DA-RAC: Distance-Aware Calibration of LLM Judges for Trustworthy AI Auditing

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to predict which of two candidate answers a human evaluator would prefer, providing a scalable alternative when human evaluation is too costly. Unfortunately, LLM judgments can exhibit systematic biases. Prior work has documented position, verbosity or model family of the candidate answers influencing the judge decision rather than their quality, while additional biases may remain undocumented. $\textit{Multicalibration}$ provides a natural framework to address this problem: each bias corresponds to miscalibration on an identifiable group, $\textit{e.g.}$, family bias manifests as overconfidence in answers generated by models belonging to the same family of the judge. The challenge is to fix miscalibration simultaneously across many, potentially unknown groups. To this end, we introduce $\mathrm{CaLLM}$, a post hoc framework that multicalibrates an LLM judge, thereby bounding all such biases simultaneously. We prove that $\mathrm{CaLLM}$ bounds the bias of every group whose error structure is captured by an available representation, and that augmenting it with explicit bias groups further reduces the residual bias. We then derive theoretical conditions under which $\mathrm{CaLLM}$ improves the judge's accuracy, rather than trading it for calibration. Finally, we evaluate $\mathrm{CaLLM}$ across pairwise preference benchmarks, showing that it reduces the multicalibration error on both specified and unspecified bias groups, while improving predictive performance of the judge.

LLMs are increasingly used as automated judges for model training and evaluation, yet individual judges exhibit systematic biases that undermine reliability. Much of prior work has studied biases in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge settings; in this paper, we focus on absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use cases. Across four benchmarks and six models (36 judge-examinee pairs), we show that a model's task accuracy strongly predicts its judging accuracy (Pearson $r \geq 0.90$ on most models) and inversely predicts its directional bias ($r \leq -0.83$), but that accuracy alone does not ensure fair evaluation: more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges ($r \geq 0.83$). To address this, we propose calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV), an ensemble evaluation method that aggregates multiple LLM judges weighted by online estimates of their false-positive and false-negative rates. We introduce a disagreement-based estimator that derives these error rates purely from inter-judge agreement patterns, requiring no ground-truth labels or task metadata. In a simulated experiment with shifting task distributions, our label-free WMV tracks an oracle with perfect error-rate knowledge to within 0.5 percentage points on average, outperforming both individual judges and unweighted majority voting. These results demonstrate that principled multi-judge calibration can simultaneously improve accuracy and correct for systematic leniency without requiring labeled data, offering a scalable path to reliable automated evaluation as model capabilities increase.

LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines are increasingly used to evaluate AI-generated text, based on the assumption that judgments arise from reasoning over candidate responses with respect to a rubric. We show that this assumption warrants further scrutiny. Classifiers trained only on rubric text, without access to any evaluated response, achieve nontrivial predictive performance on judge outputs. This suggests that rubric formulations encode recoverable evaluative signals, allowing scores to be partially anticipated independently of model outputs. Finally, counterfactual perturbations reveal that judges often fail to reliably update their decisions when either the candidate response or the rubric criterion is reversed. Our findings raise concerns about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation and highlight the need for further methodological study of automated evaluation via LLMs.