# Fairness or Fluency? An Investigation into Language Bias of Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13649 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.13649/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [The Perfect Blend: Redefining RLHF with Mixture of Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.20370/) (2024)
- [Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20267/) (2024)
- [M-Prometheus: A Suite of Open Multilingual LLM Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.04953/) (2025)
- [How Reliable is Multilingual LLM-as-a-Judge?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12201/) (2025)
- [Cross-Lingual Auto Evaluation for Assessing Multilingual LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13394/) (2024)
- [Dialectal Toxicity Detection: Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Consistency Across Language Varieties](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10954/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Language Shapes Mental Health Evaluations in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06910/) (2026)
- [Unlocking Fine-Grained Translation Quality Estimation in LRMs through Mutually Boosting Implicit and Explicit Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.31378/) (2026)
- [Summarization is Not Dead Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08000/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have incentivized the development of LLM-as-a-judge, an application of LLMs where they are used as judges to decide the quality of a certain piece of text given a certain context. However, previous studies have demonstrated that LLM-as-a-judge can be biased towards different aspects of the judged texts, which often do not align with human preference. One of the identified biases is language bias, which indicates that the decision of LLM-as-a-judge can differ based on the language of the judged texts. In this paper, we study two types of language bias in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge: (1) performance disparity between languages when the judge is prompted to compare options from the same language, and (2) bias towards options written in major languages when the judge is prompted to compare options of two different languages. We find that for same-language judging, there exist significant performance disparities across language families, with European languages consistently outperforming African languages, and this bias is more pronounced in culturally-related subjects. For inter-language judging, we observe that most models favor English answers, and that this preference is influenced more by answer language than question language. Finally, we investigate whether language bias is in fact caused by low-perplexity bias, a previously identified bias of LLM-as-a-judge, and we find that while perplexity is slightly correlated with language bias, language bias cannot be fully explained by perplexity only.