Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge
Open accessAbstract
Automated evaluation leveraging large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM evaluators or LLM-as-a-judge, has been widely used in measuring the performance of dialogue systems. However, the self-preference bias in LLMs has posed significant risks, including promoting specific styles or policies intrinsic to the LLMs. Despite the importance of this issue, there is a lack of established methods to measure the self-preference bias quantitatively, and its underlying causes are poorly understood. In this paper, we introduce a novel quantitative metric to measure the self-preference bias. Our experimental results demonstrate that GPT-4 exhibits a significant degree of self-preference bias. To explore the causes, we hypothesize that LLMs may favor outputs that are more familiar to them, as indicated by lower perplexity. We analyze the relationship between LLM evaluations and the perplexities of outputs. Our findings reveal that LLMs assign significantly higher evaluations to outputs with lower perplexity than human evaluators, regardless of whether the outputs were self-generated. This suggests that the essence of the bias lies in perplexity and that the self-preference bias exists because LLMs prefer texts more familiar to them.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Prior methods that contrast LLM self-scores with an independent judge fail to account for consistent annotation differences between judges.
“However, this approach fails to account for consistent annotation differences between two judges (e.g., a judge may be consistently more lenient than the other).”
From Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge (2025) · cites this paper as Wataoka et al., 2024
The Introduction (page unavailable) says prior absolute-scoring methods require evaluators to maintain consistency with earlier judgments, making accurate assessment difficult. It does not say that methods comparing an LLM’s self-scores with an independent judge fail to account for systematic differences between judges, such as one being consistently more lenient. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs of the same family are known to have a favorable bias toward their own responses.
“LLMs of the same family are known to have a favorable bias toward their own responses59–62”
From When helpfulness backfires: LLMs and the risk of false medical information due to sycophantic behavior (2025) · cites this paper as [60]
Section 4.3 reports self-preference bias for GPT-4, Vicuna-13b, and Koala-13b, supporting the idea that some LLM judges favor their own responses. It does not establish a preference for responses from other models in the same family, and it reports reverse bias for some of the eight models tested. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLM judges are known to exhibit systematic biases, such as self-preference, position bias, and unfair evaluation behavior.
“However, LLM judges are also known to exhibit systematic biases, such as self-preference, position bias, and unfair evaluation behavior (Wataoka et al., 2024; Shi et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024).”
From Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as Wataoka et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '23, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2024.
- Daniel Deutsch, Rotem Dror, and Dan Roth. On the limitations of reference-free evaluations of generated text. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 10960-10977, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.753. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022. emnlp-main.753. · DOI
- Arjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, and Shi Feng. Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13076. · arXiv
- Wenda Xu, Guanglei Zhu, Xuandong Zhao, Liangming Pan, Lei Li, and William Yang Wang. Pride and prejudice: Llm amplifies self-bias in self-refinement, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11436. · arXiv
- Rickard Stureborg, Dimitris Alikaniotis, and Yoshi Suhara. Large language models are inconsistent and biased evaluators, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01724. · arXiv
- Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur Parikh. BLEURT: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault, editors, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7881-7892, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.704. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.704. · DOI · Paper page
- Andrea Sottana, Bin Liang, Kai Zou, and Zheng Yuan. Evaluation metrics in the era of GPT-4: Reliably evaluating large language models on sequence to sequence tasks. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=SyEwsV52Dk.
- Yuxia Wang, Haonan Li, Xudong Han, Preslav Nakov, and Timothy Baldwin. Do-not-answer: Evaluating safeguards in LLMs. In Yvette Graham and Matthew Purver, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 896-911, St. Julian's, Malta, March 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-eacl.61. Timo Schick, Sahana Udupa, and Hinrich Schütze. Self-diagnosis and self-debiasing: A proposal for reducing corpus-based bias in NLP. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1408-1424, 2021. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00434. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.tacl-1. · DOI · Paper page
- Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. In Thirty- seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=S37hOerQLB.
- Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Teaching large language models to self-debug. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=KuPixIqPiq.
