arXiv (All)
open access
A CaLLM Judge is a Better Judge: Mitigating Bias in LLM-as-a-judge
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to predict which of two candidate answers a human evaluator would prefer, providing a scalable alternative when human evaluation is too costly. Unfortunately, LLM judgments can exhibit systematic biases. Prior work has documented position,
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- PRISM: Calibrating Black-Box Judges with Counterfactual Probes#1343900
- The Lifecycle of LLM-as-a-Judge for Large-Scale Recommendation Explanations#819452
- The Lifecycle of LLM-as-a-Judge for Large-Scale Recommendation Explanations#809456
- Do Reasoning Representations Help Humans Evaluate LLM Outputs?#986647
- Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Beyond Score Alignment: A Psychometric Analysis of Residual Judging Difficulty#1187555
Record · ID 1343299
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive