CARE: Confounder-Aware Aggregation for Reliable LLM Evaluation
Jitian Zhao, Changho Shin, Tzu-Heng Huang, Satya Sai Srinath Namburi GNVV, Frederic Sala
Abstract
LLM-as-a-judge ensembles are the standard paradigm for scalable evaluation, but their aggregation mechanisms suffer from a fundamental flaw: they implicitly assume that judges provide independent estimates of true quality. However, in practice, LLM judges exhibit correlated errors caused by shared latent confounders-such as verbosity, stylistic preferences, or training artifactscausing standard aggregation rules like majority vote or averaging to provide little gain or even amplify systematic mistakes. To address this, we introduce CARE, a confounder-aware aggregation framework that explicitly models LLM judge scores as arising from both a latent true-quality signal and shared confounding factors. Rather than heuristically re-weighting judges, CARE separates quality from confounders without access to ground-truth labels. We provide theoretical guarantees for identifiability and finite-sample recovery under shared confounders, and we quantify the systematic bias incurred when aggregation models omit confounding latent factors. Across 12 public benchmarks spanning continuous scoring, binary classification, and pairwise preference settings, CARE improves aggregation accuracy, reducing error by up to 26.8%. Code is released in https://github.com/SprocketLab/CARE .
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 65ae83c5-920e-49b2-a6ba-087fe2f148e3Builds on21
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning OptimizationYidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Wenjin Yao, Zhengran Zeng et al.ICLR 2024 · 368 citations
- Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable InformationKawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, Swabha SwayamdiptaICML 2022 · 337 citations
- Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction FollowingZhiyuan Zeng, Jiatong Yu, Tianyu Gao, Yu Meng et al.ICLR 2024 · 299 citations
- Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?David Cheng-Han Chiang, Hung-yi LeeACL 2023 · 254 citations
Related papers
- A Judge-Aware Ranking Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models without Ground TruthMingyuan Xu, Xinzi Tan, Jiawei Wu, Doudou ZhouICML 2026
- Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-JudgeJiayi Ye, Yanbo Wang, Yue Huang, Dongping Chen et al.ICLR 2025
- Dependence-Aware Label Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge via Ising ModelsKrishna Balasubramanian, Aleksandr Podkopaev, Shiva KasiviswanathanICML 2026
- Bridging Human and LLM Judgments: Understanding and Narrowing the GapFelipe Maia Polo, Xinhe Wang, Mikhail Yurochkin, Gongjun Xu et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- Correlated Errors in Large Language ModelsElliot Myunghoon Kim, Avi Garg, Kenny Peng, Nikhil GargICML 2025
