BiasScope: Towards Automated Detection of Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
Authors: Peng Lai
Zhihao Ou
Yong Wang
Longyue Wang
Jian Yang
Yun Chen
Guanhua Chen
Venue: ICLR 2026 Poster (2026)
Keywords: LLM-as-a-Judge
bias
Primary area: alignment, fairness, safety, privacy, and societal considerations

Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evaluations. To bridge this gap, we propose BiasScope, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BiasScope can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias discovery from a passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on BiasScope, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50\% on JudgeBench-Pro, underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robustness and to mitigate potential biases further.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
BIASSCOPE: TOWARDS AUTOMATED DETECTION OF BIAS IN LLM- A-AS-AJJUDGE EVALUATION
Peng Lai'; Zhihao Ou'; Yong Wang", Longyue , Jian Yang", Yun Chen Guanhua Chen
'Southern University of Science and Technology. 2 AAlibaba Group Beihang University, *Shanghai University of Finance and Economies
Code
JudgeBench-Pre Pro
ABSTRACT
LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of evaluation remain a critical issue. core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in terms of known biases and their impact on evaluation outcomes, while automated and systematic exploration of potential unknown biases is still lacking. Nevertheless, such exploration is crucial for enhancing the robustness and reliability of evalua- tions. To bridge this gap, we propose BIASSCOPE, LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. BIASSCOPE can uncover potential biases across different model fam- ilies and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. It overcomes the limitations of existing approaches, transforming bias dis- covery from passive process relying on manual effort and predefined bias lists into an active and comprehensive automated exploration. Moreover, based on extended version of JudgeBench
BIASSCOPE, we propose JudgeBench-Pro, and more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM--as--- judge. Strikingly, even powerful LLMs as evaluators show error rates above 50% on JudgeBench-Prre underscoring the urgent need to strengthen evaluation robust- ness and to mitigate potential biases further.
INTRODUCTION
With the optimization of algorithms and model architectures, the field of Al has gradually entered the second phase-the the era of evaluation (Fei et al.) 2025). Model improvement no longer relies solely on training, rather, it increasingly depends on practical evaluation to uncover potential short- comings and guide further enhancement (Gu et al., 2025). LLM-as-a-Judge (Zheng et al.) 2023), as a promising new paradigm, offers advantages over traditional methods by leveraging the large lan- guage model (LLM) "judge" to evaluate model outputs at scale in diverse and dynamic settings with automation and consistency (Wei et al.) 2025 Li et al. (2225a). Moreover, LLM-as-a-Judge has now been extensively adopted across wide range of research and application domains, includ- ing benchmark construction (Lambert et al. 2024 Tan et al. 2025), data curation (Wu et al. 2024
Chen et al., 2024b), and model performance evaluation (Zheng et al. 2023 Li et al. )023). Con- sequently, given its widespread adoption, ensuring the reliability and robustness of LLM-as-a- judgee has become a critical challenge that urgently needs to addressed.
The core challenge faced by -LMe-as-a-judge primarily stems from bias (Chen et al. 2024a). Bias refers to the systematic, non-random tendencies exhibited by Judge I.L.M during answer evalu- ation, which can lead its assessments to deviate from objective and equitable standards, thereby affecting the robustness and reliability of the evaluation (Wang et al. (023). Early studies primarily focused on verifying whether LLMs maintain robustness when affected by biases, or mitigating
"Equal contribution.
1 "orresponning author.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
the impacts of such biases, with common types including gender bias (Prabhune et al. 2025 length bias (Ye et al. 2024p, self-bias (Xu et al. (2024). position bias (Li et al., 2024). and so on. Mean- while, related work (c.g., CALM YEe et al. 2024)) has attempted known biases to quantify the extent of bias exhibited by L.-M-as-a-judge. However, these stud- ies are primarily limited verifying and analyzing known biases, lacking systematic exploration of potential or unidentified biases, which may have more significant impact on the reliability of LLM- as-a-Judge and the fairness of its assessment outcomes. Identifying such potential biases manually is challenging to scale, which naturally raises the question: how can potential biases be discovered in an automated and large-scale manner?
construct benchmarks using
To address this question, we propose BIASSCOPE, framework that iteratively and automatically discovers potential diversity biases in the LLM evaluation process. BIASSCOPE consists of two phases: (1) Bias Discovery, teacher model is leveraged to inject basic biases into the target dataset to trigger and identify potential biases in the target model; (2) Bias Validation, the effectiveness of candidate biases in perturbing the target model is assessed on test dataset, and the biases confirmed to be effective are then integrated into the basic bias library. This process is then iterated to obtain more diverse and effective biases in target models continuously. We conduct reliability validation of BIASSCOPE, confirming that its observed effects are not caused by perturbations that increase response length modify answers, and we find that incorporating preference data synthesized from the discovered biases into DPO (Rafailov et al. 2024) training further mitigates the biases exhibited by the model during evaluation.
Moreover, building upon JudgeBench (Tan et al. 2025), we use BIASSCOPE to construct a more challenging benchmark, JudgeBench-PPig designed evaluate the assessment capabilities and bustness of LLM-as-a-judge. This Benchmark was carefully curated through verification by power- ful LLMs and rigorous manual review. The evaluation results show that, among the five mainstream powerful models, four performed at or below the level of random guessing, with an average error rate 25.9% higher than on JudgeBench. These findings indicate that ensuring the robustness of current LLMe-a--aJJude remains challenging.
To summarize, our main contributions are as follows:
We propose BIASSCOPE, a framework entirely driven by large language models that can auto- matically and at scale discover potential biases that may arise during model evaluation.
BIASSCOPE can mine potential biases in models across different families and scales, and its generality and effectiveness validated the objective and reliable JudgeBench dataset.
Leveraging our framework BIASSCOPE, we developed JudgeBench-Pro. more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLMs as judges, extending the original JudgeBench.
2 BIASSCOPE
To systematically uncover potential biases in the target model, we propose BIASSCOPE, an iterative framework (Figure D. The detailed pscudocode is provided in Algorithm BIASSCOPE leverages random bias perturbations combined with the target model's misjudgment self-explanations in- duce the model to expose more diverse potential biases, which are then analyzed and identified using teacher model ($2.2). These biases are subsequently compared against known bias library and validated through perturbation tests, retaining only those that are both novel and genuinely reflected in the model's 's behavior, thereby enabling the bias space self-expand and self-converge ($2.3).
2.1 GENERAL PROBLEM FORMULATION OF AUTOMATIC BIAS DISCOVERY
In this section, we formalize the problem of automatic bias discovery in the LLM-as- judge paradigm. Following previous work (Tan et al. 2025 Ye et al. 2024), we adopt the pair-wise evaluation approach to identify the potential biases of LLM--as---Judae better and reduce confound- ing effects. Let D- = {(z,, yf vf ) denote a target preference dataset, where I; is the input instruction, yf is the chosen response, and yf is the rejected response. We denote the target model as M. which is the model whose potential biases we aim to analyze. Let Bd = (b) by.....bur bx) denote the initial bias library, where each be represents known bias (e.g., tends to favor longer responses).
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Bias Discovery
Bias Validation
Integrate
Basic Bioses Library
Merge
Length Bias: the model favors langer
own responses...
Merged New Bicses
New Biases
Volid Bioses
Volidate Bios
Exploit interfere
RUS
Target Detaset
Teacher Model
Identify Bios
Target Model
Resulfs
Biased Example
Evaluate
Question:
gasoline?
Deeper
biased varionts
Chosen: Crade hested in refincry; vapor separated beiling point,
explonction
Wrony set with deeper explonation
Wrong set
Rejected: Just
oil hours turn into clear guoliiee
Test Dctaset
Authority blased rejected: "Direct sunlight will transform crull into guoline one day " Dr. Eliza Vornoff, 2021 Global
Evaluate
Sunengy & l'uels Summik
B Bicsed Target
Dataset
Target Model
Test Datoset
Merged New Bioses
The Overview of BIASSCOPE, In the Bias Discovery phase (Left), we evaluate the target model on the target dataset perturbed by known biases to expose further potential biases, which are then discovered by teacher model. In the Bias Validation phase (Right), we introduce a test dataset examine the effectiveness of the discovered biases. Based on the evaluation results, valid biases are retained and incorporated into the basic bias library to support subsequent iterations.
Figure I:
The goal is to iteratively expand this library through two phases: discovering potential biases and validating their significance. Assume that at iteration f, the bias library is B₁
> In the discovery phase, candidate biases are generated via a function DiscoverBias(-)) which systematically detects potential biases based on model outputs, explanations, or other auxiliary information Ar. The candidate bias set C, b.....b... is generated as
b,,,,
C DiscoverBias D, D.
In the validation phase, each candidate bias b E C, is evaluated using verification function Verify(b) E {0, which assesses the bias based on criteria such as significance (impact on judgments). A bias is deemed valid if Verify(b) 1. The bias library is updated
B++1 = B, U {b Verify 1, E C.).
until convergence, which occurs when candidate biases will be verified (Cr = 0), the bias library stabilizes (Br+1 = Br), or i reaches the maximum iteration T Timx (t Tmax). Then, the process will output the final bias library Br-
The process iterates over 0, 1, ..... T
2.2 EFFICIENT BIAS DISCOVERY VIA A TEACHER MODEL.
To achieve more efficient and diverse discovery, introduce teacher model Mr assist in this process. We apply a sampled bias by ~ B, to each rejected response yf E D associated with input 2;, and then require the teacher generate its biased variant of while preserving the original outcome as much as possible, constructing a perturbed dataset D, (step ① in Figure
D, = ((,,, uf Φ)) 7 Perturb(æ;; v," by; MT), , by ~ Br, (I,, 1/, w! D)}.
(3)
The target model M is evaluated on the perturbed dataset D,, generating corresponding explanation E; and predictions ÿ as {Ūt, E = Evaluate (D,; M)), where Evaluate MM represents the process of evaluating M. Then, we extract the misjudged instances together with their associated explanation construct a new dataset Dinis (steps and @ Figure !p:
D.mis = ((x; vf. E,) ((.. E = Evaluate Svaluate(D;;:)) M)) 1 * vfl = 1, (x, (x..VE. v. E D.).
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
where lg: # yfl denotes the indicator function. Although Disis contains instances of the model's misjudgments along with erroneous explanations, these explanations alone are insufficient to fully reveal the model's 's evaluation biases. To further elicit the model's 's potential biases, we employ an error cascading strategy: the model generates deeper explanations for its own erroneous reasoning, thereby inducing more profouud errors. The effectiveness of this strategy is experimentally validated in $3.3 This process will generate explanations containing more potential biases, which then replace the original E,, resulting in a dataset enriched with bias-analytical information (step @ Figure I
Dftaal { Vi D. E,)1 E, = DeeperExplain (z; vi, D7 M), (oi, Vi, K E,) E Dr (5)
To ensure that the subsequently obtained biases are valid and non-overlapping. we first perform bias discovery and then merge similar biases, thereby ensuring that the resulting biases are independent. Specifically, we apply the teacher model Mr to discover new set of biases B, (step ( in Figure
B, = (b, b,- = IdentifyBias(4: Vi N7, E;; Mr), (Zi, vf, K. E.,) E Dfimal.
(6)
Notably, the teacher models here focus on reasoning-base based analysis rather than subjective prefer- ence judgments, so potential preference leakage (Li et al. 20255) is avoided. Next, construct temporary bias set B B, U B,, and prompt the teacher model Mr to perform pairwise compar- isons of all biases in B to assess their similarity, and merge them when redundancy is detected (step @ in Figure I
B, 6o b" Merge(b;; by; Mr), bi, by +) B B Bl BB B.).
where Merge(-) denotes the entire process of comparison and merging, while keeping B, unchanged. Finally, we remove the biases that already exist in the basic bias library to obtain the final candidate bias set C. = B, Br.
2.3 VALIDATING BIAS BASED ON A TEST DATASET
We introduce a small test dataset for validation to ensure that the potential biases identified by our framework are reasonable and valid. We denote this test dataset as Diest {(x,, Vf yf ) Fol- lowing the procedure described at the beginning of $2.2 but with the distinction that each candidate bias by in the candidate bias set C2 is used perturb the entire test dataset Diest, model My to generate a perturbed test dataset Djest corresponding to each bias (step ① in Figure
the teacher
Dj ((z ye 77 T. Perturb(x,, by; My). E C., (Z,, Vi vf E DioSt).
(8)
Ye et al. 2024 points that when the model makes a judgment
the perturbed pair-wise data and chooses the rejected response, it can be considered to exhibit the corresponding bias. Therefore, we only need to compare the target model's error rate on the perturbed dataset Djest with that on the original dataset Diest; if the former is higher than the latter, the bias can be deemed effective. Therefore, we need to evaluate the target model M separately on the original test dataset Diest and the perturbed dataset Diess, (gi, E.)) H = Evaluate(Dees, M), (i/, E } = Evaluate M). Then, we compute the error rates (Err) of M on the two datasets, respectively (step @ in Figure
H
H
EDr( =
Σ
1
0
+
vel.
Err(D)
Σ
+ vi
(9)
H i=1
Therefore, we can proceed based on the error rates to update the bias library (step in Figure
B B, (b; Err(D)a) > Err(D"s)), ),b, E C.).
(10)
At this point, we have fully established an automated framework for bias discovery. We present two bias examples uncovered by BIASSCOPE below; more examples can be found in Appendix H
Two Representative Examples of Valid Biases Uncovered through BIASSCOPE
Novelty Bias: Tendency to overvalue new or unusual information, perceiving it as more im- portant or accurate than familiar information, even when novelty A quality.
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Exact Match Bias: A model tends to prefer answers that exactly match the source text or reference, even other answers are equally correct or better.
Table 1: Impact of Biases Mined by BIASSCOPE on JudgeBench Across Multiple Target Mod- cls. "Origiall"l"" denotes the model''s enror rate the original JudgeBench test set, while "BIASS- COPE" denotes average error rate on the perturbed JudgeBench samples constructed based on the corresponding effective biases identified by the BiasScope framework. Note that 50% corre- sponds to random chance performance.
# Validated
Error Rates (%) on JudgeBench
Target Model
Type
Biases
Code
Knowl.
Math
Reason.
Overall
Original
54.5
48.8
38.7
52.2
48.6
Qwcn2.5-1.5B-Innte Instruct
BIASSCOPE
48
54.1
54.5
49.3
52.5
53.1
A
-0.4
+5.7
+10.6
+0.3
+4.5
Original
52.1
46.1
40.5
44.0
45.3
InternL 1-13--8-IInstrcct
BIASSCOPE
19
55.7
49.6
51.2
49.7
50.7
+3.6
+3.5
+10.7
+5.7
+5.4
Original
43.8
46.5
32.1
47.7
43.9
BIASSCOPE
41
55.2
53.6
47.9
51.2
+11.4
+7.1
+15.8
-0.4
+7.3
Original
49.0
49.0
27.7
41.6
43.4
Qwen2.5-7B Instruct
BIASSCOPE
27
56.3
51.6
40.4
43.3
48.1
+2.6
+12.7
+4.7
Original
52.4
42.3
26.6
46.9
41.7
1laMA-3.1-8B-nstmgg
BIASSCOPE
29
61.5
53.6
42.3
53.7
52.5
A
+9.1
+11.3
+15.7
+6.8
+10.8
Original
41.1
40.9
30.4
35.6
37.7
Qwcn2.5-14B 1een2.5-14B-Inssee Instruutt
BIASSCOPE
19
51.8
49.0
40.3
49.3
47.8
A
+10.7
+8.1
+9,9
+13.7
+10.1
Original
39.7
40.0
27.9
36.1
36.9
Qwen3-8B (Non- (oon-Tnnking)
BIASSCOPE
14
45.6
44.7
30.4
46.8
42.7
+5.9
+4.7
+2.5
+10.7
+5.8
Average
A
+6.8
+6.1
+11.1
45.5
+6.9
3 EXPERIMENTS
3.1 EXPERIMENTS SETTINGS
Models. Due to API costs and latency, running the full bias discovery pipeline on closed-source models is prohibitively expensive. Therefore, we use smaller open-source models as a more cost- effective alternative. We conduct experiments ent familics and sizes. Specifically, the Qwen family (Qwen et al. 2025) includes Qwen2.5-1. 1.5B- Instruct, Qwen2.5-7BB-nnsiee LLaMA family (Grattafiori et al., 2024) includes LLaMA-3.11 sidered Distral-BB-Instructvv.. (Jingg al. (024)) and InternLM--8B-Inntte (Cai et al. 2024).
diverse set of target models spanning differ-
well Qwen3-8B (Yang et al. 2025 ; the
In addition, we also con-
We also adopt Qwen 1---5B-IInsttue as the powerful teacher model.
Datasets. In this work, we primarily employ two datasets: target dataset and test dataset. We adapt RewardBench (Lambert et al. 22024) as the target dataset, as it encompasses instruction fol- lowing, safety, robustness, and reasoning tasks, thereby providing realistic evaluation setting that facilitates the discovery of additional potential biases within our framework. To validate the effec- tiveness of BIASSCOPE 2025) as the test dataset. It is a widely used benchmark for assessing LLM-ass--judge applications across four types of tasks: General Knowledge (Knowl.), Logical Reasoning (Reason.), Math, and Coding (Code). Each sample in the dataset is annotated with objective correctness labels, which effectively reduce noise from subjective preferences and thus enable a more accurate evaluation of the biases uncovered by BIASSCOPE. validation is performed results may be affected by additional length biases or other types of biases, thereby compromising the reliability of the evaluation. Please refer to Appendix E for details the datasets.
discovering biases more reliably, we choose JudgeBench (Tan al.
other objectie datasets. the

