Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that favor completions with certain superficial characteristics rather than reflecting genuine quality differences.

“LLM judges are shown to exhibit systematic biases that favor completions with certain superficial characteristics rather than reflecting genuine quality differences.”

• cites Wang et al., 2024aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Zheng et al., 2023 sourceSupported
• cites Stureborg et al., 2024 sourceSupported

Self-bias poses a significant challenge to the reliability of LLM evaluations.

“Self-bias poses a significant challenge to the reliability of LLM evaluations [Deutsch et al., 2022].”

• cites Deutsch et al., 2022 sourcePartly supported

  Section 5.2 says reference-free metrics can favor outputs resembling their own models over human-written text, making their scores unreliable as measures of human-quality text. The Limitations section confines the experimental evidence to translation and summarization datasets; it does not establish that self-bias challenges LLM evaluations generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Prior methods that compare an LLM judge's scores across models can conflate genuine quality differences with self-bias.

“Yet, this may mistakenly attribute high scores to bias, even when the LLM-as-a-judge genuinely produces higher-quality completions than the other evaluated models.”

• cites Panickssery et al., 2024 sourceSupported

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).”

• cites Xu et al., 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Wataoka et al., 2024 sourcePartly supported

  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 measured

LLM-as-a-judge systems can exhibit self-bias, systematically assigning higher scores to their own outputs than to equally good outputs from other models.

“models may systematically assign overly favorable ratings to their own outputs-a phenomenon known as self-bias-which can distort evaluations of true model performance.”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “LLM-as-judges are shown to exhibit several types of biases, such as positional bias, self-enhancement bias, and verbosity bias, among others [Zheng et al., 2023, Wang et al., 2024a, Liu et al., 2023b].”

• cites Zheng et al., 2023 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3.3 (p. 5) defines self-enhancement bias as judges potentially favoring their own answers and reports higher win rates for GPT-4 and Claude-v1 when judging their own outputs. But it also says GPT-3.5 did not favor itself and that the study could not determine whether models exhibit this bias; it did not establish that the compared outputs were equally good. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Wang et al., 2024aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Liu et al., 2023bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Methods that measure self-bias by comparing an LLM judge's scores on its own completions to other models' scores risk conflating self-bias with genuine performance differences.

“However, these methods risk conflating self-bias with genuine performance differences.”

• cites Koo et al., 2023 sourceSupported
• cites Liu et al., 2023bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Panickssery et al., 2024 sourceSupported

Prior work that interprets higher self-scores as evidence of self-bias does not analyze the statistical assumptions required to infer the presence and magnitude of self-bias.

“Although this method may suggest self-bias, the authors do not dive into the statistical assumptions required in order to make a statistical inference on the presence and magnitude of the self-bias, e.g., how the two sets of scores are related.”

• cites Zheng et al., 2023 sourceSupported

Using robust (White) standard errors to compute 90% Wald confidence intervals ensures valid inference even when certain model assumptions are violated.

“This type of standard errors ensures valid inference even when certain model assumptions are violated.”

• cites Buja et al., 2019aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Cameron and Miller, 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (p. 2) says cluster-robust standard errors can accommodate within-cluster error correlation without specifying its form, but require the number of clusters to grow. The Empirical Example (pp. 40–41) shows that ordinary White heteroskedastic-robust standard errors can substantially understate uncertainty when errors are clustered. The paper therefore does not support an unqualified assurance that White standard errors ensure valid 90% Wald confidence intervals whenever model assumptions are violated. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Freedman, 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Unlike other biases, self-bias cannot be artificially introduced via perturbations of a completion, making its study particularly challenging.

“While other biases can be artificially introduced via perturbations of a completion, this is not the case for self-bias, making its study particularly challenging [Zheng et al., 2023].”

• cites Zheng et al., 2023 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3.3 (p. 5) says a controlled study of self-enhancement bias is challenging because the authors cannot easily rephrase a response in another model’s style without changing its quality. The same section describes manipulating responses to test verbosity bias. It does not establish that self-bias cannot be artificially introduced at all, or that all other biases can be introduced by perturbing a completion. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Many existing datasets contain completions generated by relatively weak LLMs.

“Since many of the existing datasets contain completions generated by relatively weak LLMs [Zhang et al., 2024, Zheng et al., 2023], we collect new model completions and corresponding LLM-as-a-judge judgments, which we will publicly release along with the publication.”

