice, however, many queries are inherently ambiguous, admitting multiple valid interpretations that yield distinct outputs. We introduce Adversarial Intent Resolution (AIR), a multi-agent framework that actively probes and resolves such ambiguity without any task-specific training. AIR first constructs competing interpretations, verifies through SQL execution that they produce genuinely different results, and generates targeted clarification questions grounded in the observed data differences. Evaluating on leading benchmarks for ambiguous questions, AIR demonstrates strong performance, efficiency, and robust cross-benchmark transferability. On the AMBROSIA benchmark under schema-only context—a realistic production setting where exposing the full database is infeasible—AIR outperforms IntentRL, the state-of-the-art reinforcement learning model, across all metrics (e.g., F1 0.679 vs. 0.618). Crucially, AIR exhibits only ∼7% performance degradation without the full database, compared to ∼20% for IntentRL. On the AmbiQT benchmark, where ambiguity arises from schema design rather than linguistic structure, AIR achieves higher F1 under both context settings without any benchmark-specific adaptation.

Human-written references are typically treated as the upper-bound gold standard for fine-tuning and evaluation, but writing them is an inefficient use of subject-matter expert (SME) time. To best use limited SME attention, we apply psychometric standard-setting to discover acceptance criteria for GenAI applications. These acceptance boundaries are themselves useful for calibrating an LLM-as-a-judge, model tuning, and defensible production monitoring. We report a case study on summarization across two domains at a large US financial institution. While summarization is a classic GenAI use case, what counts as acceptable differs significantly across domains. 25 SMEs across three panels produced 2,500+ judgments and yielded calibrated thresholds in an estimated 10x less SME time than the standard playbook of writing golden reference (goldens) directly. In both domains, LLM-generated goldens are preferred over SME-written ones ~80% of the time. Limited SME attention is best used to judge candidate goldens rather than write them.

The advent of complex, interconnected long-horizon LLM systems has made it incredibly tricky to identify where and when these systems break down. Evaluation capabilities that currently exist today are limited in that they often focus on simple metrics, end-to-end outcomes, and are dependent on the perspectives of humans. In order to match the increasing complexity of these many component systems, evaluation frameworks must also be able to reason, probe, iterate, and understand the nuanced logic passing through these systems. In this paper, we present RAFFLES, an offline evaluation architecture that incorporates iterative reasoning. Specifically, RAFFLES operates as an iterative, multi-component pipeline, using a central Judge to systematically identify faults and a set of specialized Evaluators to assess the quality of the candidate faults as well as rationales of the Judge. We evaluated RAFFLES with several benchmarks - the Who&When dataset to identify step-level faults in multi-agent systems and the ReasonEval datasets to diagnose step-level mathematical reasoning errors. RAFFLES outperforms strong baselines, achieving an accuracy of over 20% and 50% on the Who&When Hand-Crafted and Algorithmically-Generated datasets, and over 80% on the ReasonEval datasets. These results demonstrate a key step towards introducing automated fault detection for autonomous systems over labor-intensive manual review.