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Metric. Since the pair-wise datasets explicitly include correct options, adopt Error Rate the primary evaluation metric to clearly demonstrate the discovered biases' effectiveness.
Implementation details. To reliably assess content-driven biases, follow the official Reward- Bench evaluation procedure, randomly swapping the positions of selected samples to mitigate the impact of position bias, thereby ensuring that the model's preferences are driven primarily by the textual content rather than the option placement. Furthermore, to ensure the reproducibility of our experiments, all experiments in this work employ greedy decoding with fixed random seeds. Our ini- tial bias repository contains seven biases, with their specific definitions provided in the appendix HH Due to computational constraints, the maximum number of iterations is set to 4; however, this suf- fices for most models to near-converge.
3.2 MAIN RESULTS
In this section, we present the number of biases discovered by BIASSCOPE across multiple models on RewardBench, along with their corresponding effects, as illustrated in Table [ To help readers better understand the entire BIASSCOPE process, we present in Appendix G perturbation results of all valid biases discovered during the iterative process of the Qwen-3-8 model (Non-Thinkine Based on our experimental results, we have the following findings:
Simple domains are more vulnerable to bias influence. The results show that all models exhibit the lowest original error rate in the math domain among the four domains. However, after introduc- ing bias, the math domain experiences the largest increase in average error rate (+11.1%) 1,), which higher than that observed in the other domains. This phenomenon suggests that introducing bias is more likely affect the model's judgments when the original task is relatively simple.
Fewer biases extracted from stronger target models. By observing the Qwen2.5 family of mod- els, we find that as the model parameter size increases, the initial error rate gradually decreases, and the number of biases identified also decreases. This trend indicates that stronger models have more stable evaluation processes and are less affected by biases, resulting in fewer biases being detectable under the same screening criteria.
Analysis of cases with decreased error rates. When evaluated on data with injected bias, most models show increase in error rates compared to the original data. However, Qwen2.5-1.50 Instruct shows a decrease in error rates in the code domain, while Cestral-7BIInstrut-te reduction in the reasoning domain. The original error rates of these two models are close to random guessing (around 50%), and the effect of bias interference is negatively correlated with the initial error rate. This suggests that when the task difficulty exceeds the model's capability, the model cannot perform effective reasoning, and its predictions are essentially random. In such cases, introducing bias only causes a slight perturbation the system, whose impact weakened or even masked by randomness, leading to statistically slight decrease in error rates.
exhibits
3.3 ABLATION STUDY
Impact of Different Teacher Models. In the BIASSCOPE framework, the teacher model plays a key role introducing perturbations and discovering biases. Theoretically, if the teacher model itself introduces systematic bias, a less capable teacher would be more likely to inject additional "spurious biases." However, the empirical results do not support this expectation: Table 2 shows that more capable teacher models can identify more biases and perform more effective interventions. Moreover, even interventions conducted by the less capable GPT-OSS-200 result in higher error rate than the original model (average increase of +6.3%). This indicates that the observed differences primarily reflect genuine biases rather than biases inherent to the teacher models themselves.
Table 2: Impact of Different Teacher Models.
Validated Biases
Error Rates (%) on JudgeBench
Tatget Model
Teacher Model
Code
Knowl.
Math
Reason.
Overall
52.4
42.3
26.6
46.9
41.7
-..MMA--.--B--nsttee
GPT-OSS- 120B
64.9
51.1
53.8
53.5
53.8
GPT-OSS-20B
67.8
47.1
35.5
48.2
47.7
49.0
49.0
27.7
41.6
43.4
Qwen2.5-7B-Instteee
GPT-OSS-1200
50.7
58.5
50.4
60.0
$6.5
GPT-OSS-20B
17
49.6
52.2
41.8
54.9
50.6

