# GRP: Goal-Reversed Prompting for Zero-Shot Evaluation with LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.06139 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.06139/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17012/) (2023)
- [LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09766/) (2023)
- [Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13809/) (2023)
- [Reverse Thinking Makes LLMs Stronger Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.19865/) (2024)
- [Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.00681/) (2023)
- [Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help LLMs as Evaluators? A Preliminary Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11629/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Pairwise LLM-as-a-judge evaluation asks the judge to identify the better of two candidate answers. We study a one-line modification that asks for the worse answer instead and recovers the preference by elimination, a procedure we call Goal-Reversed Prompting (GRP). GRP introduces no extra inference rounds, composes with any prompt template (direct, chain-of-thought, or Arena-Hard SOP), and leaves the rest of the evaluation pipeline untouched. Two observations motivate the reversal. Reverse reasoning is a recurring strategy in human problem solving, and modern instruction-tuned judges exhibit a positive-leaning bias that asking for the worse answer can counteract. On JudgeBench under a strict consistency protocol that counts a judgment as correct only when both response orderings agree with the gold preference, GRP improves all three closed-source judges we test across both response-pair sources. With GPT-4o-generated pairs, the Arena-Hard SOP baseline improves from 61.71% to 66.23% for GPT-4o (+4.52) and from 60.00% to 66.00% for Claude-3.5-Sonnet (+6.00), with the largest absolute gains on Reasoning and Mathematics. The lift persists when response pairs come from Claude-3.5-Sonnet and when the SOP scaffolding is stripped to a minimal direct-prompting template, suggesting that goal reversal acts on the underlying judging behavior rather than on a particular rubric. Stronger judges benefit more than weaker ones, suggesting that goal reversal exposes additional reasoning capacity rather than compensating for its absence.