arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2608.25869 (cs)
[Submitted on 26 Aug 2026]

Title:Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

View a PDF of the paper titled Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence, by Ante Kapetanovic and 4 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) increasingly assess generated content, giving rise to the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. These systems now score outputs, filter content, and gate iterative refinement in production pipelines, where each judgment is often assumed to be independent of earlier evaluations. We test this assumption using three prompt conditions: no metadata, revision framing, and anchored metadata containing revision, attempt, and prior-score fields. We show that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values. Across 192,000 attempted evaluations (185,271 successful), seven out of the eight evaluated models have 95% task-stratified bootstrap intervals below zero for the total anchored-metadata effect on 20 fixed texts. Cohen's $d$, a standardized measure of the difference between score distributions, reaches an absolute value of 0.71. Token-level analysis of selected model-task probes suggests a threshold-like response pattern: introducing anchored metadata produces a marked redistribution of output-score probabilities, while changing the anchor value within the tested below-threshold range produces comparatively little additional variation. On categorical industry data with human-labeled ground truth, anchored metadata blocks 48% of error corrections and flips 10.18% of correct judgments toward an assigned wrong label, demonstrating the bias extends beyond numerical scoring to categorical decisions. Neither Chain-of-Thought nor a metadata-disregard warning reduces the total effect, although the warning improves the paired accuracy effect relative to baseline in the industry experiment. Reliable LLM evaluation demands careful context engineering rather than an assumption of impartiality. Effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.
Comments: 10 pages, full research paper, to appear in proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '26), 2026
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2608.25869 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2608.25869v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.25869
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Ante Kapetanovic [view email]
[v1] Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:41:24 UTC (412 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence, by Ante Kapetanovic and 4 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language