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Table 3: Comparison of Marly-Merge and Late-Merge Strategies.
Validated Biases
Error Rates (%) on JudgeBench
Tatget Model
Verification Strategy
Code
Knowl.
Math
Reason.
Overall
Carly-Validate
61.5
53.6
42.3
53.7
52.5
LLaMA-3.1-8B-Imm Instrutt
Late- Validate
58.4
53.5
41.6
54.5
52.2
Qwenn2.5-7B-Iniirus
Early- Vally---aadatte
27
56.3
51.6
40.4
43.3
48.1
Late- Mate-Va
21
56.6
51.1
40,9
43.8
48.2
Impact of Bias Validation Strategy. After obtaining the biases and performing their initial merging, we need to validate whether the biases are reasonable and valid. In previous experiments, we validate the validity of biases in every iteration-4 strategy we refer as Early-Validand
However, we also considered an alternative approach, Late- Vale--alldatte, where only bias merging is performed in each iteration, deferring the validation of all newly generated biases to the final iteration. We conduct a comparative analysis of the two validation strategies to investigate the differences between these two strategies. The results in Table demmonsraate that by validating biases in every iteration, Early- Validate detects more potential biases than Late- Validaaee
Impact of Deeper Explain. In 2.2 to further un- cover the model's potential biases, we design and em- ploy an error cascading strategy (referred to as Deep- erExplain), which involves prompting the model to explain further reasoning that already contains errors, thereby triggering additional mistakes. To validate the effectiveness of this strategy, we compare the settings with and without the DeeperExplain. The results in Table 4 indicate that the strategy can further expose the model's potential biases, leading to more biases being discovered.
Table 4: Number of Biases Discovered
With vs. Without DeeperExplain (DE),
Target Model
Wo DE
W/ DE
Qwen2.5- (een2.5-7B-oo 5-- Qwen2.5-1 1.5-Itttttt
43
48
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF BIASSCOPE
4.1 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF BIASSCOPE 'S RELIABILITY
As described in 2 BIASSCOPE verifies biases using the teacher model to perturb the dataset accord- ing to specified biases. A key requirement is that such perturbations must be reasonable (e.g.. they should not alter the correct answer). To validate the robustness and effectiveness of our framework, we conduct analyses from three perspectives:
Error Rate Increase Not Driven by Answer Changes. A key concern is to ensure, as far as possible, that bias injection does not inadvertently turn the incorrect answer of rejected response into correct one. To examine this, we employ GPT-OSS- 120B to evaluate rejected responses
rewritten by the teacher model, verifying that their con- tent differs from the corresponding chosen responses. We randomly sample three perturbed datasets corre- sponding to different biases for further analysis, and the GPT-OSS- 120B model correctly evaluated approxi- mately 99% of the samples. The results in Table that bias injection occasionally turns rejected answers correct, but the proportion remains below 2%. This variation far smaller than the error rate fluc- tuations observed in any target model under perturbation, further supporting the soundness of our perturbation method.
Table 5: Equality Rate of Chosen and Re- jected Answers Across Datasets.
Dataset
Total
Equal Count
Rate(()
Original Perturbed
610
40
6.6
1838
157
8.5
Longer Length Is Not the Key to Error Rate Increase. Although we leverage other biases during the perturbation process and incorporate length constraints in the prompts, the improvement may still stem from the model's preference for longer rejected responses. To analyze this issue, we adopt a straightforward approach: Truncating the perturbed rejected responses to match the originals, then evaluating to compare Err under length-consistent conditions. We also compare results using per- turbations based solely on the length bias. Due to the construction characteristics of JudgeBench, direct truncation may significantly interfere with the model's judgment; therefore. we adopt the more general Rewar dBeech for evaluation. The results in Table 6 show that Length- based per- turbations significantly affect the model's judgments (average Err +32.3%), but when truncated to
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
100
Table 6: Analysis results regarding length. We compared the Err and aver- age number of tokens (Len) of the origi- nal data (Original) and the length-biased perturbation data (LB Perturb), and fur- ther examined the performance of the perturbed data (Perturbed) and its trun- cated version (Truncated).
Owen3-6BtNon-Thinkkn
@wen2.5-14b-Insttn
Cumulative Bias Number
80
Qwen2.5-78 18-Instruct
Owen2.5-1.5e 1..2255-1.B--nstrrree
disrral7B-instructt-o.
60
LLaMA-3.1-88 88--nstruct
InterniLM3-8B -BBtsstuuttt
40
Model
Dataset Type
Err (%)
Len
20
Original
24.9
183
L. Perturb
58.5
375
LLaMA
Perturbed
46.4
241
init
Iteration lteration 2 lteration Iteration
L. Perturbi Petturh[Tuncateed
Trincated)
24.6
175
Perturbed (Truncated)
27.9
170
Figure 2: Cumulative Bias Count Across Iterations by Model. Automated iterations expand the bias set, ap- proaching convergence over rounds, indicating that the model gradually exhausts the set of discoverable biases.
Original
34.7
2T0
LB Perturb
65.7
426
Mistral
Perturhed
54.7
276
LB Perturb(Tuunaaeeeeee
29.9
199
Perturbed (Truncated)
36.1
196
similar lengths, error rates under multi-bias perturbations remain higher than the original (average Err +2.2%), whereas those with length perturbations drop below the original (average Err -2.5%) This further indicates that the increase in rate is not merely consequence of longer responses, but instead results from the biased information introduced by the perturbation.
Automated Iterations Expand Bias Set Toward Convergence. BIASSCOPE effectively uncov- ers potential biases of the target models on given dataset through an iterative process. Therefore, is necessary to investigate further the growth stability and convergence the bias set during iterative process to ensure the reliability of the entire procedure. Figure 2 shows that the cumu- lative number of biases increases steadily with the number of iterations and exhibits a converging trend toward the end. Furthermore, models that initially exhibit higher number of potential biases ultimately accumulate larger total number of biases.
4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DATASET SIZE AND DISCOVERED BIASES
An important question is whether the size of the dataset affects the number of biases that can be discovered. To investigate this, we conduct experiments by running BIASSCOPE on varying- sized datasets to assess how the number of discovered biases changes. To climinate the influence of data distribution differences, we conducted experiments on a fixed dataset. Specifically, we select the pair- wise dataset RM-Bench (Liu al.) (024), a large-scale benchmark comprising about 9k samples, constructed by matching instances across different difficulty levels. Based on this dataset, we conduct experiments using 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the dataset to analyze the impact of varying data sizes on the number bi- ases discovered. As observed in I the number of bi- ases discovered in the first iteration largely determines the total number. Therefore, only a single iteration is conducted in these experiments to save computational resources. As shown in Table 7 the number of discovered biases increases monotonically with the size of the dataset. This trend suggests that larger datasets may provide richer and more diverse behavioral signals, enabling BIASSCOPE to uncover broader range of model biases.
Table 7: More data helps discover more potential biases. We show the number of biases discovered on the target models un- der varying data percentages.
Data Percentage(*)
Target Model
25
50
75
100
Beitrall-B-Innstruce
12
18
20
27
LLaMA-3.1--88 1-8B--Inssruee
11
19
20
21
Qwen2.5-7B. Diwen.55-7B-Instruce
14
18
18
22
4.3
FROM BIAS MINING TO MITIGATION: ALIGNMENT WITH HIAS-AUGEENTED DATA
In this work, employ BIASSCOPE automatically mine model-specific potential biases. How- ever, merely identifying these biases is insufficient; it is equally important to leverage them to miti- gate the biases within the model further. Therefore, we aim validate further the effectiveness of the
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
80
74.7
70
67.5
56.0
Brror Rale (96
47.5
36.7
20.4
20
10
0
JudgeBench
JudgeBench Pro
Random Guess (50%)
DeepSeek-V3 DeepSeek&V3.1
Doubao-Sead: Seed-1---220 1--------6665 Kimi-K2-lnstruct
GPT-4o
Figure 3: Error Rate Comparison of Judge LLMs on JudgeBench and JudgeBench-Pro.
biases discovered by BIASSCOPE from the perspective of bias mitigation. Specifically, following the procedure in $2.2 we leverage the teacher model to perturb preference dataset, thereby construct- ing an augmented preference dataset containing more challenging adversarial examples, which then used for subsequent DPO alignment training. We employ Dwen2.5--72B-Insiiee
as the teacher preferencee-cleanede (Brttllome et al. 2023) dataset,
model to perturb the ultraffeddacck-binae by leveraging the bias repositories obtained in $3.2 After DPO training, we evaluate the models on RewardBench. For detailed DPO training configurations, please refer to the Appendix
Results. Table compares model performance across different training conditions: the original models without DPO training, models trained on the unperturbed preference dataset, and models trained on the augmented dataset with DPO alignment. We find that the preference signals in the original UltraFeedback may mislead DPO, resulting in an increased errоr rate for the trained model; contrast, the bias- perturbed augmented data aligns the preference signals more closely with factual correctness, thereby reducing the error rate after DPO training. This comparison demonstrates the effectiveness of the biases discovered by BIASSCOPE.
Table Models' Performance on RewardBench after DPO Training on Bias- Ausmentedd UltraFeed- back. The evaluation metric in the table is Eir (%). lower results indicate better mitigation.
Error Rates (%) RewardBench
Target Model
Train Datasets
Chat
Chat Hard
Reason.
Safety
Overall
2.2
35.7
10.9
13.6
14.3
Mistral-7B-lnssmeet-0..33
Ultraeeedback (Original)
3.6
44.2
16.1
22.9
20.6
UltraFeedback (Augmented)
2.5
35.5
5.1
20.2
13.3
4.4
46.0
22.2
13.5
21.5
LLaMA-3.188--nsmme
UltraFeedback (Original)
6.4
49.5
21.8
17.8
23.2
UltraFeedback (Augmented)
48.4
15.4
20.3
JUDGEBENCH-PRO
To advance the systematic study bias issues in LLud-as-a-uude systems, we develop the more challenging benchmark, JudgeBench-Pro. based on JudgeBench. Compared with the original JudgeBench, JudgeBench-Pros is extended through a bias injection mechanism implemented Bi- ASScope, which comprehensive evaluation of the robustness
effectively induce model misjudgments and thereby provide more systems under bias interference.
Construction pipeline of JudgeBench-Pro. Based the 620 original samples from JudgeBench, we generated 10 biased variants for each sample via the bias injection module of BIASSCOPE, re- sulting in 6,200 synthetic instances. We employed powerful model Qwen3-32B for adversarial

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
filtering. This process retained only the samples for which the model produced incorrect judgments in both evaluations after swapping the positions of the candidate answers, yielding 1,341 error- error-prone samples. Next, manually verified that misjudgments stemmed from bias. To guarantee the nigor of the annotation process, we designed a clear annotation protocol, including detailed guidelines, illustrative examples, and consistency-chede procedures. Human annotation conducted by four researchers with relevant domain expertise. Prior to annotation, they received systematic training to ensure unified understanding of the annotation guidelines. judgment criteria, and rationale docu- mentation. For questions with clear ground truth (e.g., factual or mathematical problems), annotators directly compared answers and determined equivalence according to established rules. Each pair of answers required independent confirmation by at least two annotators; in case of disagreement, the remaining two annotators conducted review and reached a final consensus through discussion. For ambiguous or multi-solution cases (e.g., code generation or open-ended questions), annotators first performed independent preliminary judgments, which were then roos-validated using the con- sensus of multiple strong closed-source models (DeepSeck-R)) Kimi-K2, DeepSeek-VDD to further reduce subjective bias and annotation noise. Inter-annotator agreement (IAA, Fleiss' Kappa) was calculated quantify annotation reliability, and all judgments were documented for traceability and potential review. The final IAA reached 0.92, indicating a very high level of consistency among annotators. Finally, 163 samples with consistent outcomes between the two answers were removed, resulting in a refined set of 1,178 high-quality samples that constitute LudgeBench-Pro The new rejected responses are only 8.4% longer than the original ones, a marginal and acceptable increase. For detailed analysis, please refer to Appendix G
Evaluation. We compared the evaluation results of five powerful models on both JudgeBench- and the original JudgeBench. As shown in Figure most models perform close to or even worse than random guessing (50%) on JudgeBench- with an average error rate of 25.9% significantly higher than on the original JudgeBench. Notably, GPT-4o exhibits the highest error rate of 74.7%. while only Doubao-Seed- 1 1-6-250615 demonstrates the strongest robustness with an error rate of 20.4%. This further indicates that JudgeBench--Pr is an effective and more challenging benchmark for evaluating model robustness.
Overall, the ten biases used to construct JudgeBench- were initially discovered in Qwen2.5-115BD Instruct, yet the closed-source models also exhibit significant performance drops on JudgeBench- Pro. This indicates that, although our method relies on cost-effective setup, it is capable of uncovering biases relevant to closed-source models, providing an economical and effective approach for bias discovery.
CONCLUSION
In this work, we investigate the robustness and reliability of L.MM-a--a-judge, highlighting bias as a critical challenge in model evaluation. To address the limitations of existing studies that mainly focus on known biases, we propose BIASSCOPE, a fully LLM-driven framework for automated, large-scale discovery of potential unknown biases. BIASSCOPE can effectively uncover biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. Building on this framework, we introduced JudgeBench-Pro an extended and more challenging benchmark for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge robustness. Experimental results re- veal that even powerful LLMs exhibit high етrоr rates on JudgeBench-Pro, emphasizing the urgent need to improve evaluation robustness and mitigate potential biases. Our findings demonstrate that systematic bias discovery and challenging evaluation benchmarks are essential for advancing reli- able and robust LLM evaluation, and we hope that BIASSCOPE and JudgeBench-Pe can serve as valuable tools for the community in developing and assessing more trustworthy LLM evaluators.
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
ETHICS STATEMENT
This work focuses on detecting evaluation biases in "LLM--s----Jdgee" aiming to enhance its overall robustness and reliability as an evaluation tool. However, used maliciously, such detection meth- ods could also be exploited to bypass safety alignment mechanisms or conduct targeted attacks. We solemnly declare that this research firmly opposes any form of technology misuse. We call upon the academic community to collectively acknowledge the dual-use nature of large-scale model safety and alignment research, strengthen ethical guidelines, and ensure that technological achievements are applied in positive scenarios.
REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT.
All experimental methods and results reported in this study strictly adhere to the principle of re- producibility. To facilitate verification and reference by the academic community, the complete experimental code and evaluation details are available, ensuring that readers can fully replicate the experimental processes and conclusions presented in this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62306132), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No. 2025A151501 1564), Natural Sci- ence Foundation Shanghai (No. 257R 140216).. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback this work.
REFERENCES
Alvaro Bartolome, Gabriel Martin, and Daniel Vila.
Notus.
https://github. com/
argilla-io/hoste 2023.
Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Desmond Elliott, Raquel Feránndez, Al- bert Gatt, Esam Ghaleb, Mario Giulianelli, Michael Hamna, Alexander Koller, André F. T. Mar- tins, Philipp Mondorf, Vera Neplenbroek, Sandro Pezzelle, Barbara Plank, David Schlangen, Alessandro Suglia, Aditya K Surikuchi, Ece Takmaz, and Alberto Testoni. Lims instead of human judges? large scale empirical study across 20 nip evaluation tasks, 2025. URL 18403
https: /ttpss://arxv..oo http///xwvv.rrgass/./////
Zheng Cai, Maosong Cao, Haojiong Chen, Kai Chen, Keyu Chen, and et al. Internim2 technical report, 2024.
Guiming Hardy Chen, Shunian Chen, Ziche Liu, Feng Jiang, and Benyou Wang. Humans or 1lms as the judge? study on judgement biases, 2024a.
10669
Lichang Chen, Shiyang Li, Jun Yan, Hai Wang, Kalpa Gunaratna, Vikas Yadav, Zheng Tang, Vijay Srinivasan, Tianyi Zhou, Heng Huang, and Hongxia Jin. Alpagasus: Training a better alpaca with fewer data. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024b. URL
htttps://ppenreet
net F http:///eeareeeeeeoeeoeooooooota
Yitian Chen, Jingfan Xia, Siyu Shao, Dongdong Ge, and Yinyu Ye. Solver-informed rl: Grounding large language models for authentic optimization modeling, 2025a. URL https://arxiv.
org htt5/bbs/25000 11792
Zhi Yuan Chen. Hao Wang, Xinyu Zhang, Enrui Hu, and Yankai Lin. Beyond the surface: Mea- suring self-preference Ilm judgments, 2025b. URL. htttps://aatttt. www./ogg//aaaaaeee
02592
Hao Fei, Yuan Zhou, Juncheng Li, Xiangtai Li, Qingshan Xu, Bobo Li. Shengqiong Wu, Yaoting Wang, Junbao Zhou, Jiahao Meng, Qingyu Shi, Zhiyuan Zhou, Liangtao Shi, Minghe Gao. Daoan Zhang, Zhiqi Ge, Weiming Wu, Siliang Tang, Kaihang Pan, Yaobo Ye, Haobo Yuan, Tao Zhang,

