← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-srw.33 · 记录 #1
Confidence as a Tie-Breaker: Reassessing Multilingual Hedging Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:44
摘要
LLM judges are often used to score generated answers, but their decisions may be affected by surface style rather than semantic correctness. We introduce PolyJudge-Uncertain, a controlled benchmark for studying multilingual hedging effects in LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. The benchmark contains 5,120 short factual QA instances across English, Hindi, Hinglish, and Bengali, balancing assertive versus hedged style and correct versus incorrect answers. A small pilot suggested a large pointwise penalty against hedged answers. After repairing multilingual templates and adding quality-control checks, this pointwise effect largely disappears: final pointwise accuracy is 99.8%, with no meaningful assertive-hedged gap. The robust remaining effect is pairwise: when two answers are equally correct and differ only in style, the judge prefers the assertive answer in 1,276 of 1,280 cases. We interpret this as a protocol- and task-specific assertiveness preference, not as a universal bias against hedging. Our findings highlight benchmark auditing as a central requirement for multilingual judge-bias research.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Confidence as a Tie-Breaker: Reassessing Multilingual Hedging Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
LLM judges are often used to score generated answers, but their decisions may be affected by surface style rather than semantic correctness. We introduce PolyJudge-Uncertain, a controlled benchmark for studying multilingual hedging effects in LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. The benchmark contains 5,120 short factual QA instances across English, Hindi, Hinglish, and Bengali, balancing assertive versus hedged style and correct versus incorrect answers. A small pilot suggested a large pointwise penalty against hedged answers. After repairing multilingual templates and adding quality-control checks, this pointwise effect largely disappears: final pointwise accuracy is 99.8%, with no meaningful assertive-hedged gap. The robust remaining effect is pairwise: when two answers are equally correct and differ only in style, the judge prefers the assertive answer in 1,276 of 1,280 cases. We interpret this as a protocol- and task-specific assertiveness preference, not as a universal bias against hedging. Our findings highlight benchmark auditing as a central requirement for multilingual judge-bias research.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