Any Large Language Model Can Be a Reliable Judge: Debiasing with a Reasoning-based Bias Detector
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively. These results highlight RBD's effectiveness and scalability. Additional experiments further demonstrate its strong generalization across biases and domains, as well as its efficiency.
Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 3 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 May 2025.
Builds on
3 of 59 references.
References · 3
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2023Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignmentcited by 169
- 2024A Better LLM Evaluator for Text Generation: The Impact of Prompt Output Sequencing and Optimizationcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 13.
14 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 25
- 2026Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimizationcited by 9
- 2026Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelinescited by 8
- 2026Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judgescited by 4
- 2026Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 3
- 2026SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?cited by 3
- 2026Style Wins, Substance Loses: A Diagnosis of LLM-as-Judge in Idea Generationcited by 2
- 2026Towards general embodied intelligence: integrating large language models, knowledge bases, and reasoning capabilities to build the next generation of AI agentscited by 1
- 2026Making Bias Non-Predictive: Training Robust LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026EO-Agents: A Three-Agent LLM Pipeline for Earth Observation Hypothesis Generationcited by 0
- 2026Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judgescited by 0
- 2026Adaptive Triggering for Bias Correction in LLM Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026DIAL: Position-Debiased LLM Judges with Adaptive Human Preference Calibration25 Sep 2026
- 2026Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration10 Sep 2026
- 2026Adaptive Triggering for Bias Correction in LLM Reasoning26 Aug 2026
- 2026Towards general embodied intelligence: integrating large language models, knowledge bases, and reasoning capabilities to build the next generation of AI agents20 Aug 2026
- 2026Style Wins, Substance Loses: A Diagnosis of LLM-as-Judge in Idea Generation3 Aug 2026
- 2026EO-Agents: A Three-Agent LLM Pipeline for Earth Observation Hypothesis Generation2 Jul 2026
- 2026SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?5 Jun 2026
- 2026Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges19 May 2026
- 2026Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines25 Apr 2026
- 2026Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judge7 Apr 2026
- 2026Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization9 Mar 2026
- 2026Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges14 Feb 2026
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 25
- 2026Towards general embodied intelligence: integrating large language models, knowledge bases, and reasoning capabilities to build the next generation of AI agentscited by 1
- 2026Making Bias Non-Predictive: Training Robust LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026Adaptive Triggering for Bias Correction in LLM Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026Adaptive Triggering for Bias Correction in LLM Reasoning26 Aug 2026
- 2026Towards general embodied intelligence: integrating large language models, knowledge bases, and reasoning capabilities to build the next generation of AI agents20 Aug 2026
- 2026Making Bias Non-Predictive: Training Robust LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning2 Feb 2026
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Models4 Sep 2025
- 2026Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelinescited by 8
- 2026Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 3
- 2026SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?cited by 3
- 2026Style Wins, Substance Loses: A Diagnosis of LLM-as-Judge in Idea Generationcited by 2
- 2026Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judgescited by 0
- 2026Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibrationcited by 0
- 2026Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration10 Sep 2026
- 2026Style Wins, Substance Loses: A Diagnosis of LLM-as-Judge in Idea Generation3 Aug 2026
- 2026SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?5 Jun 2026
- 2026Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges19 May 2026
- 2026Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines25 Apr 2026
- 2026Label Effects: Shared Heuristic Reliance in Trust Assessment by Humans and LLM-as-a-Judge7 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025BiasGuard: A Reasoning-enhanced Bias Detection Tool For Large Language Models
- 2026Biases in the Blind Spot: Detecting What LLMs Fail to Mention
- 2025Reasoning Towards Fairness: Mitigating Bias in Language Models through Reasoning-Guided Fine-Tuning
- 2025Does Reasoning Introduce Bias? A Study of Social Bias Evaluation and Mitigation in LLM Reasoning
- 2024Towards Resource Efficient and Interpretable Bias Mitigation in Large Language Models
- 2025BiasFilter: An Inference-Time Debiasing Framework for Large Language Models
- 2025Assessing Judging Bias in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study
- 2026Self-Debias: Self-correcting for Debiasing Large Language Models