JuryFlow: Disagreement-Guided Human-in-the-Loop Multi-Agent Evaluation

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automated judges for AI-generated content, yet a single judge is unreliable and even a panel of judges leaves a hard residue: when judges disagree, majority voting discards the conflict instead of resolving it. We present JuryFlow, a disagreement-guided, human-in-the-loop multi-agent evaluation framework that treats inter-judge disagreement not as noise to be averaged away, but as a precise, claim-level signal indicating where an evaluation is uncertain. JuryFlow decomposes each candidate response into atomic claims, has a panel of heterogeneous judges assign per-claim verdicts, and builds a disagreement graph whose nodes are scored by verdict entropy and whose edges encode structural similarity between claims. A human acts as a structural guide, selecting which disagreement to resolve through a single, minimal intervention rather than re-labeling the response, after which the focal claim is re-evaluated, the correction propagates along graph edges and to historically similar cases, and is crystallized into reusable rubric entries that all judges inherit, making the evaluator progressively self-refining. To enable large-scale, reproducible benchmarking without human studies, we evaluate JuryFlow in an automatic configuration in which focal selection is made by entropy ranking. On MT-Bench and LLMBar, JuryFlow improves agreement with gold labels over single-judge and majority-vote panel baselines, and ablations isolate the contributions of disagreement-targeted re-evaluation, propagation, and rubric induction. We contribute (1) a human-in-the-loop paradigm that recasts the human from labeler to structural guide, (2) the JuryFlow framework operationalizing it through a disagreement graph, focal re-evaluation, and closed-loop rubric induction, and (3) an evaluation protocol with ablations that isolate where the gains originate.