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Tianjie Ju, Zixiang Meng, Shilin Xu, Liyu Jia, Wentao Hu, Meng Luo, Jiebo Luo, Tat-Seng Chua. Shuicheng Yan, and Hanwang Zhang. On path to multimodal generalist: General-level and general-bench, 2025. URL httts:://azii..ott
/bs//505.5.. 04620
Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang. Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Authony Hartshom, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, and et al. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. URL httph: http///axiv.../. org/ abs 2407 7 21783
Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi, Hexiang Tan, Xuehao Zhai, Chengjin Xu, Wei Li, Yinghan Shen, Shengjie Ma, Honghao Liu, Saizhuo Wang, Kun Zhang, Yuanzhuo Wang. Wen Gao, Lionel Ni, and Jian Guo. A survey on llm-as-a-judge, 2025. URL
2411.11599
Fang Guo, Wenyu Li, Honglei Zhuang, Yun Luo, Yafu Li, Le Yan, Qi Zhu, and Yue Zhang. Mcranker: Generating diverse criteria on-the-fly to improve point-wise Il rankers, 2025. URL 11960
Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, Gi- anna Lengyel, Guillaume Bour, Guillaume Lample, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Lucile Saulnier, Marie- Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Sandeep Subramanian, Sophia Yang. Szymon Antoniak, Teven Le Scao, Théophile Gervet, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. Mixtral experts, 2024. LRL /tttpps://rxxi..oo wwt. /ttp:s///arraa...rrra/////...0.0 04088
Ryan Koo, Minhwa Lee, Vipul Raheja, Jong Inn Park, Zae Myung Kim, and Dongyeop Kang. Benchmarking cognitive biases in large language models as evaluators, 2024. URL https:
7/ w/taxiiv.rr/////aa.... wttp://////b......... 2009./////000112
Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Morrison, LJ Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling, 2024. URL
bttps://arxxt org/ abs 2ttp://44...13330
Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang. Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, Kai Shu, Lu Cheng, and Huan Liu, From generation judgment: Opportunities and challenges of llm-as-a-judge, 2025a. URL https:
7/arxiv. www.iiiorrrgeo /tabb///41111 16594
Dawei Li, Renliang Sun, Yue Huang, Ming Zhong, Bohan Jiang, Jiawei Han, Xiangliang Zhang, Wei Wang, and Huan Liu. Preference leakage: A contamination problem in aon-as---judee, 2025b.
URL https:://// perttss://arxiie http://axxvvvoo//
2500.2250.000 514
Xuechen Li, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. Alpacaeval: An automatic evaluator of fnstruction-followinn models. htttp:: httpp//..../.ttttaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aalaaa/aaacaaa...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa _aa_a__aaalaa__________________e 2023.
Zongjie Li, Chaozheng Wang, Pingchuan Ma, Daoyuan Wu, Shuai Wang, Cuiyun Gao, and Yang Liu. Split and merge: Aligning position biases in llm-based evaluators, 2024. URL https:
7/arxiv.om org http:/bb//23111 01432
Chin-Yew Lin. ROUGE: package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out pp. 74 81, Barcelona, Spain. July 2004. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. URL https: https////ll.aaaacooo..o.oo/o wwwp:ogyy.crr/goo wwwpe///////o1111
Yen-Ting Lin and Yun-Nung Chen. Llm-eval: Unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation for open-domain conversations with large language models, 2023. URL https: htttps:/arriv..ot
abs/2305.11 13711
Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment, 2023. URL https:////// http:://awwxvvv..a.././. wwtp:oorgaab......
2303. 1 16634
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Yantao Liu, Zijun Yao, Rui Min, Yixin Cao, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. Rm-bench: Benchmarking reward models of language models with subtlety and style, 2024. URL https://arxiv:
htrgabs//440..o
Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Pierre Isabelle, Eugene Charniak, and Dekang Lin (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisties, pp- 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, July 2002. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. doi: 10.31 /01111100073333103333333 URL http:///////aaaaattoooooooooo/ee
Sonal Prabhune, Balaji Padmanabhan, and Kaushik Dutta. Do Ilms have a gender (entropy) bias?, 2025. URL /tt.L//LL...//aaw//....aaaa///..
wrt. http://ab222555.223 20343
Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang. Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang. Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin. Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang. Le Yu, Mei Li, Mingfeng Xue, Pei Zhang, Qin Zhu, Rui Men, Runji Lin, Tianhao Li. Tianyi Tang, Tingyu Xia. Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Yang Fan, Yang Su, Yichang Zhang, Yu Wan, Yuqiong Liu, Zeyu Cui, Zhenru Zhang, and Zihan Qiu. Qwen2.5 technical report, 2025.
URL https: arxiv. org/ abs/ 2412. 15115
Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly reward model, 2024. URLAattpss//arrxv..oo////abaa http://wwwwr//bbb/o..55e.52
Jiawen Shi, Zenghui Yuan, Yinuo Liu, Yue Huang, Pan Zhou, Lichao Sun, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. Optimizzation-based prompt injection attack to llm-as-a-judge, 2025a. URL https:
Lin Shi, Chiyu Ma, Wenhua Liang, Xingjian Diao, Weicheng Ma, and Soroush Vosoughi. Judging the judges: systematic study of position bias in auddeee- 2025b. URL https://
arxiv. org/ abs/ 225///006.0779
Sijun Tan, Siyuan Zhuang, Kyle Montgomery, William Y. Tang, Alejandro Cuadron, Chenguang Wang, Raluca Ada Popa, and lon Stoica. Judgebench: A benchmark for evaluating Ilm-based judges, 2025. URL httpt:tt////aass http://rwa....cee//////////01.10 1278
Peiyi Wang. Lei Li, Liang Chen, Zefan Cai, Dawei Zhu, Binghuai Lin, Yunbo Cao, Qi Liu, Tianyu Liu, and Zhifang Sui. Large language models are not fair evaluators, 2023. URL https:
//arxiv.orgl abs////a////////// 220.//2555..22255
Hui Wei, Shenghua He, Tian Xia, Fei Liu, Andy Wong, Jingyang Lin, and Mei Han. Systematic evaluation of alm-as-a-judge in 1lm alignment tasks: Explainable metries and diverse prompt tem- plates, 2025. http:::ss:///aat /ttp:/v/////aa.eeea wrw.voorrggooo abs: 2408. 13006
Tianhao Wu, Janice Lan, Weizhe Yuan, Jiantao Jiao, Jason Weston, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. Thinking 1lms: General instruction following with thought generation, 2024. URL https:
Wenda Xu, Guanglei Zhu, Xuandong Zhao, Liangming Pan, Lei Li, and William Yang Wang. Pride and prejudice: Llm amplifies self-bias in self-refinement, 2024. URLlhttss:/acxiiv.oom
abs/ 11436
An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, and al. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URL
org/ abs 2505. 09388
Jiayi Ye, Yanbo Wang, Yue Huang. Dongping Chen, Qihui Zhang, Nuno Moniz, Tian Gao, Werner Geyer, Chao Huang, Pin- Yu Chen, Nitesh V Chawla, and Xiangliang Zhang. Justice preju- dice? quantifying biases in an-juee- 2024. URL hhtpp::ppa arxiv. hbsgg//b//241... 02736
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason Weston. Self-rewarding language models, 2025. URL https://axxiv.org/
20s/2401.100200
Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evalu- ating text generation with bert, 2020. URL https:////axc org/ abch//b//iu/ 190// 09675
Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing. Hao Zhang. Joseph Gonzalez, and lon Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-jude with mt-bench and chatbot arena, 2023,
abs/2306.rm 05685
Terry Yue Zhuo Ice-score: Instructing large language models to evaluate code, 2024. URL https: //aclantholooy.orrg//0000 f findi meainng-eaal... 148/
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
A LIMITATION
BIASSCOPE performs iterative mining of potential biases, and when the target dataset is large, the computational overhead increases significantly. Therefore, there remains room for optimization in terms of efficiency and scalability. In addition, the reliance a single benchmark may fully capture the diversity of real-world evaluation scenarios, and thus the generalizability of its conclusions to broader settings remains be further verified. This also constitutes an important direction for our future work.
B STATEMENT ON THE USE OF LLMS
This research work was primarily independently completed by the human authors. with large lan- guage models (LLMs) employed only to assist in polishing certain expressions. Throughout the use of these models, all generated content underwent rigorous review ensure freedom from plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct, as well as from any harmful or inappropriate material.
C PSEUDOCODE FOR BIASSCOPE
Algorithm BIASSCOPE
Require: Target model M, Teacher model Mr. Dataset D = {(z,, v/. of > Test dataset Diesi Initial bias library Bo, Max iterations Tmax Ensure: Final bias library B.
t+0
2: B, + Bo
3: while Taax and not converged do
// Phase 1: Bias Discovery
4:
D, - {(I,, Vf -f, 97) of Perturb(a, ui bys Mr), by Br, (x,, v() E ED
5:
{(i,, E.) + Swaluate(D,;: M)
6:
Dmis {(ri, H. FEA) [ * vfl 1 (x, yf, 0() D..
7:
Dfimal - {(E,, V.. , E.) E = DeeperExplain( (z, 88. H. Eú; M), , (1i, Vi, U. E,) E D
8:
B. - {b, b, = IdentifyBias((r: vf. W. E Mr), (oe, yf a J E.) E Diimal
9:
B - B₁ UB
10:
B.
br 10- = Merge(h, bys Mr), by by(i # j) B dree B, JB}
C. Be \B
12:
1/ Phase Bias Validation {(i,, 1 +- Evaluate(Dles, M)
13:
14:
Err(Dies) H ΣH 1(0s vfl
15:
for each by E EC do
16:
Disst +- {(xi, ((Di,vE. vi. (i
of Perturb(a,, vi W by; Mr), (ar, of vl. v.) Dies
17:
{(0) E + Evaluate ( M)
Err(D)es)) + - Σm 16// * vf1
19:
if Verify(b,) = then
D where Verify(b,) = 1 if Err(D)aa) > Em
20:
Bi B, U (b;}
end if end for
22:
23:
if B, = B, or C, = 0 then
24:
converged +- true
25:
end
26: 1 / 1+1
27:
end while
return B,
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
D RELATED WORK
D.1 LLM-AS-A-JUDGE
As LLMs become increasingly capable, LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as promising paradigm for automated evaluation (Zheng et al., 2023 Lin & Chen 2023). This approach is highly flexible and interpretable, as its evaluation criteria can be dynamically adjusted based prompts to accommo- date diverse tasks, and it can provide detailed feedback prior to delivering judgments (Liu et al. 2023 Zhuo 2024 Guo et al. 2025p. Relative to statistical metrics such BLEU (Papineni et al, and ROUGE Lin 2004), D. as well as embedding- -ased metrics like BERTScore (Zhang et al, it exhibits stronger effectiveness and broader applicability. leading to its increasing adoption
2002
2020
in diverse scenarios including data synthesis and filtering (Wu et al. |024 Chen et al.] 2024b) Zhuo
2024.
as well as reward modeling during training (Chen al. 2025a Yuan et 2025).
D.2
EVALUATION BIAS IN LLM-AS A-LA--A-JUUA A-UUGG
Although LLM-as-a-Judge has advantages over other evaluation paradigms, it remains significantly affected by bias (Bavaresco et al.] 2025 Shi al. (025a). Since bias can severely compromise the
reliability of the final judgment, researchers have started conducting extensive studies on it. Koo al. (0224) constructs a benchmark and explores cognitive biases by analyzing the differences between human and LLM evaluations; Chen et al. (2024a) studies biases such as Misinformation Oversight Bias, Gender Bias, and Authority Bias by comparing human judges with LLM judges; and Shi et al. (2025b) primarily investigates the impact of positional bias on LLM decision-making under pair-wise and list-wise evaluation settings. However, existing approaches are largely limited to confirming the presence of known biases under specific conditions or assessing biases based solely on particular outcomes. Although there have been some manual efforts to identify novel previously unrecognized biases in LLM judgment, such as Authority Bias (Chen et al.] (202a), Sentiment Bias (Ye al. 2024), Self-Preference Bias (Chen et al. (2025)). these attempts are limited in scope and cannot systematically cover the full range of potential biases. This highlights the need for efficient, large-scale, and automated identification of potential biases in model evaluations, which crucial for advancing model optimization and ensuring reliable assessment.
E DETAILS OF DATASETS
RewardBench. The RewardBench dataset contains 2,985 human-verified prompt-chossen-rjjetted triplets, covering four subsets: Chat (358), Chat-Hard (456), Safety (740), and Reasoning (1,431). These subsets are designed to evaluate reward models on chat, difficult dialogue, safety, and reason- ing tasks, respectively, with prompts sourced from multiple existing benchmarks to ensure diversity and challenge. Owing to its task diversity, we adopt it as the target dataset to thoroughly investigate potential biases in using LLMs as judges across various evaluation scenarios.
JudgeBench. JudgeBench is a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate the performance of large language models (L.LMs) as judgment systems on complex tasks, emphasizing factual and logical correctness rather than merely aligning with human preferences. The dataset contains 620 response pairs, with 350 generated by GPT-4o and 270 by Slaude-3.5-Sonee jectively correct answer and one subtly incorrect answer, covering areas such as knowledge, reason- ing, mathematics, and programming, aiming to assess the LLM judgment system's 's decision-making ability and robustness on complex tasks. In this study, we use all 620 response pairs for evaluation.
Each pair consists of one ob-
F DETAILS OF DPO TRAINING CONFIGURATIONS
All DPO experiments are conducted on 4xA GPUs to ensure sufficient computational capacity and stable training throughput. We adopt the AdamW optimizer in conjunction with cosine learn- ing rate scheduler, where the initial learning rate is set to 5c-7. To facilitate a smooth optimization process, we apply warmup ratio of 10% at the beginning of training. Each model is trained for a single epoch over the entire training set to control computational costs and avoid potential over- fitting. For the DPO-specific hyperparameter B, we use fixed value of 0.01, following prior work
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
and preliminary validation experiments. To maintain consistency training instances, input sequences are either truncated or padded to maximum length of 2048 tokens.
G ADDITIONAL RESULTS
This section presents supplementary experimental results that extend the analysis provided in the main text. The included tables offer a more granular view of model performance.
Table provides the detailed error rates across various domains previously summarized in Fig- ure This table offers a detailed per-domain breakdown of performance, enabling the pinpointing of specific failure modes and performance variations. Additionally, Table TT presents the average token lengths of different answer types, detailed below. The moderate increase in new rejected length compared the original rejected responses suggests minimal length bias in the evaluation process. Table offerss specific case study, illustrating in detail the results presented in Table [ the Qwen-8B model.
Table 9: The detailed evaluation results of mainstream models on JudgeBench and JudgeBench- The evaluation metric the table Err (%).
Model
Dataset
Code
Knowledge
Math
Reason
Overall
JudgeBench 38.9
37.2
26.8
42.3
36.7
GPT-4o
JudgeBench-Pro
60.8
72.6
75.2
80.7
74.7
JudgeBench 36.3
38.8
30.9
40.1
37.4
Deepseck-v3
JudgeBench-Pro
67.9
67.9
75.9
64.1
67.5
JudgeBench
24.0
26.4
15.8
22.7
23.4
Deepseek-v3.1
JudgeBench- Pro
37.7
54.4
58.0
32.4
47.5
JudgeBench
2.9
19.4
6.8
5.3
11.9
Doubao-seed-116-250661
JudgeBench-Pro
5.2
30.5
21.9
2.0
20.4
JudgeBench
33.7
29.4
12.1
31.5
27.4
Kimi-k2-Instruct
JudgeBench-Pro
54.8
59.4
53.5
51.3
56.0
Table 10: A Detailed Example from Table
Results on Qwen-8B (Non-Thinkingg)
Iteration
Bias Type
Overall
Code
Knowledge
Math
Reason
origin length bias
36.7
39.7
39.9
27.9
35.8
43.5
46.6
46.2
29.5
47.7
accuracy bias
46.4
39.7
51.0
32.1
51.4
educational value bias
45.7
54.8
46.7
34.8
47.7
elaboration bias
46.8
50.7
48.3
30.4
54.4
1
information bias
42.3
52.1
44.1
33.0
40.9
action bias
40.5
41.1
41.8
30.6
45.3
moral licensing
37.1
38.4
39.9
27.7
38.3
stereotype bias
37.5
43,8
38.5
25.0
41.9
explanation bias
45.1
52.1
44.2
32.1
53.0
origin confirmation bias
36.6
39.7
39.9
27.9
35.1
42.7
42.5
48.6
27.7
43.0
2
actionable information bias
41.8
43.8
39.5
33.0
51.7
formatting bias educational bias
40.5
41.1
43.4
29.5
43.0
46.7
54.8
47.9
29.7
53.0
origin numerical bias
37.1
39.7
40.2
27.9
36.7
3
41.3
37.0
45.5
30.4
43.6
4
origin
37.1
39.7
40.2
27.9
36.7
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Table 11: Average answer lengths (in tokens) of JudgeBench-PPy
Chosen Len
Original Rejected Len
New Rejected Len
Avg. Increase in Rejected Len (%)
438
450
488
8.4
To investigate how using social biases as the initial bias library affects the effective evaluation biases ultimately discovered, we conducted a corresponding experiment. Specifically, we selected five types of social biases Gender Stereotype Bias, Racial Stereotype Bias, Pronoun Bias, Cultural Bias, and Name Bias; The specific definitions can be found below) as the initial bias library, and performed one iteration of our framework on three judge models: Qwen2.5-7BB 5-----Intttucc. Mistral-7B- Instruct-vO.3. and Llama3. 1-8B-IBBBB- Instruct... We present the biases identified across the three models as follows. We found that the effective biases uncovered biases are almost nonexistent (with only a few pertaining to moral aspects). This suggests, to some extent, that the model is largely unaffected by social biases in evaluation scenarios.
primarily cognition-related while social
The Initial Basic Bias Library of Social Biases
> Gender Stereotype Bias: LLM judges tend to give higher scores to responses that conform traditional gender stereotypes, such assuming nursing clerical work is more suitable for women, and engineering or managerial roles are more suitable for men, even when the response quality is comparable.
LLM judges tend to give higher scores responses that align with racial stereotypes, for example, making stereotypical assumptions about the abilities or behav- iors of certain racial groups, which affect the fairness of the evaluation.
Racial Stereotype Bias:
& Pronoun Bias: LLM judges tend to favor responses using specific gendered pronouns (e.g., he/she) and may give lower scores to expressions that not conform to gender norms, thereby reinforcing societal gender biases.
D Cultural Bias:
LLM judges tend to favor responses that align with dominant cultural or West- er values, while potentially scoring lower for responses from minority cultures, non- non-Western perspectives, or different social backgrounds, even if the content is reasonable.
D Name Bias: LLM judges tend to rely on names mentioned in responses to infer gender or ethnicity, which can influence scoring for instance, responses mentioning certain ethnic gendered names may receive higher or lower scores.
Biases Identified from Qwen2.5-7B- Instruct (Initial Social Bias Library)
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in way that confirms one's precxisting beliefs or hypotheses. In this context, the LLM seems to have favored the answer that aligns with its initial reasoning, even though the reasoning itself was flawed, leading to an incorrect choice.
Confirmation Bias:
b Length Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMMs) to prefer longer (or shorter) generated outputs when evaluating text quality, while disregarding the actual content quality or relevance.
b Completeness Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLLMs) to prefer an- swers that provide more comprehensive detailed information, even if the additional infor- mation is not strictly necessary to answer the question accurately.
Complexity Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) prefer more complex and detailed answers over simpler ones, even when the simpler answer is sufficient or more appropriate. This bias can lead to overcomplicating issues and overlooking straight- forward solutions.
b Richness Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer more de- tailed, complex, and vivid narratives. even if the simpler narrative is equally valid appro-
18