• cites Zhang et al., 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Zheng et al., 2023 sourceCould not verify

  Section 2.1 (p. 3) criticizes existing benchmarks for emphasizing short, closed-ended answers, not for containing completions from weak LLMs. Section 4.1 (p. 7) lists models used in this paper’s own benchmarks, but does not establish that many existing datasets contain completions from relatively weak models. Searches for weak-model completions in existing datasets found no passage making that claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In scenarios where human annotations are unavailable, assembling a diverse panel of LLM-as-a-judge judges drawn from multiple model families minimizes systematic biases.

“In scenarios where human annotations are entirely unavailable, assembling a diverse panel of LLM-as-a-judge judges [Verga et al., 2024, Badshah andSajjad, 2024, Li et al., b] drawn from multiple model families (such as GPT, Claude, and Llama) further minimizes systematic biases, ensuring fair, consistent, and robust evaluations across different models and evaluation tasks over time.”

• cites Verga et al., 2024 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction and Section 4.4 report that pooling judges from different model families reduces intra-model scoring bias. But Section 3.7 says the study used human reference annotations, so it does not establish the result specifically when annotations are entirely unavailable. Section 3.2 lists GPT-3.5, Claude Haiku, and Command R in the panel—not Llama—and the Conclusions limit the demonstrated consistency to the settings studied, rather than across tasks over time. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Badshah andSajjad, 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Li et al., bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

The paper releases a new dataset containing expert human evaluations of completions from nine LLMs to almost 600 prompts along six evaluation dimensions, with associated judgments from the same LLMs.

“Second, along with this publication, we release a new dataset containing expert human evaluations of completions from nine LLMs (including Llama 3, GPT, Mistral, and Claude models) to almost 600 prompts along six evaluation dimensions, with associated judgments from the same LLMs (Section 4).”

GPT, Claude and Mistral models show a consistent trend across most dimensions, exhibiting no or relatively small positive self-bias.

“GPT, Claude and Mistral models show a consistent trend across most dimensions, exhibiting no or relatively small positive self-bias.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

Including the length-control term in the regression does not meaningfully affect estimates of self- and family-bias, which remain virtually unchanged.

“Consistently, including the length-control term in the regression does not meaningfully affect our estimates of self-and family-bias, which remain virtually unchanged (see Figure 7).”

Family bias remains substantial for GPT and Claude models under the alternative reference scoring scheme.

“Family bias remains substantial for GPT and Claude models.”

Llama 3 8B displays significant negative self-bias.

“Interestingly, Llama 3 8B displays significant negative self-bias.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

Weaker Claude models, such as Claude-v2 and Claude 3-Sonnet, exhibit almost no self-bias.

“In contrast, weaker Claude models, such as Claude-v2 and Claude 3-Sonnet, exhibit almost no self-bias.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

When comparing Claude Sonnet 3.5 and GPT-4o, a score difference of just 0.02 is comparable to the magnitude of the observed self-bias.

“For example, when comparing Claude Sonnet 3.5 and GPT-4o, a score difference of just 0.02 is comparable to the magnitude of the observed self-bias.”

Most models show higher self-bias for open-ended QA tasks than summarization.

“Most models show higher self-bias for open-ended QA tasks than summarization, a phenomenon suggesting a relationship between task category and self-bias.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

Llama 3 8B has significantly larger negative self-bias in faithfulness.

“Notably, Llama 3 8B has significantly larger negative self-bias in faithfulness.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

Observed agreement, how often all three annotators agree, is high at 81%.

“we also estimate the observed agreement (i.e., how often all three annotators agree), which is high (81%).”

Under generalized additive models, main conclusions regarding self- and family-bias remain qualitatively unchanged.

“Our main conclusions regarding self-and family-bias remain qualitatively unchanged under this alternative model specification and thus we omit the results.”

The tendency for family-bias in both Claude and GPT families is common across all models, e.g., Claude 3.5 Sonnet boosts scores of both Claude v2 and Claude 3 Sonnet.

“The tendency in both families is common across all models, e.g., Claude 3.5 Sonnet boosts the scores of both Claude v2 and of Claude 3 Sonnet.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

Higher correlation across dimensions is observed for stronger models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet.

“Overall we observe higher correlation across dimensions for stronger models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet.”

Under an alternative reference scoring scheme using average ratings from excluded families, estimates of self- and family-bias remain qualitatively similar to those using human scores.

“Under this alternative reference scoring scheme, our estimates of self-and family-bias remain qualitatively similar to those obtained using human scores, as seen in Figure 9”

After removing the weakest models, GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet's self-bias remains statistically significant.

“However, GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet'sremain statistically significant.”

Claude and GPT judges tend to give higher scores to completions of other models within the same family.

