UDA: Unsupervised Debiasing Alignment for Pair-wise LLM-as-a-Judge
Yang Zhang, Cunxiang Wang, Lindong Wu, Wenbo Yu, Yidong Wang, Guangsheng Bao, Jie Tang
Abstract
Pairwise evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a common paradigm, but it is prone to preference bias, where judges systematically favor certain outputs, such as their own. This bias leads to inconsistent and skewed rankings across different judges. To address this, we first empirically demonstrate significant and heterogeneous biases in cross-model evaluations. We then propose UDA (Unsupervised Debiasing Alignment), a framework that reduces inter-judge disagreement by dynamically adjusting the Elo rating system. For each pairwise comparison, a compact neural network learns to adaptively set the K-factor and refine win probabilities. Crucially, UDA operates in a fully unsupervised manner, guided solely by the objective of minimizing the dispersion among the Elo trajectories of all judges. This forces an alignment towards a collective consensus, which serves as an unsupervised proxy for a more stable and reproducible evaluation. In addition, we provide theoretical motivation demonstrating how alignment towards a consensus can reduce aggregate system bias. Experiments show that UDA significantly reduces the inter-judge rating standard deviation by up to 63.4% and improves the average correlation with human judgments by 24.7%. Notably, UDA elevates the performance of poorly performing judges to achieve parity with high-quality ones, fostering a more robust and reliable evaluation ecosystem. Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/62AB93CD-23B4 .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 1b0d3926-7726-4d9d-a936-6046cabcbf9dCited by top-tier papers2
- Fewer Battles, More Gain: An Information-Efficient Framework for Arena-based LLM EvaluationZirui Liu, Xianquan Wang, Yan Zhuang, Jiatong Li et al.ICLR 2026
- Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge EvaluationsMagda Dubois, Harry Coppock, Mario Giulianelli, Ole Jorgensen et al.ICML 2026
Builds on6
- Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human PreferenceWei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos et al.ICML 2024 · 1,212 citations
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
- Large Language Models are not Fair EvaluatorsPeiyi Wang, Lei Li, Liang Chen, Zefan Cai et al.ACL 2024
- Re-evaluating Open-ended Evaluation of Large Language ModelsSiqi Liu, Ian Gemp, Luke Marris, Georgios Piliouras et al.ICLR 2025
- Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-RefinementWenda Xu, Guanglei Zhu, Xuandong Zhao, Liangming Pan et al.ACL 2024
Related papers
- Bridging Human and LLM Judgments: Understanding and Narrowing the GapFelipe Maia Polo, Xinhe Wang, Mikhail Yurochkin, Gongjun Xu et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- CalibraEval: Calibrating Prediction Distribution to Mitigate Selection Bias in LLMs-as-JudgesHaitao Li, Junjie Chen, Qingyao Ai, Zhumin Chu et al.ACL 2025
- Ranking Unraveled: Recipes for LLM Rankings in Head-to-Head AI CombatRoland Daynauth, Christopher Clarke, Krisztián Flautner, Lingjia Tang et al.ACL 2025
- Co-Eval: Augmenting LLM-based Evaluation with Machine MetricsLing-I Wu, Weijie Wu, Minyu Chen, Jianxin Xue et al.EMNLP 2025
- Elo Uncovered: Robustness and Best Practices in Language Model EvaluationMeriem Boubdir, Edward Kim, Beyza Ermis, Sara Hooker et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 94 citations
