# LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09766 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09766/

## Key facts

- Cited by 90 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 33 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 33)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08745/) (2018)
- [BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04696/) (2020)
- [Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehend](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.03340/) (2015)
- [Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.06023/) (2016)
- [BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11520/) (2021)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02622/) (2019)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12693/) (2021)
- [The GEM Benchmark: Natural Language Generation, its Evaluation and Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01672/) (2021)
- [Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06264/) (2020)
- [Re-evaluating Evaluation in Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07100/) (2020)
- [Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07981/) (2022)
- [Q2: Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08202/) (2021)
- [Better Rewards Yield Better Summaries: Learning to Summarise Without References](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01214/) (2019)
- [SUPERT: Towards New Frontiers in Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Multi-Document Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03724/) (2020)
- [On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.12563/) (2022)
- [Perturbation CheckLists for Evaluating NLG Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.05771/) (2021)
- [On the Blind Spots of Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10020/) (2022)
- [Spurious Correlations in Reference-Free Evaluation of Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.09890/) (2022)
- [How Far are We from Robust Long Abstractive Summarization?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.16732/) (2022)
- [A Training-free and Reference-free Summarization Evaluation Metric via Centrality-weighted Relevance and Self-referenced Redundancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.13945/) (2021)
- [T5Score: Discriminative Fine-tuning of Generative Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05726/) (2022)
- [SMART: Sentences as Basic Units for Text Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.01030/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 90)

- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [VLM-R1: A Stable and Generalizable R1-style Large Vision-Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07615/) (2025)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18403/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01724/) (2024)
- [Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14016/) (2024)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11436/) (2024)
- [Bias and Unfairness in Information Retrieval Systems: New Challenges in the LLM Era](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.11457/) (2024)
- [Reward Shaping to Mitigate Reward Hacking in RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18770/) (2025)
- [Foundational Autoraters: Taming Large Language Models for Better Automatic Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10817/) (2024)
- [The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Input](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03200/) (2025)
- [Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13341/) (2024)
- [DeepSearchQA: Bridging the Comprehensiveness Gap for Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.20975/) (2026)
- [Navigating the Metrics Maze: Reconciling Score Magnitudes and Accuracies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06760/) (2024)
- [Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18076/) (2025)
- [Do LLM Evaluators Prefer Themselves for a Reason?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03846/) (2025)
- [Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07103/) (2024)
- [Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06709/) (2025)
- [WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15549/) (2024)
- [Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in LLM Judgments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02592/) (2025)
- [Spontaneous Reward Hacking in Iterative Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04549/) (2024)
- [How Good Are LLMs for Literary Translation, Really? Literary Translation Evaluation with Humans and LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18697/) (2024)
- [From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04168/) (2024)
- [TripTailor: A Real-World Benchmark for Personalized Travel Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.01432/) (2025)
- [Self-Recognition in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.06946/) (2024)
- [GaRAGe: A Benchmark with Grounding Annotations for RAG Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07671/) (2025)
- [TREC iKAT 2023: A Test Collection for Evaluating Conversational and Interactive Knowledge Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02637/) (2024)
- [Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help LLMs as Evaluators? A Preliminary Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11629/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Automatic evaluation of generated textual content presents an ongoing challenge within the field of NLP. Given the impressive capabilities of modern language models (LMs) across diverse NLP tasks, there is a growing trend to employ these models in creating innovative evaluation metrics for automated assessment of generation tasks. This paper investigates a pivotal question: Do language model-driven evaluation metrics inherently exhibit bias favoring texts generated by the same underlying language model? Specifically, we assess whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics (e.g. BARTScore, T5Score, and GPTScore) demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality, highlighting the necessity of developing more reliable evaluation protocols in the future.