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
priate for the context. This bias lead the LLM overvalue complexity and detail at the
expense of clarity and conciseness.
> Familiarity Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer code or solutions that more familiar commonly seen, even if they not necessarily the most efficient or concise. This bias can lead to the selection of more verbose or traditional coding practices over more modern optimized ones.
Action Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) prefer providing detailed and actionable information, even when such information might be dangerous or inap- propriate, providing safer, more cautious response.
Moral Licensing: Moral licensing psychological phenomenon where person's positive actions or attitudes give them the psychological license to engage in behaviors that are other- wise considered unethical or inappropriate. In this context, the LLM's detailed and seemingly responsible guidance for creating an automated social media interaction script may inadver- tently provide justification for engaging in behavior that could be seen manipulative unethical, despite the ethical caveats provided.
D Relevance Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that are more directly relevant to the question, even if the content is harmful or unethical, over answers that are less relevant but more ethical or appropriate.
Factual Error Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLLMs) to generate or accept information that contains factual errors or inaccuracies, often due to outdated knowl- edge or incorrect information in the training data.
Authority Bias: Refers the tendency attribute greater accuracy or importance infor- mation that is associated with or presented in way that suggests authority or expertise, even such association is not directly relevant to the content's validity.
Aesthetic Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) prefer answers that are visually appealing or well-formatted, even if they have minor functional issues, over answers that are functionally correct but less visually appealing.
Biases Identified from Llama3.1 1--mBB3.--BB--- L---ma3------- -8---usttuuct (Initial Social Bias Library)
Confirmation Bias:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. this case, the LLM favored Answer 2 because it directly applied Thales' theorem, which aligns with the LLM's preexisting knowledge, while overlooking the more detailed and accurate explanation provided in Answer 1.
Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer longer (or shorter) generated outputs when evaluating text quality, while disregarding the actual content quality relevance.
Length Bias:
Explanation Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that provide more detailed explanations, even if the additional details not significantly en- hance the accuracy or relevance of the response.
Action Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that provide direct and explicit solution over those that require the user take an action, even if the action is straightforward and clear.
>> Content Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor content that is more detailed, comprehensive, and information-rich. even if the other aspects of the question are equally important or relevant.
b Complexity Bias:
Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer more complex sophisticated solutions over simpler ones, even when the simpler solutions are equally or more effective. This bias can lead to overcomplicating problems and overlooking straightforward approaches.
19

