LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format

A LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format is a structured data format that encodes llm-as-judge decisions in json structures containing verdict fields, confidence scores, and permitted changes for llm-as-judge evaluation pipelines.

• AKA: LLM Judge Verdict Format, LLM-as-Judge JSON Verdict, Judge Model Decision Format, Structured Judge Output Format.
• Context:
  • It can typically include LLM-as-Judge Decision Fields with llm-as-judge approval status and llm-as-judge rejection reasons.
  • It can typically contain LLM-as-Judge Confidence Scores via llm-as-judge probability values and llm-as-judge certainty levels.
  • It can typically specify LLM-as-Judge Permitted Changes through llm-as-judge modification lists and llm-as-judge action constraints.
  • It can typically provide LLM-as-Judge Explanation Fields using llm-as-judge reasoning text and llm-as-judge justification details.
  • It can often support LLM-as-Judge Metadata Fields with llm-as-judge timestamps and llm-as-judge model identifiers.
  • It can often enable LLM-as-Judge Nested Structures via llm-as-judge hierarchical fields and llm-as-judge complex objects.
  • It can often integrate LLM-as-Judge Validation Schemas through llm-as-judge json schema and llm-as-judge field requirements.
  • It can often facilitate LLM-as-Judge Version Control using llm-as-judge format versions and llm-as-judge schema evolution.
  • It can range from being a Minimal LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format to being a Comprehensive LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format, depending on its llm-as-judge field completeness.
  • It can range from being a Flat LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format to being a Hierarchical LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format, depending on its llm-as-judge structure complexity.
  • It can range from being a Fixed LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format to being an Extensible LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format, depending on its llm-as-judge schema flexibility.
  • It can range from being a Binary LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format to being a Multi-Level LLM-as-Judge Structured Verdict Format, depending on its llm-as-judge decision granularity.
  • It can integrate with LLM-as-Judge Evaluation Pipeline for llm-as-judge decision communication.
  • It can support LLM-as-Judge Safety System through llm-as-judge risk encoding.
  • ...
• Examples:
  • Basic Verdict Formats, such as:
    • Binary Decision Verdict with approve/reject field.
    • Ternary Decision Verdict with approve/fix/reject field.
    • Graded Decision Verdict with numerical score field.
  • Domain-Specific Verdict Formats, such as:
    • Code Review Verdict Format for code quality decisions.
    • Content Moderation Verdict Format for content safety decisions.
    • Document Review Verdict Format for document approval decisions.
  • Complex Verdict Formats, such as:
    • Multi-Aspect Verdict Format with category-wise evaluations.
    • Hierarchical Verdict Format with nested decision structures.
    • Ensemble Verdict Format with multi-judge consensus fields.
  • ...
• Counter-Examples:
  • Plain Text Output, which lacks llm-as-judge structure encoding.
  • Unstructured Response, which provides free-form text rather than llm-as-judge structured fields.
  • Binary Signal, which gives simple yes/no without llm-as-judge detailed verdict.
• See: Structured Data Format, JSON Format, LLM-as-Judge Evaluation Method, LLM-as-Judge Software Pattern, Decision Format, Verdict Structure, Evaluation Output, LLM-as-Judge Evaluation Pipeline, JSON Schema, Data Validation Format, API Response Format.

---