Evaluative Fingerprints: Stable and Systematic Differences in LLM Evaluator Behavior

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05114v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 17:02:22 GMT
• Title: Evaluative Fingerprints: Stable and Systematic Differences in LLM Evaluator Behavior
• Abstract summary: We find that judges are consistent, but not with each other; they are consistent with themselves.<n>Across 3,240 evaluations, inter-judge agreement is near-zero.<n>Averaging judges' scores produces a synthetic verdict that corresponds to no judge's actual values.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-as-judge systems promise scalable, consistent evaluation. We find the opposite: judges are consistent, but not with each other; they are consistent with themselves. Across 3,240 evaluations (9 judges x 120 unique video x pack items x 3 independent runs), inter-judge agreement is near-zero (Krippendorff's α = 0.042). On two dimensions, judges disagree more than random noise would predict (α < 0). Yet this disagreement isn't chaos; it's structured. A classifier identifies which judge produced an evaluation with 77.1% accuracy from rubric scores alone, rising to 89.9% with disposition features. Within model families, the signal is even stronger: GPT-4.1 and GPT-5.2 are distinguishable with 99.6% accuracy. We call this the reliability paradox: judges cannot agree on what constitutes quality, yet their disagreement patterns are so stable they function as fingerprints. Each judge implements a distinct, stable theory of quality: an "evaluative disposition" that shapes how it interprets any rubric. We characterize these dispositions along multiple axes: harshness/leniency, dimension emphasis, within-judge stability (ICC), and evidence behavior (receipt validity, semantic linkage via NLI, and shotgun index). The implication is stark: LLM judges are not interchangeable instruments measuring a shared construct. They are distinct measurement devices, each encoding its own implicit theory of quality. Averaging their scores produces a synthetic verdict that corresponds to no judge's actual values.

Related papers

• A Judge Should Know What Changed:Construct Validity for LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation [14.867869624585886]
  We formalize construct validity for an evaluator as a two-dimensional profile.<n>We show that S and R are independent and that no scalar summary preserves all relevant comparisons.<n>These results show that high judge agreement can coexist with weak sensitivity to changes in the construct being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T11:32:54Z)
• Jagged Judges: Epistemic Stability Under Silence, Pressure, and Persistence [2.3273914394869393]
  We introduce the emphWiggle Framework, a unified stress test for stability in LLM judges.<n>We use the framework to study 9 frontier models across 14 judging tasks spanning safety, toxicity, AI writing detection, and political-response evaluation.<n>We find that pressure that succeeds in changing a judge's verdict is almost always net-corrupting with respect to ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T23:14:05Z)
• Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents [45.148328075418156]
  We study a deployed multi-turn food-and-beverage ordering agent and measure how many genuine quality problems it catches.<n>Our blind-spot taxonomy shows the failure is structured, not random.<n>For production multi-turn agents, automated judging is a regression floor, not a substitute for human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T02:11:01Z)
• How Sensitive Are Safety Benchmarks to Judge Configuration Choices? [5.94231111588812]
  Safety benchmarks such as HarmBench rely on judges to classify model responses as harmful or safe.<n>We show that the combination of judge model and judge prompt is typically treated as a fixed implementation detail.<n>We find that prompt wording alone, holding the judge model fixed, shifts measured harmful-response rates by up to 24.2 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T05:59:59Z)
• JudgeSense: A Benchmark for Prompt Sensitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems [0.0]
  Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges for evaluating other models.<n>We introduce JudgeSense, a framework and benchmark for quantifying this property via the Judge Sensitivity Score (JSS)<n>On factuality, all judges cluster near JSS about 0.63, driven by a polarity-inverted prompt artifact.<n>We release code, decision logs, and a validated paraphrase dataset to support standardized JSS reporting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T00:08:30Z)
• C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [0.6138671548064355]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>We introduce C2-Faith, a benchmark that targets two complementary dimensions of faithfulness: causality (does each step logically follow from prior context?) and coverage.<n>We evaluate three frontier judges under three tasks: binary causal detection, causal step localization, and coverage scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T13:36:47Z)
• A Coin Flip for Safety: LLM Judges Fail to Reliably Measure Adversarial Robustness [57.510025257780306]
  We show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming.<n>We propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:13:35Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• When Judgment Becomes Noise: How Design Failures in LLM Judge Benchmarks Silently Undermine Validity [21.192000569821943]
  We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise.<n>We show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty.<n>Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T16:26:47Z)
• UDA: Unsupervised Debiasing Alignment for Pair-wise LLM-as-a-Judge [23.497453639857852]
  We propose UDA, a framework that reduces inter-judge disagreement by dynamically adjusting the Elo rating system.<n>UDA operates in a fully unsupervised manner, guided solely by the objective of minimizing the dispersion among the Elo trajectories of all judges.<n>Experiments show that UDA significantly reduces the inter-judge rating standard deviation by up to 63.4% and improves the average correlation with human judgments by 24.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T11:41:01Z)
• Evaluating Judges as Evaluators: The JETTS Benchmark of LLM-as-Judges as Test-Time Scaling Evaluators [66.83088028268318]
  This paper introduces the Judge Evaluation for Test-Time Scaling benchmark.<n>It evaluates judge performance in three domains (math reasoning, code generation, and instruction following) under three task settings.<n>Our benchmark shows that while judges are competitive with outcome reward models in reranking, they are consistently worse than process reward models in beam search procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:33:23Z)
• Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Indeterminacy [65.137380612741]
  We introduce a framework for validating LLM-as-a-judge systems under rating indeterminacy.<n>We demonstrate that differences in how humans and LLMs resolve rating indeterminacy when responding to forced-choice rating instructions can heavily bias validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T22:09:47Z)
• Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
  The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models.<n>This paper focuses on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high.<n>We identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z)
• JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges [48.053949045598344]
  evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively.<n>We propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalable judges (JudgeLM) to evaluate LLMs efficiently and effectively in open-ended benchmarks.<n>We train JudgeLM at different scales from 7B, 13B, to 33B parameters, and conduct a systematic analysis of its capabilities and behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:48:58Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.