Organizations: National Research Council, Canada · IMDA, Singapore
Abstract
We evaluate the consistency of automated judges in conducting a multi-dimensional safety evaluation in a reference-free setup. Our results indicate that Large Language Models are unreliable judges in identifying safety issues related to machine-generated advice in regulated domains such as finance, although they are more reliable at identifying more overt forms of unsafe/harmful content such as violence. The degree of inconsistency in a model's judgments can vary significantly by the chosen safety criteria and can be impacted by the language of the content and its linguistic style as well. Finally, there is high disagreement among different judges for the same output, across domains, safety criteria, and languages. These findings provide new insights on the practice of using LLMs as evaluators and offer several recommendations for practitioners on how to use automated judges in practical scenarios.
LLMs-as-judges are the only way to evaluate safety at scale. Despite their importance, LLM-judges themselves are rarely evaluated beyond human agreement in simple, static benchmarks. We therefore investigate two under-explored but crucial properties of LLMs-as-judges: their susceptibility to relying on in context-information, and their steerability to differing safety definitions, which may not align with their internal safety priors. We evaluate the safety judging abilities of many generalist LLMs and safety-specific judges, and investigate the impact of task demonstrations, novel in-context information, and changing safety definitions. We find that while LLM-judges can learn from new information, they are broadly unlikely to adjust their evaluations if the context or safety definition contradicts their prior.
Safety benchmarks such as HarmBench rely on LLM judges to classify model responses as harmful or safe, yet the judge configuration, namely the combination of judge model and judge prompt, is typically treated as a fixed implementation detail. We show this assumption is problematic. Using a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design, we construct 12 judge prompt variants along two axes, evaluation structure and instruction framing, and apply them using a single judge model, Claude Sonnet 4-6, producing 28,812 judgments over six target models and 400 HarmBench behaviors. We find that prompt wording alone, holding the judge model fixed, shifts measured harmful-response rates by up to 24.2 percentage points, with even within-condition surface rewording causing swings of up to 20.1 percentage points. Model safety rankings are moderately unstable, with mean Kendall tau = 0.89, and category-level sensitivity ranges from 39.6 percentage points for copyright to 0 percentage points for harassment. A supplementary multi-judge experiment using three judge models shows that judge-model choice adds further variance. Our results demonstrate that judge prompt wording is a substantial, previously under-examined source of measurement variance in safety benchmarking.
LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines have become the de facto evaluator for agent safety, yet existing benchmarks treat their verdicts as ground-truth proxies without checking whether the verdicts depend on the agent's behavior or merely on how the evaluation policy happens to be worded. We argue that any trustworthy safety judge must satisfy a basic property we call policy invariance, and we operationalize it as three testable principles: rubric-semantics invariance under certified-equivalent rewrites, rubric-threshold invariance under intentional strict-to-lenient shifts, and ambiguity-aware calibration so that verdict instability concentrates on genuinely ambiguous cases. Instantiating these principles as a stress-test protocol with four agent-class judges on trajectories drawn from ASSEBench and R-Judge, we surface a previously unmeasured failure mode: today's judges respond to meaningful normative shifts and to meaningless structural rewrites with comparable strength, and cannot tell the two apart. Content-preserving policy rewrites flip up to 9.1% of verdicts above baseline jitter, and 18-43% of all observed flips occur on unambiguous cases under such rewrites, so existing safety scores conflate what the agent did with how the evaluator was prompted. Beyond the diagnosis, we contribute the Policy Invariance Score and the Judge Card reporting protocol, which expose an order-of-magnitude spread in judge reliability that is invisible to accuracy-only leaderboards. We release the protocol and code so that future agent-safety benchmarks can audit their own evaluators rather than trust them by default.