# LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13076 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/

## Key facts

- Cited by 686 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 37 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08745/) (2018)
- [Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.06023/) (2016)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.07871/) (2018)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Recursively Summarizing Books with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.10862/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models Sensitivity to The Order of Options in Multiple-Choice Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11483/) (2023)
- [Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12070/) (2024)
- [Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18153/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04181/) (2023)
- [Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01314/) (2020)
- [Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17012/) (2023)
- [Taken out of context: On measuring situational awareness in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00667/) (2023)
- [Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14016/) (2024)
- [VisIT-Bench: A Benchmark for Vision-Language Instruction Following Inspired by Real-World Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.06595/) (2023)
- [LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09766/) (2023)
- [Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07321/) (2022)
- [Feedback Loops With Language Models Drive In-Context Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06627/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15654/) (2023)
- [Knowledge of Knowledge: Exploring Known-Unknowns Uncertainty with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13712/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 686)

- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [AgentClinic: a multimodal agent benchmark to evaluate AI in simulated clinical environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07960/) (2024)
- [An Illusion of Progress? Assessing the Current State of Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01382/) (2025)
- [GDPval: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Real-World Economically Valuable Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04374/) (2025)
- [RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01937/) (2025)
- [Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01534/) (2025)
- [Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13787/) (2024)
- [Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18370/) (2024)
- [On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04622/) (2024)
- [CRAG -- Comprehensive RAG Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04744/) (2024)
- [Uncertainty Quantification and Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15850/) (2025)
- [VL-RewardBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Vision-Language Generative Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.17451/) (2024)
- [Foundational Autoraters: Taming Large Language Models for Better Automatic Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10817/) (2024)
- [Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13006/) (2024)
- [UltraMedical: Building Specialized Generalists in Biomedicine](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.03949/) (2024)
- [Elements of World Knowledge (EWoK): A Cognition-Inspired Framework for Evaluating Basic World Knowledge in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.09605/) (2024)
- [No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05061/) (2025)
- [Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13341/) (2024)
- [From Lists to Emojis: How Format Bias Affects Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.11704/) (2024)
- [ResearchQA: Evaluating Scholarly Question Answering at Scale Across 75 Fields with Survey-Mined Questions and Rubrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.00496/) (2025)
- [Correlated Errors in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07962/) (2025)
- [Inverse Constitutional AI: Compressing Preferences into Principles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06560/) (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)
- [LoRe: Personalizing LLMs via Low-Rank Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14439/) (2025)
- [PARIKSHA: A Large-Scale Investigation of Human-LLM Evaluator Agreement on Multilingual and Multi-Cultural Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15053/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both the evaluator and the evaluatee. One such bias is self-preference, where an LLM evaluator scores its own outputs higher than others' while human annotators consider them of equal quality. But do LLMs actually recognize their own outputs when they give those texts higher scores, or is it just a coincidence? In this paper, we investigate if self-recognition capability contributes to self-preference. We discover that, out of the box, LLMs such as GPT-4 and Llama 2 have non-trivial accuracy at distinguishing themselves from other LLMs and humans. By fine-tuning LLMs, we discover a linear correlation between self-recognition capability and the strength of self-preference bias; using controlled experiments, we show that the causal explanation resists straightforward confounders. We discuss how self-recognition can interfere with unbiased evaluations and AI safety more generally.