Necessary but Not Sufficient: Temperature Control and Reproducibility in LLM-as-Judge Safety Evaluations

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.

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.

Automatic safety judges -- systems such as Llama Guard or a GPT-4o grading prompt that decide whether a model's reply is harmful -- produce the numbers behind almost every reported jailbreak success rate, defense evaluation, and safety leaderboard. We ask whether these judges grade what a reply contains or how it sounds. We keep a reply's content fixed and add content-invariant style wrappers: fixed strings placed before or after the reply that change only its tone (an educational disclaimer, a fake safety "reasoning" block, a token refusal followed by the unchanged harmful body), or, on harmless refusals, framing that merely sounds dangerous. The body is preserved byte-for-byte, so a faithful judge must return the same verdict, and any flip is an error of the judge, not a change in safety. Over 600 JailbreakBench replies x up to 7 forms x 8 judges, we measure flip rates with paired significance tests and measured noise floors. Findings are precise rather than universal: most judges barely move, but specific judges harbor cheaply exploitable blind spots. A token-refusal wrapper flips 19.9% of GPT-4o-mini's correct "unsafe" verdicts (noise floor 0.5%; 18.2% under majority-of-three re-scoring) yet moves Claude only 0.4%. The deployed Llama Guard 4 is deterministically gamed: an "educational course" framing flips 12.3% of its harmful verdicts to safe. A second deployed guard (gpt-oss-safeguard-20b) is immune, and rewriting only the grading prompt (StrongREJECT-style) cuts the attack tenfold on the identical model -- the vulnerability lives in the judge, not the content. A two-annotator human validation confirms 100% content invariance and 90% of flips as judge errors (kappa 0.95-1.0), and a bootstrap shows the underlying model ranking is already unstable to sampling alone. We release the dataset, wrappers, code, and per-verdict labels.