CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00039v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 03:17:55 GMT
• Title: CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation
• Abstract summary: We introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework for judge scores.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders.<n> CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8%.
• Score: 21.96013518286442
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge ensembles are the standard paradigm for scalable evaluation, but their aggregation mechanisms suffer from a fundamental flaw: they implicitly assume that judges provide independent estimates of true quality. However, in practice, LLM judges exhibit correlated errors caused by shared latent confounders -- such as verbosity, stylistic preferences, or training artifacts -- causing standard aggregation rules like majority vote or averaging to provide little gain or even amplify systematic mistakes. To address this, we introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework that explicitly models LLM judge scores as arising from both a latent true-quality signal and shared confounding factors. Rather than heuristically re-weighting judges, CARE separates quality from confounders without access to ground-truth labels. We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders, and we quantify the systematic bias incurred when aggregation models omit confounding latent factors. Across 12 public benchmarks spanning continuous scoring, binary classification, and pairwise preference settings, CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8\%. Code is released in \href{https://github.com/SprocketLab/CARE}{https://github.com/SprocketLab/CARE}.

Related papers

• DA-RAC: Distance-Aware Calibration of LLM Judges for Trustworthy AI Auditing [6.639255145889912]
  DA-RAC is a distance-aware reference-anchored calibration method for LLM judges.<n>It improves calibration and reduces false-pass risk relative to zero-shot, chain-of-thought evaluation, and static-anchor baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-15T00:29:25Z)
• CauTion: Knowing When to Trust LLMs for Ensemble Causal Discovery [51.07538881798502]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising source of domain knowledge to complement statistical inference.<n>We propose CauTion, a framework that reliably integrates LLM domain knowledge into an ensemble of statistical causal discovery algorithms.<n>CauTion consistently outperforms both data-centric and LLM-augmented baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T13:07:43Z)
• CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging [95.02210956333374]
  We propose a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation.<n>On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T10:59:19Z)
• Multimodal Learning on Low-Quality Data with Conformal Predictive Self-Calibration [72.0672328514289]
  Multimodal learning often grapples with the challenge of low-quality data.<n>We propose a unified framework, termed Conformal Predictive Self-Calibration.<n>Our framework consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T14:48:52Z)
• Who can we trust? LLM-as-a-jury for Comparative Assessment [42.32900791516691]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied as automatic evaluators for natural language generation assessment.<n>LLMs judges vary substantially in performance across tasks and aspects, and their judgment probabilities may be biased and inconsistent.<n>We propose BT-sigma, a judge-aware extension of the Bradley-Terry model that introduces a discriminator parameter for each judge to jointly infer item rankings and judge reliability from pairwise comparisons alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T17:04:02Z)
• Dependence-Aware Label Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge via Ising Models [55.94503936470247]
  Large-scale AI evaluation increasingly relies on aggregating binary judgments from $K$ annotators, including judges.<n>Most classical methods assume annotators are conditionally independent given the true label $Yin0,1$, an assumption often violated by LLM judges.<n>We study label aggregation through a hierarchy of dependence-aware models based on Ising graphical models and latent factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T21:26:50Z)
• A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground Truth [4.9467757325435775]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.<n>Treating all judges equally can yield biased leaderboards and misleading uncertainty estimates.<n>We propose a judge-aware ranking framework that extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by introducing judge-specific discrimination parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T15:01:28Z)
• Calibratable Disambiguation Loss for Multi-Instance Partial-Label Learning [53.9713678229744]
  Multi-instance partial-label learning (MIPL) is a weakly supervised framework that addresses the challenges of inexact supervision in both instance and label spaces.<n>Existing MIPL approaches often suffer from poor calibration, undermining reliability.<n>We propose a plug-and-play calibratable disambiguation loss (CDL) that simultaneously improves classification accuracy and calibration performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T16:58:31Z)
• Distribution-Calibrated Inference time compute for Thinking LLM-as-a-Judge [5.855996386998925]
  Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level.<n>We study inference-time compute (ITC) for evaluators that generate n independent thinking-rating samples per item.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T18:46:47Z)
• 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)
• When Judgment Becomes Noise: How Design Failures in LLM Judge Benchmarks Silently Undermine Validity [21.192000569821943]
  We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise.<n>We show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty.<n>Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T16:26:47Z)
• 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)

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.