- Zhiqing Sun, Yikang Shen, Qinhong Zhou, Hongxin Zhang, Zhenfang Chen, David Cox, Yiming Yang, and Chuang Gan. Principle-driven self-alignment of language models from scratch with minimal human supervision. In Thirty- seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=p40XRfBX96.
- Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason E Weston. Self-rewarding language models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=0NphYCmgua.
- Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sand- hini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ b1efde53be364a73914f58805a001731-Paper-Conference.pdf.
- Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=HPuSIXJaa9.
- Zongjie Li, Chaozheng Wang, Pingchuan Ma, Daoyuan Wu, Tianxiang Li, Shuai Wang, Cuiyun Gao, and Yang Liu. Split and merge: Aligning position biases in large language model based evaluators, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=1hLFLNu4uy.
- Keita Saito, Akifumi Wachi, Koki Wataoka, and Youhei Akimoto. Verbosity bias in preference labeling by large language models. In NeurIPS 2023 Workshop on Instruction Tuning and Instruction Following, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=magEgFpK1y.
- Toon Calders, Faisal Kamiran, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. Building classifiers with independency constraints. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pages 13-18, 2009. doi:10.1109/ICDMW.2009. · DOI · Paper page
- Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nathan Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'16, page 3323-3331, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2016. · DOI · Paper page
- Achiam Josh, Adler Steven, Agarwal Sandhini, Ahmad Lama, Akkaya Ilge, Leoni Aleman Florencia, Almeida Diogo, Altenschmidt Janko, Altman Sam, and et al. Shyamal, Anadkat. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
- Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Moham- mad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, et al. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2397-2430.
- PMLR, 2023.
- Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, and Yasmine Babaei et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288. · arXiv
- Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, and Amy Yang et al. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2407.21783.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chen, S., Gao, M., Sasse, K., Hartvigsen, T., Anthony, B., Fan, L., Aerts, H., Gallifant, J., & Bitterman, D. S. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02008-z · Cited by 112 · 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
“Among these, egocentric bias, where LLM evaluators tend to favor their generations [29, 47, 63, 68, 52, 49, 5], is most closely related to the preference leakage proposed in this work.”
The Red Queen Gödel Machine: Co-Evolving Agents and Their Evaluators
Iacob, A., Jovanović, A., Shen, W. F., Burkhardt, D., Kurmanji, M., Tastan, N., Sani, L., Venanzi, N. A. E., Nie, J., Odonnat, A., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26294 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“C.2).”
Kim, S., Yoon, D., Gashteovski, K., Suk, J., Baek, J., Aggarwal, P., Wu, I., Zaverkin, V., Petkoski, S., Schrider, D. R., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20668 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
A Scoping Review of LLM-as-a-Judge in Healthcare and the MedJUDGE Framework
Li, C., Akhtar, Z., Kwak, M., Ji, Y., Zhang, H., Obi, T., Ren, Y., Wu, X., Sivarajkumar, S., Lehmann, H. P., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.25933 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge
Spiliopoulou, E., Fogliato, R., Burnsky, H., Soliman, T., Ma, J., Horwood, G., & Ballesteros, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.06709
“Another direction contrasts LLM-as-a-judge scores of its own completions with those of an independent judge (such as a human) [Xu et al., 2024, Wataoka et al., 2024].”
Quantifying and Mitigating Self-Preference Bias of LLM Judges
Yang, J., Hu, Z., Qiu, C., Deng, Z., Jiao, X., & Zhou, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.22891
“Self-preference bias, where judges systematically favor their own outputs, is linked to model self-recognition and persists across architectures [18, 19, 34, 35].”
AgentRoom: Concurrent Multi-Agent Coding in a CRDT-Backed Shared Workspace
Cho, S., & Lee, D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.23740
Song, M., Kim, C., Eo, S., & Park, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.30373
- Authors
- Wataoka, K., Takahashi, T., & Ri, R.
- ORCID
- Takahashi, Tsubasa
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.21819
- OpenAlex
- W4404341075
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- LLM-as-a-judge, automated assessment, large language models, dialogue systems, perplexity, GPT-4
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
