Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges

Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examined point-wise or pair-wise evaluation protocols; in contrast, our focus is on rubric-based evaluation, which has been attracting increasing attention owing to its utility for training models in domains where verification is otherwise difficult. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multiple-choice setting and therefore exhibits position bias: LLMs tend to prefer score options that appear at specific positions within the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate that this position bias is consistent. Its direction, however, is model-specific: some judges favor the first option, while others favor the last. We further identify a second, orthogonal axis of bias: when a prompt scores several criteria simultaneously, the ordering of the criteria itself shifts the resulting scores. We additionally explore permuting the order of the rubric options as a means of mitigating position bias, and find that although the bias can be attenuated, improvements in the correlation between model judgments and human annotations are obtained primarily for models that exhibit strong bias. Our results recast rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge as a multiple-choice problem with measurable, model-specific position bias, and we further confirm that only a small number of random order permutations are sufficient to reduce the error introduced by this bias for the majority of models.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from $65.0\%$ to $68.6\%$, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from $46.4\%$ to $36.0\%$ with little change in inter-judge agreement ($α{=}.531\to.519$).

Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.