Mitigating Judgment Preference Bias in Large Language Models through Group-Based Polling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators, commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, have also attracted growing attention. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human judgments, providing accurate and reliable assessments. However, LLM-based judgment models often exhibit judgment preference bias during the evaluation phase, tending to favor responses generated by themselves, undermining the reliability of their judgments. This paper introduces the Group-Based Polling Optimization (Genii), an unsupervised multi-agent collaborative optimization framework that mitigates the inherent judgment preference bias of judgment models. Specifically, Genii integrates various LLM-based judgment models into a multi-agent system and simulates the interactive client-server polling mechanism to optimize each client agent unsupervisedly. Our experiments demonstrate that Genii outperforms supervised models trained on annotated judgment data, while requiring no human-labeled annotations. Genii consistently improves performance across different client agents during the polling, even when weaker models act as server agents. Further analysis reveals that Genii effectively mitigates judgment preference bias of LLM-based judgment models, demonstrating its effectiveness. All codes are available at https://github.com/NEUIR/Genii.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2025.
Builds on
30 of 51 references.
References · 30
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,928
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,384
- 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,116
- 2017Deep Mutual Learningcited by 621
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 558
- 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 431
18 more
- 2023UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedbackcited by 394
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 351
- 2024JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judgescited by 294
- 2024Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answerscited by 255
- 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 248
- 2022ASQA: Factoid Questions Meet Long-Form Answerscited by 231
- 2024Meta-Rewarding Language Models: Self-Improving Alignment with LLM-as-a-Meta-Judgecited by 202
- 2023VisIT-Bench: A Benchmark for Vision-Language Instruction Following Inspired by Real-World Usecited by 100
- 2025Don't Overthink it. Preferring Shorter Thinking Chains for Improved LLM Reasoningcited by 82
- 2024Self-Alignment for Factuality: Mitigating Hallucinations in LLMs via Self-Evaluationcited by 79
- 2024Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypescited by 58
- 2025Do LLM Evaluators Prefer Themselves for a Reason?cited by 38
- 2024RAG-DDR: Optimizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation Using Differentiable Data Rewardscited by 33
- 2025Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in LLM Judgmentscited by 30
- 2023SocREval: Large Language Models with the Socratic Method for Reference-Free Reasoning Evaluationcited by 27
- 2019Pairwise Learning to Rank by Neural Networks Revisited: Reconstruction, Theoretical Analysis and Practical Performancecited by 13
- 2024DHP Benchmark: Are LLMs Good NLG Evaluators?cited by 12
- 2025Assistant-Guided Mitigation of Teacher Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Leveraging LLMs as Meta-Judges: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating LLM Judgments
- 2026Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization
- 2025Judging with Many Minds: Do More Perspectives Mean Less Prejudice? On Bias Amplifications and Resistance in Multi-Agent Based LLM-as-Judge
- 2025Breaking the Mirror: Activation-Based Mitigation of Self-Preference in LLM Evaluators
- 2024LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making
- 2024Direct Judgement Preference Optimization
- 2025Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation
- 2026Automated Concept Discovery for LLM-as-a-Judge Preference Analysis