// the idea
Grading open-ended outputs (chat, summaries, code) by hand doesn't scale, and exact-match metrics don't fit. So you hand a strong model a rubric and let it score each answer — like a tireless teaching assistant with an answer key. It can score one answer against the rubric, or compare two and pick the better. Strong judges have agreed with human preferences over 80% of the time on MT-Bench — about the rate humans agree with each other.
Bias one: position
Show a judge answer A then B and it leans toward the first. Swap them and it leans first again. Same two answers — the order changed the winner, not the quality. In pairwise code judging, flipping the order has moved accuracy by more than ten points.
Bias two: length & self-love
Judges reward longer answers — a padded reply with the same facts often out-scores a tight, correct one. And they quietly prefer writing that sounds like their own (self-preference).
De-bias it, then check it
None of this makes LLM-as-judge useless — it makes it something you calibrate:
Sources: Zheng et al. — Judging LLM-as-a-Judge (MT-Bench), NeurIPS 2023 · Justice or Prejudice? position bias · Self-Preference Bias
One concept a week. Free.
The deeper, copy-paste version of each ToolCall short — in your inbox.
// total: 0.00 · spam: void · unsubscribe: one click
