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.
By Ej Zhou, Lucas Resck, Zheng Hui, Anna Korhonen
arXiv:2602.02219v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examin...
By Yuzheng Xu, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno, Yoshitaka Ushiku
arXiv:2609.14795v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: There is a tradeoff in machine translation meta-evaluation between prioritizing alignment with adequacy versus fluency. The balance depends on the co...
By Behzad Shayegh, Niloofar Kazemi
arXiv:2605. 28969v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user.
By Aarik Gulaya
arXiv:2605.28313v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tasks related to reasoning and judgment. However, assessing the quality o...
By Nicol\'as Benjam\'in Ocampo, Agnes Paullate Nyiranziza, Davide Ceolin
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