JudgeSense: A Benchmark for Prompt Sensitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23478v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 00:08:30 GMT
• Title: JudgeSense: A Benchmark for Prompt Sensitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges for evaluating other models, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt paraphrases remains unmeasured. We introduce JudgeSense, a framework and benchmark for quantifying this property via the Judge Sensitivity Score (JSS), defined as the fraction of paraphrase pairs on which a judge returns an identical decision. Evaluating nine judge models on 494 validated paraphrase pairs, we find that coherence is the only task where judges meaningfully differ, with JSS ranging from 0.389 to 0.992. On factuality, all judges cluster near JSS about 0.63, driven by a polarity-inverted prompt artifact; after correction, factuality JSS rises to about 0.9. Pairwise tasks (preference and relevance) exhibit degenerate always-A behavior in 8 of 9 judges, indicating strong position bias. Model scale does not predict consistency. We release code, decision logs, and a validated paraphrase dataset to support standardized JSS reporting.

Related papers

• Small Language Models as Judges for Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning [57.707881387886516]
  We study whether smaller language models can serve as efficient and reliable rubric-based judges.<n>We compare three ways of extracting criterion-level judgments from small models: Generative verdicts, Yes/No Logprob margins, and Probe judges.<n>Across both datasets, the Qwen3-1.7B Probe judge achieves the strongest criterion-level agreement among these methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T20:00:17Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: A Dual-Judge Evaluation Protocol for Vision-Language Models in Legally Grounded Tasks [1.2555090617748867]
  We contribute a dual-judge protocol that pairs a standard 0-10 quality judge with a strict binary semantic-equivalence judge against a human-curated reference.<n>We study a controlled, visually grounded regulatory task, whose meaning is a codified question with a known reference for every input.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T08:49:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Evaluative Fingerprints: Stable and Systematic Differences in LLM Evaluator Behavior [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T17:02:22Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Judge as A Judge: Improving the Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation through the Judge-Consistency of Large Language Models [68.92020689188887]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven its effectiveness in alleviating hallucinations for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Existing automated evaluation metrics cannot fairly evaluate the outputs generated by RAG models during training and evaluation.<n>This paper introduces the Judge-Consistency (ConsJudge) method, which aims to enhance LLMs to generate more accurate evaluations for RAG models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T04:50:43Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• 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)

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.