# Mitigating Rubric Interference in LLM Judges via On-Policy Self-Distillation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14684 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14684/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in On-policy and self-distillation for LLMs, one of 12 directions in Knowledge distillation.
- Builds on 22 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Knowledge distillation / [On-policy and self-distillation for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/distill/on-policy-and-self-distillation-for-llms/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13649/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Self-Play Fine-Tuning Converts Weak Language Models to Strong Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01335/) (2024)
- [Born Again Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.04770/) (2018)
- [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)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01017/) (2021)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00595/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12624/) (2024)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [ResearchQA: Evaluating Scholarly Question Answering at Scale Across 75 Fields with Survey-Mined Questions and Rubrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.00496/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22316/) (2025)
- [CalibraEval: Calibrating Prediction Distribution to Mitigate Selection Bias in LLMs-as-Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15393/) (2024)
- [Rubric Is All You Need: Enhancing LLM-based Code Evaluation With Question-Specific Rubrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23989/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM judges increasingly evaluate responses against fine-grained rubric checklists. When a sample requires multiple rubrics, current methods typically assess each in a separate inference call. Evaluating all rubrics in a single pass is a natural alternative with greater efficiency, but we find that it introduces rubric interference: the verdict on one rubric shifts depending on which other rubrics are co-present. In a preliminary study, only one-third of samples receive fully consistent verdicts when evaluated under rubric sets of varying composition. We develop a measurement framework that probes interference through four controlled operations: rubric set expansion, subsetting, reordering, and noise injection. To mitigate interference without external supervision, we propose Self-Anchored Rubric Alignment (SARA). SARA uses a model's own single-rubric judgments as stable anchors and aligns multi-rubric reasoning with these anchors through on-policy self-distillation. We validate SARA on three datasets (HealthBench, FLASK, ResearchQA) and two model families (Qwen3, Llama-3.1). SARA consistently improves evaluation consistency while maintaining agreement with both base models and GPT-4.1 as a reference judge. Furthermore, the learned consistency transfers across datasets, confirming that SARA teaches a general capability rather than fitting dataset-specific patterns.