BiasScope: Towards Automated Detection of Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09383v1
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 03:51:03 GMT
- Title: BiasScope: Towards Automated Detection of Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
- Authors: Peng Lai, Zhihao Ou, Yong Wang, Longyue Wang, Jian Yang, Yun Chen, Guanhua Chen,
- Abstract summary: BiasScope is a framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases during model evaluation.<n>JudgeBench-Pro is a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge.
- Score: 31.32711926164484
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evaluations. To bridge this gap, we propose BiasScope, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BiasScope can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias discovery from a passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on BiasScope, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50\% on JudgeBench-Pro, underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robustness and to mitigate potential biases further.
Related papers
- Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z) - 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) - Any Large Language Model Can Be a Reliable Judge: Debiasing with a Reasoning-based Bias Detector [39.54163923297108]
Reasoning-based Bias Detector identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction.<n>We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales.<n>For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-21T07:23:05Z) - CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM.
CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility.
textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z) - Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility.
We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge.
Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z) - Mitigating the Bias of Large Language Model Evaluation [30.67730115141905]
We propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge.
For closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality.
For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-25T09:52:44Z) - Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z) - GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language
Models [83.30078426829627]
Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community.
The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability.
We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
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.