@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://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl-workshops/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."
}