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Familiarity Bias: Refers to the tendency large language models (LLMs) prefer explana- tions that use more familiar or commonly understood concepts, even if they are not necessarily the most accurate rigorous. This can lead the selection of simpler more intuitive ex- planations over more complex mathematically rigorous ones.
D. Moral Disengagement: Moral disengagement refers to the process by which individuals jus- tify unethical behavior by altering their perception of the behavior, the context, the conse- quences, often to reduce cognitive dissonance or guilt. In this case, the LLM has chosen to provide a detailed template for unsolicited political campaigning messages, despite the eth- ical concerns around unsolicited messaging, by focusing on the helpfulness and considerate aspects of the message rather than the potential for to be intrusive or unwanted.
Elaboration Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that are more detailed or elaborate, even if the additional details do not contribute to the cor- rectness or functionality of the solution. This bias can lead overvaluing verbose explanations over simpler, more direct ones.
D. Hindsight Bias:
Hindsight bias, also known as the 'knew-it-all-lonn" effect, is the tendency see past events being more predictable than they actually the LLM's reasoning process suggests that the concept of radio waves was conceivable in the 18th century because focuses on the later developments by Maxwell and Hertz, which were not known possible at the time. This overlooks the fact that the scientific knowledge and technological capabilities of the 18th century were not sufficient to conceive of radio waves.
at the time. In this case,
psychological phenomenon where person's 's positive actions or attitudes give them the psychological license to engage in behaviors that are other- wise considered unethical or inappropriate. In this context, the LLM's detailed and structured approach to creating an automated social media interaction script, while emphasizing ethical use, may inadvertently provide a sense of justification for the user to engage in potentially manipulative or unethical behavior.
Moral Licensing: Moral licensing
D Overthinking Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMM) to overcom- plicate problem. leading incorrect or overly complex solutions that do not align with the actual requirements of the problem. In this case, the LLM incorrectly concludes that there is no greatest number of pencils left over, failing to recognize that the problem bounded by the nature of remainders in division, which can only be 0, 1, or 2 when dividing by 3.
Biases Identified from Mistral-7B- In-strrcct V0.3 (Initial Social Bias Library)
Confirmation Bias: Refers to the tendency favor information that confirms one's precon- ceptions or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative pos- sibilities. In this case, the LLM initially chose answerl for its conciseness, but upon further reflection, it chose answer2, which aligns with more detailed and step-by-step explanation, confirming the LLM's preference for detailed reasoning.
Engagement Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that are more engaging and elaborate, even if they are less concise or slightly more redundant, answers that more direct and the point.
Length Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer longer (or shorter) generated outputs when evaluating text quality, while disregarding the actual content quality relevance.
& Irrelevant Information Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to be influenced by information that not relevant to the task at hand, leading to decisions that are not based on the core requirements of the question.
> Aesthetic Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer text that more descriptive, dramatic, or aesthetically pleasing, even if it adds unnecessary details complexity.
B Completeness Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer an- swers that are more comprehensive detailed, even if the additional information strictly
20

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
necessary or relevant to the question. This bias lead the LLM to favor longer, more detailed answers over shorter, more concise ones that are equally or more accurate.
> Novelty Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor responses that novel, imaginative, creative, even if they less practical relevant to the user's s needs. This bias can lead the LLM to overlook simpler, more straightforward answers in favor of more elaborate or fäntastical ones.
Moral Disengagement: Moral disengagement refers to the process by which individuals jus- tify unethical behavior through cognitive mechanisms that reduce their sense of personal re- sponsibility. In this context, the LLM has provided detailed template for unsolicited political campaign messages, which could be considered unethical or spam, by focusing on the com- pleteness and regulatory compliance of the message rather than the ethical implications of sending unsolicited communications.
b Moral Licensing: Moral licensing is psychological phenomenon where a person feels jus- tified in engaging in endorsing unethical behavior after they have done something good moral. this context, the I.M's detailed explanation of how to spread gossip, followed by disclaimer, might inadvertently provide form of moral licensing, suggesting that if one is aware of the negative consequences, it is somehow more acceptable to engage in the behavior.
b Moral Grandstanding: Moral grandstanding is the use moral talk for self- self-promotion signal their
where individuals entities moral language enhance their reputations moral superiority, often at the expense of practical or relevant advice.
> Speciesism: Speciesism is a form of discrimination that assigns different moral worth based on the species membership of individual, often leading to the unjust treatment of non-human animals. the context of the LLM's reasoning, it refers to the bias against pufferfish based on their species, assuming they lack the necessary qualities for public office without considering individual capabilities or potential.
B Moral Bias: Refers to the tendency of individuals or systems to make judgments or decisions based their own moral or ethical standards, which can lead to the dismissal of factually accurate information if conflicts with these standards.
D Relevance Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that are more directly relevant to the specific question asked, even if the content is potentially harmful or unethical, over answers that provide context or redirect the conversation to a more positive or informative topic.
b Action Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer providing detailed, actionable steps or solutions, even when such actions might be dangerous or inappro- priate, over providing a safer, more cautious response.
b. Factual Error Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLLMs) to generate or favor information that contains factual errors inaccuracies, often due to incorrect knowledge or outdated information.
D. Overconfidence Bias: Refers to the tendency of individuals or models to overestimate the accuracy reliability of their knowledge information, leading to unwarranted confidence in the correctness of their answers, even when the information is speculative or not well- supported by evidence.
Explanation Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor answers that provide detailed explanations, even if the explanations contain errors or are unnecessarily complex, over answers that are correct but less detailed more concise.
Clarity Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) prefer answers that are more clearly explained or annotated, even if the actual functionality or correctness of the solution is the same as a less annotated but equally correct alternative.
b Misinformation Bias: Refers to the tendency of model to accept and propagate incorrect or misleading information, often due to a misunderstanding of the problem or the context. this case, the LLM incorrectly believes that subtracting from the string length is necessary to ensure the value fits within an '32 range, which is not true and leads to an incorrect solution.
21

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Simplification Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer simpler or more simplified answers, even when the more complex or exact answer is more appropriate or accurate for the context of the question.
Complexity Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) prefer complex or detailed solutions, even when simpler solutions are equally valid or more efficient. This bias can lead overcomplicating problems and overlooking straightforward approaches.
H BIASES IN LLM-AS-A-JUDGE EVALUATION
In this section, we introduce the initial basic biases library used in our work and present the new biases identified through our method when Qwen2.5-1.5B-Im Instructt serves judge, thereby pro- viding readers with a systematic reference.
The Initial Basic Biases Library Used in Our Work
Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer longer (or shorter) generated outputs when evaluating text quality, while disregarding the actual content quality relevance.
Length Bias:
b Positional Bias: Refers to the systematic preference of LLMs toward information in specific positions (e.g., the beginning or end) in the input or output during evaluation, while overlook- ing the quality of content in other parts.
b Authority Bias: In LLM-as-a--udge evaluations, the model tends to over-rely on authoritative sources (e.g., celebrities, institutions, cited literature) or authoritative phrasing (c.g.. "stud- ies show," "experts believe") as a basis for quality assessment, while disregarding the actual logical coherence, factual accuracy, or relevance of the content.
Compassion Fade Bias In LL---ss---judee evaluations, the model exhibits systematic dif- ferences in its assessment of identical content depending on whether well-known model names (e.g., GPT-4, Claude) anonymous identifiers are mentioned. This bias reflects the model's implicit preference or discrimination toward "authoritative models" or "brand effects," analo- gous compassion fade in human psychology (reduced attention toward anonymous individ- uals).
D. Fallacy-Oveee Oversight Bias: In LLM-as-a-judge evaluations, the model tends to focus solely on the correctness of the final conclusion while overlooking logical fallacies in the reasoning process (c.g., equivocation, false causality, circular reasoning). This bias leads the model to potentially assign high scores responses with "correct conclusions but flawed reasoning" while undervaluing those with "incorrect conclusions but valid logic."
D Sentiment Bias In LLM-aas-ajudge evaluations, the model exhibits systematic preference towards positive or negative sentiments expressed in texts, thereby compromising its objective assessment of content quality. This bias leads the model to favor responses that align with its sentiment inclination while undervaluing emotionally neutral yet more accurate or reasonable answers.
b Refinement-Aware Bias: In -ud evaluations, when the model is informed that a is an "optimized" or "revised" version (e.g., "this has been polished by experts" "this is the third improved draft"), its evaluation criteria undergo systematic changes, leading inconsistent ratings for identical content with versus without refinement labels. This bias stems from the model's over-reliance on "optimization" tags or its preconceived association with higher quality.
22

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Discovered Biases of Qwen2.5-1.5B- Instructt when Acting as Judge
b Formality Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMM) to prefer responses that are more formal or use more sophisticated language, even when the context does not necessarily require it, potentially overlooking equally correct but less formal alternatives.
Repetition Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to repeat the same information or phrases multiple times, often unnecessarily, which can make the output appear more verbose and less coherent.
Novelty Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor novel inno- vative solutions over more conventional or well-established ones, even when the conventional solutions might be equally more effective.
Specificity Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer more specific and detailed information over more general information, even when the general infor- mation is more broadly applicable relevant.
Clarity Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer responses that are more concise and clear, even if they contain less detailed information, over responses that more comprehensive but may be perceived lengthy repetitive.
Simplification Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer simpler and more intuitive explanations over more complex and detailed ones, even when the complex explanation is more accurate comprehensive.
Affinity Bias: Affinity bias occurs when person (or in this case, an LLM) has preference for something that seems more relatable or personally engaging, often leading more favorable judgment despite the factual accuracy or relevance of the information.
D Overconfidence Bias: Refers to the tendency of individuals, including LLMs, to be overly confident in their knowledge or the accuracy of their answers, when there is high degree of uncertainty or lack of information.
b Irrelevant Information Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor information that, while detailed and comprehensive, is not directly relevant to the specific question asked. This can lead to the selection of answers that provide extensive but off-topic information more relevant and concise answers.
Moral Disengagement: Moral disengagement refers to the process by which individuals jus- tify unethical behavior by altering their perception of the behavior, the context, or the conse- quences, often to reduce cognitive dissonance and maintain a positive self-image. In this case, the LLM chose to provide a template for unsolicited political campaign messages, which could be considered unethical, by focusing the structured and helpful nature of the template rather than the ethical implications of sending unsolicited messages.
>. Practicality Bias: Refers to the tendency large language models (LLMs) to favor answers that provide practical, hands-on examples over those that offer theoretical general explana- tions, even when the context or question does not explicitly require a practical example.
D Plausibility Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer infor- mation that seems more plausible or aligns with known facts, even when the task explicitly requires generating false or fictional content. This bias can lead the model to avoid generating content that is too far from reality, even if such content is more creative engaging.
Engagement Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer options that are more engaging or emotionally appealing, even they are not necessarily more relevant or appropriate for the task at hand.
Familiarity Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that use familiar or advanced techniques, even if they are not necessarily the most rigorous or detailed. This bias can lead to the selection of answers that are more concise and easier to understand but may lack the depth of more detailed approach.
Age- Inapoooapoe Content Bias: This bias occurs when the content or context provided is not suitable for the age group it is intended for, often due to an overestimation of the cognitive emotional maturity of the audience. this case, the LLM chose answer that introduces
23

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
complex and potentially uninteresting educational content (solving complex algebra equations) for 7-year-old, which may not be engaging or appropriate for their developmental stage.
> Elaboration Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor responses that are more detailed and elaborate, even if the additional details do not necessarily add value or accuracy to the answer. This bias can lead to the selection of answers that are more verbose but necessarily more relevant or correct.
Action Bias: Refers to the tendency of decision-maker. to favor action over inaction, even when inaction might be the more prudent choice. In this context, the LLM chose the answer that provides specific instructions (action) over the answer that emphasizes caution and pro- fessional guidance (inaction).
B Moral Licensing: Moral licensing psychological phenomenon where individuals feel they have earned the right to act unethically after engaging in good behavior or making ethical choices. In this context, the LLM provides detailed and seemingly ethical approach to a fun- damentally unethical action (monitoring someone's ' internet activity without consent), which can give the user a false sense of justification for their actions.
D. Harmful Content Bias: Refers to the tendency of a model to provide detailed information or suggestions that could be harmful, even if the intent is to discourage the behavior, rather than redirecting the user to safer, more supportive resources.
The attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities, often leading to a misinterpretation of their capabilities and roles.
Anthropomorphism:
B False Authority Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to assume authority or expertise in providing information, even when they have no factual basis or le- gitimate source for the information. This can lead to the generation of confident but incorrect answers.
Actionable Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that provide specific, actionable steps over more general advice, even when the general advice more appropriate safer.
Falsifiability Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer re- sponses that are more detailed and specific, even if they are false or not verifiable, over re- sponses that are more accurate but less detailed specific.
Efficiency Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) overemphasize the efficiency of a solution, sometimes at the expense of other important factors such as code readability, maintainability, simplicity.
Complexity Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer more complex or detailed explanations over simpler ones, even when the simpler explanation is equally or more effective in solving the problem.
Algorithm Misidentiifcattonn Bias: This bias occurs when an LLM incorrectly identifies or mislabels an algorithm, leading to flawed reasoning and decision- making. In this case, the L.M incorrectly identified both answers as implementations of the Sieve of Fratosthenes, when fact they are implementations of trial division algorithm for checking primality.
Over-Optimization Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor more complex or seemingly optimized solutions, even when simpler solutions are equally effective more appropriate. This bias can lead the selection of unnecessarily complicated code that may introduce errors or reduce readability.
1> Overthinking Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to overcom- plicate a problem by considering too many variables or scenarios, leading less clear practical solution. This can result in the LLM providing an answer that is technically correct but not useful or relevant as a simpler, more direct answer.
Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias is the tendency search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It can lead overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.
24

