arXiv AI By Mina Remeli, Moritz Hardt

Correct Looks Better: Pairwise Comparisons Reveal Accuracy Rankings

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 09409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Pairwise comparisons combined with aggregation methods like Elo have become central to evaluating generative models, yet concerns remain that they reward superficial stylistic cues or display judge biases.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

Pair Difficulty Matters: Rethinking Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation and Consistency

Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.

By Bruno Brocai, Maria Becker
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Self- and Other-Labels Induce Bidirectional Bias in LLM Judges

The study investigates bias in large language model (LLM) judges by having ten LLMs evaluate narrative constraint selections rather than generated text. Results show that self-preference largely disappears under blind evaluation when quality and evaluator severity are controlled, but self- and other-labels alone shift scores bidirectionally when quality is matched. The authors conclude that authorship attribution drives evaluation bias and that open-ended, ground‑truth‑free tasks can effectively study LLM judge behavior.

By Songeun Chae, Min Kim, Donghoon Jung, Seojin Choi, Seohyon Jung