mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

UDA: Unsupervised Debiasing Alignment for Pair-wise LLM-as-a-Judge

arXiv 2508.09724 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2025cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Pairwise evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a common paradigm, but it is prone to preference bias, where judges systematically favor certain outputs, such as their own. This bias leads to inconsistent and skewed rankings across different judges. To address this, we first empirically demonstrate significant and heterogeneous biases in cross-model evaluations. We then propose UDA (Unsupervised Debiasing Alignment), a framework that reduces inter-judge disagreement by dynamically adjusting the Elo rating system. For each pairwise comparison, a compact neural network learns to adaptively set the K-factor and refine win probabilities. Crucially, UDA operates in a fully unsupervised manner, guided solely by the objective of minimizing the dispersion among the Elo trajectories of all judges. This forces an alignment towards a collective consensus, which serves as an unsupervised proxy for a more stable and reproducible evaluation. In addition, we provide theoretical motivation demonstrating how alignment towards a consensus can reduce aggregate system bias. Experiments show that UDA significantly reduces the inter-judge rating standard deviation by up to 63.4% and improves the average correlation with human judgments by 24.7%. Notably, UDA elevates the performance of poorly performing judges to achieve parity with high-quality ones, fostering a more robust and reliable evaluation ecosystem. Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/62AB93CD-23B4.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground Truth
  2. 2024Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators
  3. 2026Pair Difficulty Matters: Rethinking Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation and Consistency
  4. 2026From Uncertain Judgments to Calibrated Rankings: Conformal Elo Estimation for LLM Evaluation
  5. 2026JudgeStealer: Extracting LLM Judging Capabilities across Evaluation Protocols
  6. 2026JudgeArena: A Unified Framework for Reproducible LLM-Judge Evaluation
  7. 2026Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization
  8. 2026Unbiased Alignment for Large Language Models with Noisy Preferences