Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

CalibraEval: Calibrating Prediction Distribution to Mitigate Selection Bias in LLMs-as-Judges

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

arxiv 2410.15393 v1 pith:HCF4GHYC submitted 2024-10-20 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords biascalibraevalpredictionselectiondistributionsevaluationalgorithmautomated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as LLMs-as-Judges, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention. However, when applied to pairwise comparisons of candidate responses, LLM-based evaluators often exhibit selection bias. Specifically, their judgments may become inconsistent when the option positions or ID tokens are swapped, compromising the effectiveness and fairness of the evaluation result. To address this challenge, we introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. Specifically, CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. To solve this optimization problem, we propose a non-parametric order-preserving algorithm (NOA). This algorithm leverages the partial order relationships between model prediction distributions, thereby eliminating the need for explicit labels and precise mathematical function modeling.Empirical evaluations of LLMs in multiple representative benchmarks demonstrate that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods. This work marks a step toward building more robust and unbiased automated evaluation frameworks, paving the way for improved reliability in AI-driven assessments

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ScopeJudge: Cost-Aware Pre-Execution Gating for Offensive Security Agents

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Static-policy judges achieve near-zero recall on scope violations; request-conditioned pre-execution judges reach F1 0.66 (open-weight best) against an expert reference of 0.78 on a 4,897-call labeled benchmark.

  2. Adaptive Repetition for Mitigating Position Bias in LLM-Based Ranking

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An adaptive early-stopping rule for repeated LLM judgments cuts position-bias mitigation cost by roughly 80 percent while keeping the consensus result.

  3. LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domain

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new Chinese legal-domain benchmark with 17 real-world corpora, 37 tools, 300 human-verified tasks, and a fine-grained evaluation metric shows GPT-4o leads with 79% success under ReAct.

  4. Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An argument, grounded in social-science measurement theory, that LLM-as-judge adoption has outpaced validity and reliability testing, with an analysis of four underlying assumptions.

  5. SCOPE: Stochastic and Counterbiased Option Placement for Evaluating Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    SCOPE estimates a model's position bias with nonsense prompts, puts correct answers in disliked slots, and spreads similar distractors apart to cap lucky guessing.

Pith tools