Judging the Judges: A Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Strategies in LLM-as-a-Judge Pipelines
arXiv:2604.23178v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant paradigm for evaluating language model outputs, yet LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that compromise evaluation reliability. We present a comprehensive empirical study comparing nine debiasing strategies across five judge models from four provider families (Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta), three benchmarks (MT-Bench n=400, LLMBar n=200, custom n=375), and four bias types. Our headline practical finding is that a mid-tier model with the right debiasing can outperform frontier judges at a fraction of the cost: Gemini 2.5 Flash with the Combined Budget strategy reaches the highest agreement of any configuration we tested (71.0%, kappa=0.549) at ~$0.001 per evaluation, about 15x cheaper than the best frontier setup (Claude Sonnet 4, 69.5%, ~$0.015). Other key findings: (1) Style bias is the dominant bias (0.10-0.76 across models, favoring markdown over plain prose), far exceeding position bias (