REVIEW 4 cited by
Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLMs, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating Misinformation Oversight Bias, Gender Bias, Authority Bias and Beauty Bias on LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit these biases to conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the bias and vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
How Benchmark Prediction from Fewer Data Misses the Mark
Benchmark prediction methods mostly work by interpolation among similar models and fail on better, unfamiliar models, where random sampling with an AIPW-style correction is the only consistent improvement.
-
Can You Trick the Grader? Adversarial Persuasion of LLM Judges
Strategically inserted persuasive sentences inflate LLM judges' scores for incorrect math solutions across six benchmarks and fourteen models, but the study lacks length-matched controls separating rhetoric from lengt...
-
Towards Reliable Generative AI-Driven Scaffolding: Reducing Hallucinations and Enhancing Quality in Self-Regulated Learning Support
A multi-agent reliability check and an LLM-as-a-judge quality check both reduce hallucinations in AI-generated study scaffolds, with the multi-agent check matching human expert judgments almost perfectly.
-
Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in LLM Judgments
The DBG metric measures LLM self-preference bias as the gap between a judge model's own win rate and the win rate assigned by an ensemble of gold judges.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.