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≥0.90 on most models) and inversely predicts its directional bias (r≤−0.83), but that accuracy alone does not ensure fair evaluation: more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges (r≥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.
Multi-judge evaluation is increasingly used to assess LLMs and reward models, and the prevailing heuristic is to curate: keep the most accurate judges and discard weaker ones. We show that this heuristic can reverse when the target is not point accuracy, but calibrated probabilistic evaluation from a labeled calibration set. Holding the aggregation and calibration procedures fixed, we compare accuracy-ranked top-k judge selection with using the full judge panel. Across four labeled pairwise-evaluation benchmarks spanning LLM-as-judge and reward-model settings, the calibrated full panel consistently outperforms accuracy-based selection. On RewardBench2, retaining all judges achieves negative log-likelihood (NLL) of 0.006 versus 0.013 under top-5 selection, halving the calibration error. This advantage persists after judge-family deduplication and against stronger same-pipeline subset search. We explain this reversal with oracle analyses showing that the optimal calibrated risk under proper scoring rules cannot increase when additional judge signals are made available, and that even below-chance judges can be useful when their biases are learnable and their signals are non-redundant. The resulting operating principle is simple: in multi-judge evaluation with labeled calibration data, do not discard weak judges by accuracy alone; keep them when they are parseable, non-redundant, and calibratable.
LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation has become a standard tool for assessing base model performance. However, characterizing performance via the naive estimator, i.e., raw judge outputs, is systematically biased. Recent work has proposed estimators to correct this bias, but their reliability depends critically on judge quality and, for model comparisons, on calibration stability. Sharing calibration across compared models is practically attractive but can introduce severe bias, including cases where the comparison estimate points in the wrong direction with high apparent confidence. We study these failure modes through analytical results, simulations over judge quality (J) and cross-model calibration instability (ΔJ), and a real-data MMLU-Pro case study with sign reversal. We propose J and ΔJ as diagnostics for when corrected estimates, especially shared-calibration comparisons, are likely unreliable, and provide reporting guidance for LaaJ evaluation.
Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model provenance, and evaluation inconsistency that leads to contradictory judgments across different evaluation modes (e.g., pointwise versus pairwise). To address these issues, we propose FairJudge, an adaptive, debiased, and consistent LLM-as-a-Judge. Unlike prior approaches that treat the judge as a static evaluator, FairJudge models judging behavior itself as a learnable and regularized policy. From a data-centric perspective, we construct a high-information-density judging dataset that explicitly injects supervision signals aligned with evaluation behavior. Building on this dataset, we adopt a curriculum-style SFT-DPO-GRPO training paradigm that progressively aligns rubric adherence, bias mitigation, and cross-mode consistency, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting. Experimental results on multiple internal and public benchmarks show that FairJudge consistently improves agreement and F1, reduces non-semantic biases, and outperforms substantially larger instruction-tuned LLMs. All resources will be publicly released after acceptance to facilitate future research.