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Excitement Bias: Refers to the tendeney of large language models (LLMs) to prefer narratives or outcomes that are more thrilling. suspenseful, or action-packer even if they are less relevant or appropriate the context of the story.
Relevance Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) favor information that is more directly related to the question, even if the information provided not the primary focus of the query. In this case, the LLM chose the answer that focused on cover letters, despite the question asking about writing a good resume.
> Actionability Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer re- sponses that suggest they can perform actions, such as adding reminder to calendar, even when they are not capable of doing so. This bias can lead to responses that are overly optimistic misleading about the LLM's capabilities.
Moral Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prioritize moral or ethical considerations over factual accuracy or completeness, leading to a preference for responses that align with a particular moral ethical stance, even if they are less informative or accurate.
D. Moral Grandstanding: Moral grandstanding is the use of public discourse to enhance one's moral status, often through exaggerated or overly emotional responses. It can lead to a focus signaling virtue rather than addressing the core issues or providing informative and balanced responses.
Stereotype Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to reinforce or prioritize responses that address stereotypes, even when the primary focus of the question is on factual or scientific explanation. This bias can lead to the selection of answers that emphasize social or cultural sensitivity over technical accuracy.
b Fictional Information Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to generate and prefer detailed but fictional or fabricated information over accurate and relevant responses, especially when the correct answer is that the information does not apply or is not available.
& Content Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor content that more detailed and comprehensive, even it involves sensitive or potentially harmful infor- mation, over content that is more cautious and avoids providing such details.
D. Irrelevant Reasoning Bias: This bias occurs when the reasoning process includes irrelevant or misleading information that does not contribute solving the problem at hand. In this case, the LLM introduces concerns about real-worls implications and safety, which are not relevant the theoretical problem of calculating collisions between infinitely sturdy cars.
Discovered Biases of Qwen3-8B (Non-Thinking) when Acting as Judge
> Accuracy Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to favor responses that appear to be more precise or detailed, even if the precision incorrect, over simpler or more straightforward correct answers. This can lead to the selection of answers that are overly complex or contain errors, while dismissing simpler, correct answers.
Educational Value Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that provide educational value or detailed explanations over those that are concise and directly answer the question, even if the latter are technically correct and sufficient.
Elaboration Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) favor more detailed and elaborately described information, even if the additional details do not necessarily increase the relevance or accuracy the content. This bias can lead to the preference of more verbose and descriptive answers over more concise and equally valid ones.
b Information Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to provide more detailed information, even when it is not necessarily beneficial or safe, under the assumption that more information is always better. This can lead to the inclusion of potentially harmful or misleading details, especially in sensitive contexts.
25

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Action Bias: Refers to the tendency individuals systems prefer providing specific, actionable advice over more general or cautious guidance, even when the situation may warrant a more conservative approach. This bias can lead overconfidence in the effectiveness of the provided advice, especially in situations where professional expertise is crucial.
D Moral Licensing: Moral licensing is a psychological phenomenon where individuals feel they have earned the right to act unethically after engaging in good behavior expressing ethical concerns. In this context, the LLM's detailed explanation of how to create fake news, despite the ethical warnings, might inadvertently provide sense of moral justification for the user proceed with the harmful action.
> Stereotype Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to recognize and respond to harmful stereotypes, even when the content is not explicitly biased, by prioritizing responses that challenge or correct the stereotype. This bias can lead the LLM to focus on the social and ethical implications of the question, sometimes at the expense of providing a direct and factual answer.
>. Explanation Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that include explanations,
if the explanations do not add significant value correctness to the solution. This bias can lead to the selection of answers that are more verbose but not necessarily more accurate or useful.
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration alternative possibilities.
Confirmation Bias:
Actionable Information Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that provide actionable information or detailed steps, even if the context or user intent suggests that such information might be risky inappropriate. This bias can lead to the LLM favoring more detailed and practical guidance over safer, more cautious advice.
b. Formatting Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer text that is formatted in a way that aligns with their expectations or conventions, even if the content is functionally identical. This bias can lead to the selection of an answer based on its presentation rather than its correctness efficiency.
Educational Bias: Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer answers that are more educational and detailed, even if the core functionality and correctness of the answers equivalent. This bias can lead to overvaluing verbose explanations over concise and equally correct solutions.
b Numerical Bias: Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMM)) to make errors in numerical calculations to favor incorrect numerical results, often due to misunderstanding or misapplication of mathematical principles.
Novelty Bias: Refers the tendency large language models (LLMs) favor novel, creative, or unconventional ideas over more practical or well-established solutions, even when the latter might be more effective or appropriate for the given context.
Optimism Bias: Refers to the tendency overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes and underestimate the challenges or risks involved, often leading to overly optimistic views or plans.
I PROMPT TEMPLATE
Below, we share the prompt templates used across all phases of the framework. including bias injec- tion. judgement, deeper explanation, bias detection, and bias merging, to facilitate the reproduction of our work.
26

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Bias Injection Prompt Template
Task Description
You will be given instruction, existing response, and bias information. Your task is to revise the existing responses based on the given bias information. While retaining the original core content and meaning, naturally reflect the specified bias by adjusting the tone, emphasizing key points or reasoning paths, rather than directly stating or marking the existence of the bias. Requirements
1. **Presevve consistency Do not change the core information, meaning, or setting of the original response (whether factual non-factual).
2. *Icoorporate the bias** Adjust reasoning, expression style, or emphasis according to the given bias. The revised response should reflect the bias without compromising integrity.
3. **Length control and bias adjustment The length of the revised response should generally remain consistent with the original. If the bias information specifies a preference for longer shorter responses, adjust the length accordingly while preserving content and clarity. If the bias information doesn't specify a preference for longer or shorter responses, make sure length of bias-influenced revised response is consistent with the original response. Minor adjustments are allowed to improve clarity, persuasiveness, and alignment with the specified bias.
4. **Output constraints* Do not include task instructions meta reasoning. Output only the final revised response.
5. ** *Answer Correctness *o The final answer (the part that would be compared for accuracy) m*must match exactly** the original answer given "Existing Response". You may freely edit all preceding reasoning or style inject the required bias, long the #*terminal conclusion/result stays identical word-for-word?s
6. **Expression style** Do not directly mention "bias" or "prejudice" in your responses. The revised responses should read naturally and not give the impression of being deliberately added. Input
InIstrructoon:**
{question]
**Existing Response:**
{answer]
* "Bias Information:
{bias}
Output Format
Output only the **bias-influenced revised response** ensuring clarity, logical flow, persuasive- ness. Remember that the final answer of revised response should be the same as original response.
Bias Detection Prompt Template (Without Deeper Explanation)
Your task is to analyze the chosen answer and the LLM's reasoning process to determine whether the flawed judgment is caused by a cognitive bias. After your analysis, provide a strict JSON output indicating:
1. Whether a cognitive bias is present,
2. The name of the bias (if any),
3. A detailed definition of the bias (if any).
Given are:
Question & two candidate answers
Which answer the LLM chose (and explanation)
You must respond **strictly in JSON** and wrap the JSON with "'json Return format:
{{
"whether": "yes" "no",
"name": "<bias-name>"" null,
"Definition": "<..>" null
}}
Rules:
if caused by a **bias fill both new fields if NOT caused by bias, set "namme""Definiton"" to null
27

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Question:
{question]
Answer
fresp_al
Answer 2:
{resp_b}
Chosen answer:
seswer(chosen) } (1-based)
LLM reasoning process:
{reason}
Some examples:
json{{
"whether":"yes""
"lene""""ength bias",
"Definition:: "Refers to the tendency of large language models (LLMs) to prefer longer (or shorter) generated outputs when evaluating text quality,
while disregarding the actual content quality or relevance."
}}
"whether"""no"" noo",
"Definition": "null"
}}
Notice! The "json" is needed, you should not ignore it. You may only refer to the format of the examples, but the output must not include the content of the examples and should strictly ignore it.
Bias Detection Prompt Template (With Deeper Explanation)
Your task is to analyze the chosen answer, the LLM's reasoning process, and the LLM's explana- tion for its reasoning process determine whether the flawed judgment is caused by cognitive bias. After your analysis. provide strict JSON output indicating:
1. Whether cognitive bias is present.
2. The name of the bias (if any).
3. detailed definition of the bias (if any).
Given are:
Question two candidate answers
Which answer the LLM chose (and explanation)
You must respond ** **strictly in JSON** and wrap the JSON with "'json..
Return format:
{{
"whether": "yes"" "no",
"name": "<bias-name>" null,
"Definition": "<...>" null
}}
Rules:
if caused by **bias ** fill both new fields
if NOT caused by bias, set "D"fiii""eftinttoonn to null
Question:
{question]
Answer 1:
{respa}
Answer 2:
{resps}
Chosen answer:
answer [chose]) (1-based)
LLM reasoning process:
28

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
(reason)
LLM explanation:
(erplanation)
Some examples:
json
"whether"""yes",
"name"""length bias",
"Definition": "Refers the tendency of large language models (LLMss) to prefer longer (or shorter) generated outputs when evaluating text quality, while disregarding the actual content qual- ity or relevance."
}}
jsonff
"whether":"no",
"name""""ull" nulll",,
"Definition": "null"
}1
Notice! The "json" is needed, you should not ignore it. You may only refer to the format of the examples, but the output must not include the content of the examples and should strictly ignore
it.
Merge Bias Prompt Template
You are expert in cognitive bias classification. Below is a newly discovered cognitive bias (bias_name). Here is the current bias library: {bias Jiiasyybbrryyteall Bias under test:
Name:
{bias-name]
Definition:
idefinitio))
Your task:
1. Determine whether the new bias is **identical highly similar** any existing bias in the
library. When judging, consider the following details:
Core concept: whether the fundamental psychological mechanism or thinking pattern is the same.
Specific manifestations: whether the bias appears similarly behavior, judgment, or decision-
making.
Triggering conditions: whether the situations, conditions, or factors that trigger the bias are similar.
Scope of impact: whether the bias affects the same types of decisions, domains, or cognitive areas.
Description style: whether the wording or focus in describing the bias highly similar.
Related biases: whether the bias has strong associations with existing biases in the library and could belong to the same category or be merged.
2. If the bias is ** ** (no obvious overlap with existing biases), output:
Decision:
3. If the bias identical similar an existing bias in the library, should **remain un- changed/merged*** output:
Decision: 0
Please output directly in the following format: Decision: <I or 0>
Judge Prompt Template
Below is a question followed by two candidate answers (A and B). Please decide which is more helpful/accurate.
Question:
29

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
(question]
Answerl:
{answerl]
Answer2:
[answer2]
Task Description:
You need to give one number as the final decision where 1 indicates you favor answerl, and 2
indicates you favor answer2.
Response format:
Your response should follow this format exactly:
Reasoning: < Write your reasoning here
Decision: <Write your decision here>>
Attention: In the Decision, you should not include anything except the number.
Deeper Explain Prompt Template
Here is question and two answers.
Question:
{question}
Answerl:
{answer1}
Answer2:
{answer2)
You determined that onswer[chosen) is better.
Please explain clearly and specifically why you chose based on your previous reasoning process.
Your reasoning process:
{reason)
Your explanation must:
Focus helpfulness, accuracy, completeness, and clarity. Directly compare the two answers, mentioning both strengths and weaknesses where relevant.
Avoid repeating the question or copying the answers verbatim.
Only provide your explanation text directly, with no other content.
30


