This work makes two contributions: 1) authorship attribution is a distinct driver of evaluation bias, and 2) open-ended, ground-truth-free tasks can serve as controlled instruments for studying LLM judge behavior.
Abstract
As LLM-as-a-judge systems become increasingly widespread, self-preference in LLMs -- the tendency to favor one's own outputs -- raises growing concerns about evaluation reliability. However, it has been studied predominantly on generated text, where stylistic features and response quality are inevitably conflated. As a result, existing measurements cannot separate genuine self-preference from these confounds. We address this by changing the object of evaluation: instead of judging generated text, ten LLMs assess narrative constraint selections, which carry no model-specific stylistic fingerprint yet retain a recoverable model-specific signature. We run two experiments that yield distinct findings. Under blind evaluation, self-preference largely disappears once selection quality and evaluator severity are controlled. It vanishes on three of four rubric dimensions and reverses on the fourth, where judges rate their own selections as less original. Under matched quality, however, self- and other-labels alone -- without naming any model -- shift scores bidirectionally: LLM judges inflate scores for self-labeled selections and deflate those for other-labeled ones regardless of the selection's actual source. We make two contributions: 1) authorship attribution is a distinct driver of evaluation bias, and 2) open-ended, ground-truth-free tasks can serve as controlled instruments for studying LLM judge behavior.
LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al., 2023) is increasingly the default for evaluating AI systems in enterprise pipelines, often scaled to ensembles (Verga et al., 2024) or"mixture-of-experts"(Shazeer et al., 2017) panels of judges. These systems share a key assumption: that consistency -- agreement among judges, or among a model's own samples -- indicates correctness. We show this assumption is unreliable. Agreement is not accuracy: a model can agree with itself, and different models can agree with each other, out of shared bias, a memorized heuristic, or an option-position prior rather than truth. We ask when agreement is nonetheless a usable proxy, in a large-scale cross-runner study: 53 runners drew K=50 samples for assigned overlapping cases across comparisons of model tier, prompting, and scale on GPQA Diamond and AIME -- 265,000 samples. Using majority-correctness as the deployment label and a hierarchical runner-clustered bootstrap, agreement is a positive but weak predictor (rho 0.20-0.59, all positive under item-clustered resampling) whose usefulness is regime-dependent: best for unsaturated mid-tier models and for allocating compute, and worst -- over-confident yet no more accurate -- for the most consistent frontier model (agreement>=0.8 on 77% of GPQA case-result entries, 48% of those wrong). An exploratory cross-family check on three Claude tiers shows the same frontier over-confidence, with confident errors recurring across providers above a marginal-preserving null. Self-consistency is thus a conditional proxy for correctness, not a standalone confidence score. We publicly release the de-identified per-run rows and answer distributions.
Prior work on LLM conformity largely measures discrete answer flips under verifiable labels. Open-ended revisions require a different measurement strategy because answer quality is graded, latent, and judged imperfectly. We introduce an experimental protocol implemented across a pooled main peer-condition corpus and separately constructed decomposition corpora, allowing us to separate ordinary re-answering, candidate-content exposure, a bundled peer-presentation residual, and directional judge sensitivity to visible peer context. Across four open-weight generators and three benchmarks, all-wrong peer input produces the lowest-quality revisions in every generator-dataset cell. Blind and informed ratings of identical answers also differ by evaluator: one judge shifts toward the peer-endorsed position, two shift away, one is approximately neutral, and GPT-4o and GPT-5.4-mini audits are likewise non-neutral. Finally, an anchor audit shows that terse correct anchors can be misread often enough to destabilize the latent scale unless calibration is checked explicitly. These results support four conclusions: flip rates are insufficient as a complete measure of open-ended conformity, wrong peers harm open-ended revision, evaluators are not neutral, and anchor calibration is necessary.
Existing studies of LLM-as-judge scoring bias work predominantly at the input-output level: they perturb inputs, measure score deltas, and propose prompt-level mitigations. We argue that the same biases admit a representation-level account in the judge's hidden state, complementary to the input-output view and operationally useful in ways it does not afford. We report three findings, across seven judges, seven bias types, and nine benchmarks. Geometry: baseline judging inputs occupy a tight activation manifold while biased inputs are displaced along a low-dimensional, type-specific subspace that sharpens with depth and is recovered consistently by three families of estimators. Causal control: steering hidden states along this subspace drives scoring in both directions, forward shifts reproducing biased scoring on clean inputs and reverse shifts restoring baseline scoring on biased ones, while matched-norm random directions produce shifts an order of magnitude smaller. Operational: a simple linear projection onto the same bias-direction features anticipates judge failures on three entirely unseen benchmarks, substantially outperforming text-based alternatives. Reading bias as activation geometry, rather than as input-output noise, unifies geometric structure, causal control, and operational prediction within a single framework. The project page is available at https://xzx34.github.io/unfair-judge/
Zixiang Xu, Sixian Li, Hua-Xing Liu et al.· 1 citation
It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al.· 0 citations
Professional communication is increasingly mediated by LLMs - but do these models serve all users equally? We show that when prompts contain linguistic features more commonly used by women (hedges, tag questions, collective reference), they systematically elicit shorter, less sophisticated, and less formal responses across three document types and four models. These effects persist after controlling for prompt complexity and feature carry-over. Explicit gender cues like sign-off names are encoded in the same representational space as linguistic dialect - suggesting shared underlying mechanisms - yet linguistic register is far more influential, producing large, consistent effects where names produce none. Our results further reveal that post-hoc mitigation is challenging: because these patterns are culturally embedded and outside conscious control, users cannot easily avoid them through strategic self-presentation, and mechanistic analysis reveals that linguistic features are encoded in early transformer layers and entangled with other features. Our work calls for upstream consideration of the influences of linguistic variation to mitigate disparate impacts of LLM-mediated workplace communication.
Benevolence bias is identified and measure, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions, and is easy to diagnose and straightforward to fix.
Yuanzi Li, Jun-Hao Wang, Minghui Liu et al.· 0 citations
A new method, called CW-Net, translates the reasoning process of an autonomous vehicle’s AI system into understandable concepts that explain its behavior.
