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 context 3--5x less than generation does and barely reads the candidate answer.

LoRA fine-tuning confirms the asymmetry is not a training artifact: generation fine-tuning induces over-acceptance and evaluation fine-tuning degrades generation.

These findings challenge core assumptions in self-evaluation pipelines.