Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Self-enhancement bias is a concern in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, where an LLM Judge may favour content generated by itself or similar models.
“3) Self-enhancement bias , where an LLM Judge may favour content generated by itself or similar models”
From Towards reliable generative AI-driven scaffolding: Reducing hallucinations and enhancing quality in self-regulated learning support (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2024
Verbosity bias is a concern in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, where LLMs favour longer responses even when they may be less relevant or effective.
“2) Verbosity bias , where LLMs favour longer responses even when they may be less relevant or effective;”
From Towards reliable generative AI-driven scaffolding: Reducing hallucinations and enhancing quality in self-regulated learning support (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2024
Position bias is a concern in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations, where LLMs show a preference for certain positional arrangements of responses in the prompts.
“1) Position bias , where LLMs show a preference for certain positional arrangements of responses in the prompts;”
From Towards reliable generative AI-driven scaffolding: Reducing hallucinations and enhancing quality in self-regulated learning support (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2024
Verbosity bias remains a limitation, particularly when brevity and precision are critical in educational scaffolds.
“verbosity bias, consistent across prior studies (Zheng et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024), remains a limitation, particularly when brevity and precision are critical in educational scaffolds.”
From Towards reliable generative AI-driven scaffolding: Reducing hallucinations and enhancing quality in self-regulated learning support (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Qian, K., Liu, S., Li, T., Raković, M., Li, X., Guan, R., Molenaar, I., Nawaz, S., Swiecki, Z., Yan, L., et al. (2026) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105448 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health
Arora, R. K., Wei, J., Hicks, R. S., Bowman, P., Quiñonero-Candela, J., Tsimpourlas, F., Sharman, M., Shah, M., Vallone, A., Beutel, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.08775 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge
Ye, J., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., Chen, D., Zhang, Q., Moniz, N., Gao, T., Geyer, W., Huang, C., Chen, P.-Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.02736 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge
Schroeder, K., & Wood-Doughty, Z. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.12509 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models
Biderman, S., Schoelkopf, H., Sutawika, L., Gao, L., Tow, J., Abbasi, B., Aji, A. F., Ammanamanchi, P. S., Black, S., Clive, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.14782 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge
Li, D., Sun, R., Huang, Y., Zhong, M., Jiang, B., Han, J., Zhang, X., Wang, W., & Liu, H. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01534 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, G. H., Chen, S., Liu, Z., Jiang, F., & Wang, B.
- Affiliations
- Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.10669
- OpenAlex
- W4391945622
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (12326608)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- LLM-as-a-judge, LLM evaluation, evaluation bias, gender bias, authority bias, beauty bias, Bloom's taxonomy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
