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.
By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
By Zejun Xie, Xintong Li, Guang Wang, Desheng Zhang
Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features.
SCOPE is a framework that calibrates an acceptance threshold for large language models used as pairwise judges, ensuring that the error rate among non-abstained judgments does not exceed a user-specified level α. It introduces Bidirectional Preference Entropy (BPE) to provide a bias-neutral uncertainty signal by querying the judge in both response positions and converting the averaged preference probability into an entropy-based score. Across multiple pairwise judging benchmarks, BPE outperforms standard confidence proxies in calibration and discrimination, while SCOPE consistently meets the target risk bound (empirical FDR ≈0.097–0.099 at α=0.10) and retains substantial coverage, accepting up to 2.4× more judgments under the same risk constraint.
By Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
By Bora Kargi, David Salinas
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.
By Abel Yagubyan