Can LLMs Judge Better Than They Generate? Evaluating Task Asymmetry, Mechanistic Interpretability and Transferability for In-Context QA
LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation. We test this in a controlled in-context QA setting where a context passage is the sole information source and each model judges the answer it generated, removing the parametric-knowledge confound of open-domain comparisons. Across four benchmarks (SQuAD 2.0, DROP, HotpotQA, MuSiQue) and two models, evaluation is not uniformly easier: generation accuracy exceeds self-evaluation on three of four, with multi-hop MuSiQue the exception. Attention analysis reveals why: evaluation attends to cont
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- LinkedLinked via unknownEvaluate a model properly →
- LinkedLinked via unknownNew benchmark exposes reasoning gaps in top models →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 51%Competence Gate: gating tool-use on a small model's internal confidence signal instead of its verbalised one — Qwen3.5-4B, open weights [P] →
