Adaptive Repetition for Mitigating Position Bias in LLM-Based Ranking
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When using LLMs to rank items based on given criteria, or evaluate answers, the order of candidate items can influence the model's final decision. This sensitivity to item positioning in a LLM's prompt is known as position bias. Prior research shows that this bias exists even in large models, though its severity varies across models and tasks. In addition to position bias, LLMs also exhibit varying degrees of low repetition consistency, where repeating the LLM call with the same candidate ordering can lead to different rankings. To address both inconsistencies, a common approach is to prompt the model multiple times with different candidate orderings and aggregate the results via majority voting. However, this repetition strategy, significantly increases computational costs. Extending prior findings, we observe that both the direction -- favoring either the earlier or later candidate in the prompt -- and magnitude of position bias across instances vary substantially, even within a single dataset. This observation highlights the need for a per-instance mitigation strategy. To this end, we introduce a dynamic early-stopping method that adaptively determines the number of repetitions required for each instance. Evaluating our approach across three LLMs of varying sizes and on two tasks, namely re-ranking and alignment, we demonstrate that transitioning to a dynamic repetition strategy reduces the number of LLM calls by an average of 81%, while preserving the accuracy. Furthermore, we propose a confidence-based adaptation to our early-stopping method, reducing LLM calls by an average of 87% compared to static repetition, with only a slight accuracy trade-off relative to our original early-stopping method.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jul 2025.
Builds on
13 of 21 references.
References · 13
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
- 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 494
- 2023Orca: Progressive Learning from Complex Explanation Traces of GPT-4cited by 379
- 2024MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmarkcited by 372
- 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 368
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 269
- 2024Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigationcited by 77
- 2023Split and Merge: Aligning Position Biases in LLM-based Evaluatorscited by 72
- 2024Eliminating Position Bias of Language Models: A Mechanistic Approachcited by 65
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.