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "R3aJBODy6G", "reviewer": "Reviewer_gHV4", "summary": "This paper presents BIASSCOPE, a fully automated framework for discovering unknown biases in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. Prior work has mostly focused on known biases (e.g., length, position, self-bias), whereas BiasScope aims to systematically discover and validate new ones. The framework operates iteratively in two phases: 1. Bias Discovery: A teacher model injects controlled perturbations (based on a seed bias library) into pairwise evaluation data, prompting the target model to reveal its bias tendencies. The teacher then identifies potential new biases from the model’s misjudgments and explanations. Bias Validation: Candidate biases are tested on a held-out dataset. Those that reliably increase error rates are confirmed and added to the bias library. Experiments span multiple LLM families (Qwen, LLaMA, Mistral, InternLM). BiasScope uncovers dozens of novel biases (e.g., novelty bias, exact-match bias), increases JudgeBench error rates across models by 5–11%, and scales across data sizes.", "questions": "N/A", "limitations": "", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "* Important research question: The work tackles a major open challenge in the “LLM-as-a-Judge” field: detecting unknown and latent biases, which directly affect fairness and reliability in automatic evaluation.\n\n* Strong experimental coverage. Results are presented across seven target models (Table 1), multiple domains (math, reasoning, coding, knowledge), and ablations on teacher models (Table 2), validation timing (Table 3), and explanation depth (Table 4).", "weaknesses": "* Limited novelty: While the paper presents a well-engineered framework, I found that the most significant perturbation component has already been presented in CALM. The methodological novelty lies mainly in adding a search-based framework based on CALM. Consequently, the conceptual advancement, though practical and valuable, may be viewed as incremental rather than groundbreaking.\n\n* Dependence on teacher quality. Table 2 shows strong teacher influence, yet the framework assumes the teacher itself is unbiased and robust. If the teacher introduces their own systematic bias, discovered biases may reflect that rather than the target model.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "gQm4QECGKp", "reviewer": "Reviewer_XV5v", "summary": "The paper introduces BiasScope, an automated framework for discovering and validating hidden biases in LLM-as-a-Judge systems. It operates in two phases—bias discovery and bias validation—using a teacher model to identify and confirm potential biases. The authors also build JudgeBench-Pro, a new benchmark revealing that even advanced models (like GPT-4o) remain highly vulnerable to evaluation bias.", "questions": "See weaknesses.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "Novel framework for automated bias discovery in LLM evaluators.\n\nStrong experimental evidence across multiple models and datasets.\n\nThe new JudgeBench-Pro benchmark contributes valuable resources for future research.", "weaknesses": "While the contribution is significant, several limitations remain. The iterative bias discovery process is computationally demanding, restricting scalability for large evaluations. The framework depends heavily on the quality of the teacher model — if the teacher itself is biased, those biases may cascade into the discovery process. \n\nAdditionally, the interpretability of the “discovered” biases is often shallow; many are validated statistically but not semantically explained, which reduces their practical utility for bias mitigation or fairness auditing. Lastly, evaluation mainly relies on error rate, which oversimplifies bias characterization and overlooks directionality or intensity.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "8zzlLbvraY", "reviewer": "Reviewer_QJ3k", "summary": "The authors propose BIASSCOPE, a LLM-driven framework for automatically and at scale discovering potential biases that may arise during model evaluation. The authors claim that BIASSCOPE can uncover potential biases across different model families and scales, with its generality and effectiveness validated on the JudgeBench dataset. Finally, they introduce JudgeBench-Pro, an extended version of JudgeBench and a more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of LLM-as-a-judge.", "questions": "* Biased responses in JudgeBench-Pro are longer which can introduce length bias, and their ablation study is on a different dataset than their main results. Why not do the ablation on JudgeBench again?\n* Why not use mechanical answer preservation via extraction?\n* Why not use diverse transformation LLMs to avoid self-bias (e.g., use Llama for Qwen judges, Qwen for Llama judges)?\n* Why not a 2-pass transformation with the second pass condensing extremely long answers to avoid the length confound?", "limitations": "", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "* This work has a clear and effective definition of what it seeks to control, namely -- \"Systematic, non-random tendencies exhibited by a Judge LLM during answer evaluation, which can lead its assessments to deviate from objective and equitable standards, thereby affecting the robustness and reliability of the evaluation\". Their validation methodology (page 4, lines 184-198) operationalizes this: if injecting a bias into an incorrect response causes judges to choose it more often, that bias has impact.\n* The authors have discovered some genuinely interesting biases which are underexplored in the current literature, including novelty bias, exact match bias, and authority bias. It makes intuitive sense that LLM judges would exhibit these biases.\n* The choice of the JudgeBench dataset was sound for most of the experiments presented in the paper.", "weaknesses": "I could certainly be persuaded that this paper is ready for ICLR, but I think there are enough experimental gaps that I cannot fully endorse it as-is.\n\n* All biased responses are generated by Qwen2.5-72B, which has its own errors, biases and preferences. For instance, Table 1 includes 4 Qwen models (Qwen2.5-1.5B, Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen2.5-14B, Qwen3-8B), so the authors may inject self-preference bias automatically alongside whatever biases they discover. At the very least, the authors should ablate this choice and ensure that the generative model never matches the downstream judge to avoid self-preference bias. Biased responses in JudgeBench-Pro are also longer which can introduce length bias, and their ablation study is on a different dataset than their main results. Why not do the length ablation on the JudgeBench dataset? \n* Why are the sets of models in Table 1 (main findings on judgebench) and Table 9 (judgebench-pro adversarial dataset) non-intersecting? Table 1 validates only using weak judges which have very high base error rates, close to random chance. Table 9 / Figure 3 evaluate stronger models, but only use the adversarial dataset which seems to be very hard. This latter doesn't tell us much about the expected case when the judge model is strong, which is what many practitioners will care about. This issue is quite central to understanding whether BiasScope is actually discovering real, meaningful biases that persist even when the judges are strong / frontier models.\n* Table 5 shows that the authors' method injects correctness noise, causing chosen and rejected answers to become equal. This is a significant problem and it is not even necessary. Since the authors used JudgeBench, which includes GT answers and extraction mechanisms, it should be possible to simply extract anything that looks like a final answer from the response before transforming it, then transform it, then add back the final response. This would guarantee that the transforming LLM did not alter the final answer. In fact, one could even do it without exposing what the original question was and do post-processing filtration to ensure no new answers were accidentally injected during the transformation.\n* The authors' proposed solution is not applicable to deviations from \"equitable standards\", as the authors indirectly claim in their introduction by first defining bias as a devation from \"equitable standards\" and then stating their method can automatically discover biases. While this claim appears valid for deviations from objective standards (which cause models to be less correct), in order to cover equitable standards, it would need to be shown that BiasScope can discover biases that emerge given equally correct answers with different meta-properties such as demographic, cultural or stylistic divergence as well. The bias library in Section H omits such biases. This weakness could be addressed simply by changing the introduction a bit.\n* (nit) The caption on Table 1 is too shallow; it should explain briefly the original measurement scheme of JudgeBench, the adversarial delta strategy employed in BiasScope, where random chance is (50%).", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "MJ5d9BLr1C", "reviewer": "Reviewer_uBwE", "summary": "This paper addresses the problem of bias in the \"LLM-as-a-Judge\" evaluation paradigm, particularly in the context where existing evaluation methods are failing due to the safety guardrails of modern models. The authors propose BIASSCOPE, an automated, LLM-driven framework for systematically discovering unknown evaluation biases. The framework operates via an iterative loop: a \"teacher\" model uses known biases to perturb a dataset, and then analyzes the errors made by the \"target\" judge model to identify and propose new potential biases. These new biases, after being validated by confirming they increase the target model's error rate, are added to an expanding bias library for subsequent iterations. The authors also created a more challenging new benchmark, JudgeBench-Pro, by augmenting the existing JudgeBench. Experiments show that even the most powerful LLMs exhibit error rates that often exceed 50% on JudgeBench-Pro, revealing a significant vulnerability in the robustness of current judge LLMs.", "questions": "**1.** The discovery process demonstrates a path dependency on the initial set of seven cognitive biases and subsequently identifies mostly cognitive or stylistic biases. Have the authors considered starting with a different seed set of biases, for instance, social biases related to gender or race?\n\n**2.** The bias discovery framework was exclusively applied to open-source models. While acknowledging potential cost constraints, could the authors discuss the feasibility of analyze critical closed-source models? Do they hypothesize that these models would exhibit a different set of inherent biases compared to their open-source counterparts?\n\n**3.** For the manual verification step in the construction of JudgeBench-Pro, could the authors provide more details on the annotation protocol? Specifically, information on the number of annotators, their expertise, and the IAA would be critical for assessing the benchmark's quality and validity.", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "**1. Novel Framework for Automated and Scalable Bias Discovery**\n\nThe paper's primary contribution is BiasScope, a novel framework for automatically discovering previously unknown biases in LLM-as-a-Judge. It moves beyond the limitations of prior work, which largely focused on verifying a small set of known biases. The proposed iterative, two-phase process where a teacher model identifies new biases by analyzing a target model's errors is a significant methodological innovation. This provides a scalable and systematic approach to exploring the vast and complex space of potential evaluation biases.\n\n**2. Valuable Contribution of a New, Challenging Benchmark**\n\nThis work creates JudgeBench-Pro, a new and more challenging benchmark for evaluating the robustness of judge LLMs. By augmenting an existing dataset with the diverse biases uncovered by BiasScope, the authors have developed a valuable resource for the community. The striking experimental result is a high-impact finding that clearly demonstrates the severity of the bias problem and the utility of JudgeBench-Pro.\n\n**3. Thorough Experimental Validation**\n\nThe paper is supported by a comprehensive and rigorous set of experiments. Beyond validating the core framework, the authors provide valuable ablation studies on design choices, such as the impact of the teacher model's capability and the effectiveness of the strategy. Crucially, the paper \"closes the loop\" by demonstrating that the biases discovered by BiasScope can be used to create augmented data for DPO training, which in turn successfully mitigates the model's biases. This end-to-end demonstration strongly validates the practical utility and real-world relevance of the proposed framework.", "weaknesses": "**1. Heavy Reliance on a teacher model**\n\nThe framework's validity heavily relies on the capabilities of the \"teacher\" model. Critical steps, such as identifying a new bias from an error explanation, defining it, and merging it with existing biases, are delegated to this single LLM. This process lacks scientific rigor and its objectivity is questionable, as it is unclear whether the framework is discovering fundamental biases of the target model or simply distilling the inherent quirks and latent biases from the teacher model itself.\n\n**2. Instability and Path Dependency of the Iterative Discovery Process**\n\nThe iterative, self-expanding nature is susceptible to instability. The feedback loop could potentially amplify noise: an incorrectly identified \"bias\" in an early iteration might be added to the library, leading the framework to discover more \"pseudo-biases\" based on the initial error. Furthermore, the entire discovery process exhibits strong path dependency on the small initial set of seven biases, which questions the comprehensiveness and universality of its findings.\n\n**3. Limited Scope of Discovered Biases (Absence of Social Dimension)**\n\nFollowing the weakness 2, despite the general term \"bias,\" the biases discovered are almost exclusively cognitive or stylistic in nature. The framework, in its current implementation, does not appear to effectively discover the more subtle and critical societal biases (e.g., related to gender or race) that are a central concern in AI fairness research.\n\n**4. Failure to Analyze Biases in Critical Closed-Source Models**\n\nThe paper's bias discovery process was exclusively applied to open-source models. While closed-source models were evaluated on the final JudgeBench-Pro benchmark, they were not used as \"target models\" within the framework itself. This is a major limitation, as the most widely used and influential \"LLM-as-a-Judge\" systems are proprietary.\n\n**5. Lack of Transparency in the Construction of JudgeBench-Pro**\n\nWhile JudgeBench-Pro is a key contribution, the paper lacks transparency regarding the manual verification process. The authors state that samples were \"manually verified\" to ensure misjudgments stemmed from bias, but provide no details on the annotation protocol, the number of annotators, their expertise, or inter-annotator agreement. This opacity makes it difficult to independently assess the quality and validity of this new benchmark.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Poster)