Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22316 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866911703754604544 |
|---|---|
| author | Li, Qingquan Dou, Shaoyu Shao, Kailai Chen, Chao Hu, Haixiang |
| author_facet | Li, Qingquan Dou, Shaoyu Shao, Kailai Chen, Chao Hu, Haixiang |
| contents | The "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm, using Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators, is pivotal to LLM development, offering scalable feedback for complex tasks. However, the reliability of these judges is compromised by various biases. Existing research has heavily concentrated on biases in comparative evaluations. In contrast, scoring-based evaluations-which assign an absolute score and are often more practical in industrial applications-remain under-investigated. To address this gap, we undertake the first dedicated examination of scoring bias in LLM judges. We shift the focus from biases tied to the evaluation targets to those originating from the scoring prompt itself. We formally define scoring bias and identify three novel, previously unstudied types: rubric order bias, score ID bias, and reference answer score bias. We propose a comprehensive framework to quantify these biases, featuring a suite of multi-faceted metrics and an automatic data synthesis pipeline to create a tailored evaluation corpus. Our experiments empirically demonstrate that even the most advanced LLMs suffer from these substantial scoring biases. Our analysis yields actionable insights for designing more robust scoring prompts and mitigating these newly identified biases. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2506_22316 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Li, Qingquan Dou, Shaoyu Shao, Kailai Chen, Chao Hu, Haixiang Computation and Language The "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm, using Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators, is pivotal to LLM development, offering scalable feedback for complex tasks. However, the reliability of these judges is compromised by various biases. Existing research has heavily concentrated on biases in comparative evaluations. In contrast, scoring-based evaluations-which assign an absolute score and are often more practical in industrial applications-remain under-investigated. To address this gap, we undertake the first dedicated examination of scoring bias in LLM judges. We shift the focus from biases tied to the evaluation targets to those originating from the scoring prompt itself. We formally define scoring bias and identify three novel, previously unstudied types: rubric order bias, score ID bias, and reference answer score bias. We propose a comprehensive framework to quantify these biases, featuring a suite of multi-faceted metrics and an automatic data synthesis pipeline to create a tailored evaluation corpus. Our experiments empirically demonstrate that even the most advanced LLMs suffer from these substantial scoring biases. Our analysis yields actionable insights for designing more robust scoring prompts and mitigating these newly identified biases. |
| title | Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22316 |