“As seen in Figure 3, we find that Claude and GPT judges tend to give higher scores to completions of other models within the same family.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human expert annotations provide a valid benchmark for the underlying quality of completions.

After removing the weakest models, family-bias for GPT and Claude families remains positive.

“Family-bias for these families also remains positive.”

Some models, such as Claude-v2 or GPT-3.5-turbo, appear to assign higher scores to their own completions.

“While inspecting the diagonal cells row-wise or column-wise, some models (e.g., Claude-v2 or GPT-3.5-turbo)appear to assign higher scores to their own completions.”

Once reference scores are accounted for in the regression, the association between length and ratings effectively disappears.

“However, once reference scores are accounted for in the regression, this association effectively disappears.”

Removing the weakest models (Mistral 7B and Llama 3 8B) slightly decreases the magnitude of self-bias for all models.

“We observe that the magnitude of the self-bias slightly decreases for all models; this is potentially explained by the fact that, with the weakest models removed, the overall range in completion quality narrows, leaving less scope for substantial differences in how judges score their own outputs relative to others.”

In the final dataset, average accuracy on attention checks was over 97%.

“In the final dataset, average accuracy on attention checks was over 97%.”

Stratifying completions according to both evaluation dimension and whether the evaluated model belongs to the judge's family substantially reduces the variance of bias estimates.

“Specifically, we have shown that it is crucial to stratify completions according to both the evaluation dimension (e.g., correctness vs. conciseness) and whether the evaluated model belongs to the judge's family (e.g., GPT evaluating GPT outputs), as this stratification substantially reduces the variance of bias estimates.”

The extent of self-bias varies depending on the evaluation scenario.

“The extent of self-bias varies depending on the evaluation scenario.”

GPT-4 shows family bias on the HELM Instruct dataset.

“Additionally, GPT-4 shows family bias.”

Recent efforts to integrate the two prior directions do not provide a formal statistical framework with clear assumptions and criteria for measuring self-bias.

“While recent efforts have attempted to integrate these two approaches [Liu et al., 2023b], they do not provide a formal statistical framework with clear assumptions and criteria for measuring self-bias.”

• cites Liu et al., 2023bNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Simply replacing human scores with LLM judge scores without adjusting the regression would be problematic because it would introduce circularity.

“However, simply replacing human scores with LLM judge scores without adjusting the regression would be problematic, as it would introduce circularity.”

Llama models may be excessively critical regarding their own faithfulness.

“This suggests these models may be excessively critical regarding their own faithfulness.”

The same dimensions are equally challenging for both humans and LLMs.

“This indicates that the same dimensions are equally challenging for both humans and LLMs.”

Comparing how a judge scores its own outputs vs. others without accounting for actual quality risks falsely identifying self-bias whenever other models produce lower-quality completions.

“Comparing how a judge scores its own outputs vs. others without accounting for the actual quality of the outputs (e.g., via human scores) risks falsely identifying self-bias whenever the other models produce lower-quality completions.”

A direct comparison of LLM-as-a-judge scores without controlling for completion quality may not give reliable results for self-bias.

“Since LLMs generate completions that may differ in quality, a direct comparison of the LLM-as-a-judge scores without controlling for this difference may not give reliable results of self-bias.”

The paper's approach isolates systematic favoritism where models rate their own outputs, and outputs from other models within the same family, more highly than warranted by true performance differences.

“By explicitly modeling the alignment between LLM scores and an independent annotator, our approach isolates the systematic favoritism where models rate their own outputs, as well as outputs from other models within the same family, more highly than warranted by true performance differences.”

If the evaluator's own completions are shorter on average, the method could mistakenly conclude that no self-bias exists, even if the evaluator is inflating ratings of its own outputs.

“Specifically, if the evaluator's own completions are shorter on average, we could mistakenly conclude that no self-bias exists, even if the evaluator is inflating ratings of its own outputs.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Systematic biases apart from self-bias (such as preferences for completion length or style) are shared by human and judge ratings.

Both Claude v1.3 and GPT-4 tend to assign higher scores to their own completions, even after accounting for completion quality via human reference scores.

“This indicates that both models tend to assign higher scores to their own completions, even after accounting for completion quality via human reference scores.”

Robustness checks confirm that the paper's conclusions remain stable when human scores are replaced with LLM-as-a-judge.

“Although robustness checks confirm that our conclusions remain stable when replacing human scores with LLM-as-a-judge”

Family-bias indicates systematic favoritism among models with similar architectures, training methods, or styles.

“Additionally, we observed family-bias, indicating systematic favoritism among models with similar architectures, training methods, or styles.”