arXiv Computation and Language
CyclicJudge: Mitigating Judge Bias Efficiently in LLM-based Evaluation
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 10
When the Judge Changes, So Does the Measurement: Auditing LLM-as-Judge Reliability
arXiv:2607. 08535v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An LLM-as-judge score can move even when the candidate responses stay fixed, simply because the evaluator has changed.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14
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 AI
Jun 15
The Coin Flip Judge? Reliability and Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
arXiv:2606. 13685v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized.
arXiv AI
Sep 30
LLM Judge Validation Under Sparse Overlap: From Inference to Design
arXiv:2609.31857v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Validating an LLM-as-a-judge requires estimating its agreement with humans, yet annotation budgets rarely allow every item to be multiply labeled....
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 20
Stopping and Routing LLM Judge Panels
LLM evaluation pipelines often have many candidate judges: general LLM-as-a-judge prompts, reward models, safety classifiers, confidence variants, and task-specific verifiers. The deployment question...
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8
Conditional Accuracy Profiles: Diagnosing LLM Judges across Deployment Conditions
The paper introduces Conditional Accuracy Profiling (CAP), a diagnostic framework that breaks down LLM‑judge accuracy into eight deployment conditions covering content sensitivity, robustness, and rationale quality. CAP is benchmark‑agnostic and can be applied directly when annotations are available, via task‑subset proxies, or through controlled augmentation. Applied to seven judges across six benchmarks, CAP reveals that aggregate accuracy masks important differences—for example, judges highly sensitive to omitted qualifications rank poorly on a Hard‑Constructed subset, and Position Robustness is generally stable but can degrade sharply under adversarial stress.