arXiv AI
Jul 23
Self-Preference Bias in Rubric-Based Evaluation of Large Language Models
arXiv:2604. 06996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs.
Am I More Pointwise or Pairwise? Revealing Position Bias in Rubric-Based LLM-as-a-Judge
Related stories
arXiv AI
3d ago
Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges
arXiv:2602.13576v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-langu...
arXiv Computation and Language
2d ago
Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization
The paper introduces JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark that systematically quantifies judgment biases in large language model (LLM)-based judges across four dimensions and 12 bias types. It evaluates both generative and discriminative judges, revealing significant bias patterns that undermine reliability. The authors propose bias-aware training—reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges—to reduce these biases while maintaining evaluation performance.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1
Small Language Models as Judges for Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning
arXiv:2608.30005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubric-based reinforcement learning extends RL beyond tasks with exact answers or rule-based verifiers by scoring responses against instance-specific c...
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago
Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 15
From Uncertain Judgments to Calibrated Rankings: Conformal Elo Estimation for LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
Mitigating Rubric Interference in LLM Judges via On-Policy Self-Distillation
arXiv:2608. 14684v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM judges increasingly evaluate responses against fine-grained rubric checklists.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 3
Ask the Right Comparison:Bias-Aware Bayesian Active Top-$k$ Ranking with LLM Judges
arXiv:2607. 02104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers.
arXiv AI
Sep 4
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge: Concerning Rubric Artifacts in LLM-based Automated Text Generation Evaluation
The paper examines LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to assess AI-generated text, questioning the assumption that judgments are derived from reasoning over responses and rubrics. It finds that classifiers trained solely on rubric text can predict judge outputs, indicating that rubrics contain recoverable evaluative signals independent of the responses. Counterfactual experiments show judges often fail to adjust decisions when either the response or rubric criterion is reversed, raising doubts about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation.
arXiv AI
Jul 21
From Weights to Words: Expressing and Editing Preference Model Inferences in Natural Language
arXiv:2607. 16232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of statistical learning algorithms to infer human preferences from high-dimensional choice data runs up against a fundamental challenge: choice alternatives typically differ in many ways simultaneously, so it is generally unclear which factors actually drove an observed decision and should be credited as preferences.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 8
Elmes*: Automated Construction of Fine-Grained Evaluation Rubrics for Large Language Models in Long-Tail Educational Scenarios
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27
Lower-Resource, Higher Scores: Language Bias in LLM Evaluators
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.