The contribution is accordingly not a better estimator but a characterization of \emph{when prior-based correction is justified}, plus designs that supply the missing information when it is not, plus designs that supply the missing information when it is not.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise. Because such judges prefer verbose or well-formatted answers, the natural fix is to add bias covariates to a Bradley--Terry model and estimate the bias away. We show this cannot work as advertised: the quality/bias split is \emph{not identified} by pairwise comparisons, and the failure is exact -- across $48$ real judge-pools the profile likelihood over the coefficient is flat to $\mathbf{0.0000}$ \textbf{nats}, and scaling the comparisons $26\times$ buys none. A ``debiased''score is selected by the prior, not recovered from data. Our contribution is accordingly not a better estimator but a characterization of \emph{when prior-based correction is justified}, plus designs that supply the missing information when it is not. The assumption the prior encodes -- quality is a priori uncorrelated with the covariate -- pays only while $\mathrm{corr}(\theta,x)$ stays below a crossing point (configuration-dependent, $0.22$--$0.60$), which is what makes the same model help on LLMBar and hurt on SummEval and Nectar. We give two escapes: a \textbf{trusted-anchor gate} that decides per (judge, covariate, task) (no false enables in $6{,}000$ decisions at $K\ge10$ anchors, a rate our sample bounds at $\le6\%$), and a \textbf{paired rendering design}. Across fifteen real LLM judges bias is heterogeneous and capability-dependent: correction improves \topk{} recall by $0.20$--$0.32$ on five biased-but-competent cheap judges and is a no-op on frontier ones (Spearman $\rho{=}{-}0.84$ between competence and gain over the $14$ competent judges, $p{<}10^{-3}$), concentrating the benefit where at-scale evaluation happens.
LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap. A natural remedy--a signal from a different evidence source, e.g., executing a test suite--produced no distinguishable change in the panel's effective-vote count at scale (-0.04, 95\% CI [-0.10, +0.02]). Aggregate dependence and conditional decision utility are different questions. Elementary majority arithmetic fixes the affected set for single-ballot substitution: only decisions with a one-vote margin can change. The empirical question is whether panel error rates rise and useful substitutions concentrate there. They do: the entire accuracy gain concentrates on these pivotal queries, where it is large (+10.4 to +23.3 percentage points across three headline configurations), and is exactly zero elsewhere. We confirm the pattern across three code benchmarks and four panel sizes (a 9-judge extension and 56 dependent subsampling checks, gain +6.5 to +16.1 percentage points). On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44\% to 85.62\% while invoking the signal on 16.2\% of queries; signal-only remains stronger at 87.60\%. Thus population-level dependence diagnostics and margin-stratified utility are complementary, and the affected-set characterization yields a call-reduction rule for any specified single-ballot substitution policy.
An LLM-as-judge score can move even when the candidate responses stay fixed, simply because the evaluator has changed. We treat this evaluator-replacement ambiguity as a measurement-validity problem. Across four judgment datasets, we compare two upgrade paths available in practice: scaling Qwen3 dense judges from 1.7B to 32B parameters and moving across MiniMax M2-M2.7 released APIs. The main pattern is that judge upgrades are not interchangeable: only Qwen3 1.7B to 4B gives a robust adjacent gain, while MiniMax adjacent releases do not. Stronger judges reduce but do not remove position and verbosity bias. Repeated-sample juries add little when errors are correlated. Structured debate can move decisions substantially, but without parser and fallback logs those shifts cannot be attributed to deliberation. We argue that LLM-as-judge reports should include dataset slices, bias probes, error-dependence estimates, and protocol audit trails.
Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge. In this paper, we test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance. We evaluate two different strategies for mitigating bias. The first uses a generation-then-matching approach, and the second scores options in isolation, which is positionally unbiased by construction. Neither reliably improves accuracy. A complete decomposition shows that the bottleneck is withholding options, not the matching step. The only configuration that consistently matches the baseline is the one that shows the model all options paired with an LLM matcher. However, eliminating positional influence entirely still does not reliably yield accuracy gains, while cyclic permutation often improves them. For two-stage prompting, an aggregate measure of recall imbalance and a direct per-question measure of order sensitivity both fail to show reliable debiasing.
It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al.· 0 citations
ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, complementary to standard accuracy-based evaluation.
M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
A crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition is specified that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embeds the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target reliability.