Evaluating and Mitigating LLM-as-a-judge Bias in Communication Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12462v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:52:29 GMT
• Title: Evaluating and Mitigating LLM-as-a-judge Bias in Communication Systems
• Authors: Jiaxin Gao, Chen Chen, Yanwen Jia, Xueluan Gong, Kwok-Yan Lam, Qian Wang,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems.<n>This paper systematically investigates judgment biases in two LLM-as-a-judge models under the point-wise scoring setting.<n>We propose four potential mitigation strategies to ensure fair and reliable AI judging in practical communication scenarios.
• Score: 32.83708359216193
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems, e.g., to assess responses in telecom customer support chatbots. However, the impartiality of these AI "judges" is not guaranteed, and any biases in their evaluation criteria could skew outcomes and undermine user trust. In this paper, we systematically investigate judgment biases in two LLM-as-a-judge models (i.e., GPT-Judge and JudgeLM) under the point-wise scoring setting, encompassing 11 types of biases that cover both implicit and explicit forms. We observed that state-of-the-art LLM judges demonstrate robustness to biased inputs, generally assigning them lower scores than the corresponding clean samples. Providing a detailed scoring rubric further enhances this robustness. We further found that fine-tuning an LLM on high-scoring yet biased responses can significantly degrade its performance, highlighting the risk of training on biased data. We also discovered that the judged scores correlate with task difficulty: a challenging dataset like GPQA yields lower average scores, whereas an open-ended reasoning dataset (e.g., JudgeLM-val) sees higher average scores. Finally, we proposed four potential mitigation strategies to ensure fair and reliable AI judging in practical communication scenarios.

Related papers

• Towards Provably Unbiased LLM Judges via Bias-Bounded Evaluation [11.22990902328416]
  An autonomous AI system will depend on automated, verifiable rewards and feedback.<n>In settings where ground truth is sparse or non-deterministic, one practical source of such rewards is an LLM-as-a-Judge.<n>We propose average bias-boundedness (A-BB), an algorithmic framework which formally guarantees reductions of harm/impact as a result of any measurable bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T18:52:28Z)
• Who Judges the Judge? LLM Jury-on-Demand: Building Trustworthy LLM Evaluation Systems [2.9141470183751674]
  We propose a dynamic, learning-based framework for scalable and context-aware evaluation.<n>Our method trains a set of reliability predictors to assess when LLM judges will agree with human experts.<n> Experiments on summarization and RAG benchmarks show that our dynamic jury system achieves significantly higher correlation with human judgment than both single-judge and static-jury baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T15:26:20Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Real-World Summarization: When Evaluation Reaches Its Limits [1.4197924572122094]
  We compare traditional metrics, trainable methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches.<n>Our findings reveal that simpler metrics like word overlap surprisingly well with human judgments.<n>Our analysis of real-world business impacts shows incorrect and non-checkable information pose the greatest risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-15T17:23:56Z)
• CompassJudger-2: Towards Generalist Judge Model via Verifiable Rewards [72.44810390478229]
  CompassJudger-2 is a novel generalist judge model that overcomes limitations via a task-driven, multi-domain data curation strategy.<n> CompassJudger-2 achieves superior results across multiple judge and reward benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T01:34:24Z)
• Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [8.67484421243584]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed as evaluators for complex tasks.<n>There are various biases within LLM-as-a-Judge, which adversely affect the fairness and reliability of judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T15:25:23Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• Fooling the LVLM Judges: Visual Biases in LVLM-Based Evaluation [14.521056434373213]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) have emerged as the preferred tools for judging text-image alignment.<n>Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores?<n>This work is the first study to address a key research question: Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T08:24:28Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.