Human-Residual Steering: Aligning Frozen LLM Judges with Human Judgment Distributions

[Abridged] Using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an automatic rater (LLM-as-a-judge) is cheap but potentially biased: some judges run lenient, others strict, the middle of the scale gets compressed, and verbose answers may be over-rewarded. A common remedy is post-hoc calibration: leave the cheap judge in place and, on a modest set of paired anchors, fit a transformation from raw judge scores to an estimate of the human rating. We compare two correctors that take opposing views on how this mapping should be modeled: a parametric, small-anchor hierarchical Bayesian linear correction with per-score uncertainty, and a non-parametric Neural-ODE (FFJORD) score-transport flow. Both are run head-to-head on UltraFeedback fine-grained_score (1700 paired examples, 200 held out), with calibration split into three operational sub-questions: population-mean recovery, per-item accuracy, and distributional-shape match. The headline result is that the choice between methods is primarily a data-budget question. Both correctors close the raw $+0.71$-point mean offset to within $\pm 0.08$ of the GPT-4 reference, at 100 and at 1500 anchors. Past that, the methods swap roles. With 100 anchors, the linear corrector reconstructs the human-score distribution roughly twice as well by KL divergence (0.031 vs. 0.058) and ties the flow on MAE. With 1500 anchors the flow wins on every metric (MAE 0.320 vs. 0.359, Pearson 0.922 vs. 0.896, KL 0.026 vs. 0.037). The Bayesian linear corrector saturates well below 1500 anchors: residual $\tanh$-shaped non-linearity is, by construction, structure a linear correction cannot fit. The flow keeps improving as labels grow. We translate these findings into an explicit decision rule for production deployments.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

Large language models (LLMs) as a judge enable scalable evaluation, but their judgments can be sensitive to response order and, even after removing such position effects, can still diverge systematically from human preferences.We introduce DIAL, a unified framework that combines abundant LLM comparisons with limited human comparisons to separate judge-specific position effects, learn shared structure in position-debiased LLM preferences, and adaptively calibrate that structure toward the human preference target. Theoretically, we study three aspects of DIAL: (i) identification of latent LLM preferences, position effects, and human calibration; (ii) adaptive estimation that balances LLM anchoring against limited human evidence; and (iii) fixed-weight uncertainty quantification for the calibrated human preference. Empirically, we evaluate position debiasing and human alignment separately in controlled simulations and on three human-preference benchmarks, showing that DIAL remains robust to unbalanced response order, achieves strong human-aligned rankings with limited labels, and adapts toward human evidence when LLM information is imperfect. Our real-data study collects over 410K judgments from 21 LLM judges in both display orders, providing a resource for future studies of LLM-judge bias, heterogeneity, and human alignment.