Mitigating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge via Random Number Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05726v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 08:09:42 GMT
• Title: Mitigating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge via Random Number Generation
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality.<n>LLMs tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text.<n>This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias.
• Score: 7.525640980821714
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias. This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias. An LLM is instructed to randomly generate number tokens, and the latent numerical bias of the LLM is identified by measuring the deviation of the observed distribution of numbers from the uniform distribution. A definition of a downstream task, for which an LLM evaluator is used, is added to the prompts for random number generation to measure task-specific latent number bias. In the evaluation by an LLM, the token generation probabilities for a given input are rectified considering the LLM's latent number bias. Results of the experiment on four different tasks, evaluation of LLM alignment, evaluation of summarization, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Semantic Textual Relatedness, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, including an LLM without debiasing and previous calibration methods. In addition, it is confirmed that scoring bias varies across LLMs, tasks, and score ranges, indicating the importance of measuring latent number bias as the case may be.

Related papers

• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Am I More Pointwise or Pairwise? Revealing Position Bias in Rubric-Based LLM-as-a-Judge [17.255487260595565]
  We show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias.<n>We propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T15:24:37Z)
• Can We Hide Machines in the Crowd? Quantifying Equivalence in LLM-in-the-loop Annotation Tasks [8.246529401043128]
  We aim to explore how labeling decisions -- by both humans and LLMs -- can be statistically evaluated across individuals.<n>We develop a statistical evaluation method based on Krippendorff's $alpha$, paired bootstrapping, and the Two One-Sided t-Tests (TOST) equivalence test procedure.<n>We apply this approach to two datasets -- MovieLens 100K and PolitiFact -- and find that the LLM is statistically indistinguishable from a human annotator in the former.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T05:17:33Z)
• DIF: A Framework for Benchmarking and Verifying Implicit Bias in LLMs [1.89915151018241]
  We argue that implicit bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) is not only an ethical, but also a technical issue.<n>We developed a method for calculating an easily interpretable benchmark, DIF (Demographic Implicit Fairness)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T06:53:37Z)
• Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models [54.26923012617675]
  We unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that fine-tuning text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy.<n>We leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:59:02Z)
• PCS: Perceived Confidence Scoring of Black Box LLMs with Metamorphic Relations [13.99995125334968]
  We introduce a technique that evaluates an LLM's confidence for classifying a textual input by leveraging Metamorphic Relations (MRs)<n>MRs generate semantically equivalent yet textually divergent versions of the input.<n>We compute a perceived confidence score (PCS) based on the frequency of the predicted labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T02:25:44Z)
• Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineering [18.766132076075365]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been deployed to tackle various software engineering (SE) tasks like code generation.<n>Pass@k metric requires extensive unit tests and configured environments, and is not suitable for evaluating LLM-generated text.<n>Conventional metrics like BLEU, which measure only lexical rather than semantic similarity, have also come under scrutiny.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T06:49:29Z)
• SoK: Membership Inference Attacks on LLMs are Rushing Nowhere (and How to Fix It) [16.673210422615348]
  More than 10 new methods have been proposed to perform Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) against LLMs.<n>Contrary to traditional MIAs which rely on fixed-but randomized-records or models, these methods are mostly trained and tested on datasets collected post-hoc.<n>This lack of randomization raises concerns of a distribution shift between members and non-members.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T23:12:07Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)

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.