@inproceedings{huang-etal-2026-reasoning,
title = "Reasoning Model Is Superior {LLM}-Judge, Yet Suffers from Biases",
author = "Huang, Hui and
Wu, Xuanxin and
Yang, Muyun and
Arase, Yuki",
editor = "Akhtar, Mubashara and
Batzner, Jan and
Choshen, Leshem and
Ghosh, Avijit and
Gohar, Usman and
Mickel, Jennifer and
Pant, Ichhya and
Talat, Zeerak and
Lin, Michelle",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluating Evaluations ({E}val{E}val)",
month = jul,
year = "2026",
address = "San Diego, CA",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.evaleval-1.13/",
pages = "70--81",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-429-3",
abstract = "This paper presents the first systematic comparison investigating whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are superior judges to non-reasoning LLMs. Our empirical analysis yields four key findings: 1) LRMs outperform non-reasoning LLMs in terms of judgment accuracy, particularly on reasoning-intensive tasks; 2) LRMs demonstrate superior evaluation instruction-following capabilities; 3) LRMs exhibit enhanced robustness against adversarial attacks targeting judgment tasks; 4) However, LRMs still exhibit strong evaluation biases. To mitigate this bias vulnerability, we propose PlanJudge, a lightweight evaluation strategy that prompts the model to generate an explicit evaluation plan before executing the judgment. Despite its simplicity, our experiments demonstrate that PlanJudge significantly mitigates biases in LLM-as-a-Judge while preserving overall judgment accuracy1."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="huang-etal-2026-reasoning">
<titleInfo>
<title>Reasoning Model Is Superior LLM-Judge, Yet Suffers from Biases</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Hui</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Huang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Xuanxin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Muyun</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Yang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yuki</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Arase</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluating Evaluations (EvalEval)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Mubashara</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Akhtar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Batzner</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Leshem</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Choshen</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Avijit</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ghosh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Usman</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gohar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jennifer</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mickel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ichhya</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Pant</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Zeerak</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Talat</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Michelle</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lin</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">San Diego, CA</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-429-3</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>This paper presents the first systematic comparison investigating whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are superior judges to non-reasoning LLMs. Our empirical analysis yields four key findings: 1) LRMs outperform non-reasoning LLMs in terms of judgment accuracy, particularly on reasoning-intensive tasks; 2) LRMs demonstrate superior evaluation instruction-following capabilities; 3) LRMs exhibit enhanced robustness against adversarial attacks targeting judgment tasks; 4) However, LRMs still exhibit strong evaluation biases. To mitigate this bias vulnerability, we propose PlanJudge, a lightweight evaluation strategy that prompts the model to generate an explicit evaluation plan before executing the judgment. Despite its simplicity, our experiments demonstrate that PlanJudge significantly mitigates biases in LLM-as-a-Judge while preserving overall judgment accuracy1.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">huang-etal-2026-reasoning</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.evaleval-1.13/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>70</start>
<end>81</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Reasoning Model Is Superior LLM-Judge, Yet Suffers from Biases
%A Huang, Hui
%A Wu, Xuanxin
%A Yang, Muyun
%A Arase, Yuki
%Y Akhtar, Mubashara
%Y Batzner, Jan
%Y Choshen, Leshem
%Y Ghosh, Avijit
%Y Gohar, Usman
%Y Mickel, Jennifer
%Y Pant, Ichhya
%Y Talat, Zeerak
%Y Lin, Michelle
%S Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluating Evaluations (EvalEval)
%D 2026
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C San Diego, CA
%@ 979-8-89176-429-3
%F huang-etal-2026-reasoning
%X This paper presents the first systematic comparison investigating whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are superior judges to non-reasoning LLMs. Our empirical analysis yields four key findings: 1) LRMs outperform non-reasoning LLMs in terms of judgment accuracy, particularly on reasoning-intensive tasks; 2) LRMs demonstrate superior evaluation instruction-following capabilities; 3) LRMs exhibit enhanced robustness against adversarial attacks targeting judgment tasks; 4) However, LRMs still exhibit strong evaluation biases. To mitigate this bias vulnerability, we propose PlanJudge, a lightweight evaluation strategy that prompts the model to generate an explicit evaluation plan before executing the judgment. Despite its simplicity, our experiments demonstrate that PlanJudge significantly mitigates biases in LLM-as-a-Judge while preserving overall judgment accuracy1.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.evaleval-1.13/
%P 70-81
Markdown (Informal)
[Reasoning Model Is Superior LLM-Judge, Yet Suffers from Biases](https://aclanthology.org/2026.evaleval-1.13/) (Huang et al., EvalEval 2026)
ACL