Doubly-Robust LLM-as-a-Judge: Externally Valid Estimation with Imperfect Personas
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As Generative AI (GenAI) systems see growing adoption, a key concern involves the external validity of evaluations, or the extent to which they generalize from lab-based to real-world deployment conditions. Threats to the external validity of GenAI evaluations arise when the source sample of human raters and system outputs used to obtain a system quality estimate differs from the target distribution at deployment time. In this work, we propose a doubly-robust estimation framework designed to address this evaluation sampling bias. Key to our approach is the use of "persona" ratings produced by prompting an LLM evaluator (i.e., an LLM-as-a-judge) to behave as a human rater with specific sociodemographic characteristics. Our doubly-robust framework combines these informative yet imperfect persona ratings with human ratings obtained under evaluation sampling bias to produce statistically valid system quality estimates. In particular, we show that our approach yields valid system quality estimates when either (i) a model trained to predict human ratings using persona ratings and source data observed under sampling bias, or (ii) a reweighting model that corrects for sampling bias is of sufficient quality. We validate our framework theoretically and via a novel Persona Simulation Framework (PSF) designed to systematically manipulate persona quality and the degree of evaluation sampling bias present in source data. Our work provides a principled foundation for combining imperfect persona ratings with human ratings observed under sampling bias to obtain valid system quality estimates.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 39 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2025.
Builds on
39 of 69 references.
References · 39
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,592
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
- 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 494
- 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 368
- 2023ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systemscited by 265
- 2023Prediction-Powered Inferencecited by 220
- 2024The PRISM Alignment Dataset: What Participatory, Representative and Individualised Human Feedback Reveals About the Subjective and Multicultural Alignment of Large Language Modelscited by 144
- 2023PPI++: Efficient Prediction-Powered Inferencecited by 117
- 2024Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?cited by 100
- 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
27 more
- 2024PERSONA: A Reproducible Testbed for Pluralistic Alignmentcited by 73
- 2025Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluationcited by 57
- 2023Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gapcited by 56
- 2024Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the datacited by 51
- 2023Diminished Diversity-of-Thought in a Standard Large Language Modelcited by 45
- 2023The Shifted and The Overlooked: A Task-oriented Investigation of User-GPT Interactionscited by 45
- 2025Toward an Evaluation Science for Generative AI Systemscited by 45
- 2021RieszNet and ForestRiesz: Automatic Debiased Machine Learning with Neural Nets and Random Forestscited by 42
- 2023Using Imperfect Surrogates for Downstream Inference: Design-based Supervised Learning for Social Science Applications of Large Language Modelscited by 39
- 2025Predictions as Surrogates: Revisiting Surrogate Outcomes in the Age of AIcited by 34
- 2017Augmented Minimax Linear Estimationcited by 33
- 2025Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text Perceptionscited by 33
- 2024Beyond correlation: The Impact of Human Uncertainty in Measuring the Effectiveness of Automatic Evaluation and LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 31
- 2024Prediction-Powered Ranking of Large Language Modelscited by 29
- 2024Stratified Prediction-Powered Inference for Hybrid Language Model Evaluationcited by 26
- 2023The Moral Machine Experiment on Large Language Modelscited by 25
- 2024Personas with Attitudes: Controlling LLMs for Diverse Data Annotationcited by 21
- 2023Automatic Debiased Machine Learning for Covariate Shiftscited by 16
- 2024A Framework for Efficient Model Evaluation through Stratification, Sampling, and Estimationcited by 14
- 2025A Unified Framework for Semiparametrically Efficient Semi-Supervised Learningcited by 14
- 2025When Personalization Meets Reality: A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Personalized Preference Learningcited by 9
- 2025PersonaTeaming: Exploring How Introducing Personas Can Improve Automated AI Red-Teamingcited by 9
- 2025Valid Inference with Imperfect Synthetic Datacited by 7
- 2024Prediction-Guided Active Experimentscited by 6
- 2025Should you use LLMs to simulate opinions? Quality checks for early-stage deliberationcited by 6
- 2025Optimal Causal Annotations: An Application to Casenotes in Social Servicescited by 3
- 2024Auto-GDA: Automatic Domain Adaptation for Efficient Grounding Verification in Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 7.
8 papers.
- 2026This human study did not involve human subjects: Validating LLM simulations as behavioral evidencecited by 29
- 2026The Illusion of Intervention: Your LLM-Simulated Experiment is an Observational Studycited by 5
- 2025Causal Judge Evaluation: Calibrated Surrogate Metrics for LLM Systemscited by 3
- 2026Causal methods for LLM development and evaluationcited by 2
- 2026Mitigating LLM-based p-Hacking by Preregistering for the Next LLMcited by 2
- 2026Beyond the Training Distribution: Evaluating Predictions Under Distribution Shift and Selection Biascited by 1
- 2026Which Metrics Save the Most Human Annotation? Prediction-Powered Evaluation and Meta-Evaluationcited by 1
- 2026When Can You Trust Your Synthetic Users? Diagnostics and Corrections for LLM Consumer Panelscited by 1
- 2026Which Metrics Save the Most Human Annotation? Prediction-Powered Evaluation and Meta-Evaluation27 Aug 2026
- 2026Mitigating LLM-based p-Hacking by Preregistering for the Next LLM26 Jun 2026
- 2026Beyond the Training Distribution: Evaluating Predictions Under Distribution Shift and Selection Bias12 Jun 2026
- 2026When Can You Trust Your Synthetic Users? Diagnostics and Corrections for LLM Consumer Panels3 Jun 2026
- 2026Causal methods for LLM development and evaluation25 May 2026
- 2026The Illusion of Intervention: Your LLM-Simulated Experiment is an Observational Study20 May 2026
- 2026This human study did not involve human subjects: Validating LLM simulations as behavioral evidence17 Feb 2026
- 2025Causal Judge Evaluation: Calibrated Surrogate Metrics for LLM Systems11 Dec 2025