Conditional Accuracy Profiles: Diagnosing LLM Judges across Deployment Conditions

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant approach to scalable evaluation in NLP pipelines, yet judges themselves carry systematic biases that raw accuracy hides: they favor responses placed in slot A (position bias), they prefer longer responses regardless of quality (verbosity bias), and their reliability degrades sharply in lower-resource languages. We introduce BabelJudge, an open-source benchmark and reliability audit framework that measures all four failure modes -- position bias, verbosity bias, order inconsistency, and cross-lingual degradation -- on any judge model, without requiring human preference labels. The key insight is gold-labelling by degradation: starting from a high-quality reference response and applying a controlled perturbation yields a pairwise item whose gold label is known by construction, eliminating annotation cost. We evaluate Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-4bit across English, Hindi, Arabic, and Swahili and find that our composite bias-penalised reliability score drops from 0.714 in Hindi to 0.550 in Swahili, a gap that raw accuracy (0.835 vs. 0.660) understates. Swahili order consistency collapses to 0.480, meaning judge verdicts are near-random under slot-order swaps -- a failure mode invisible to accuracy alone. We further extend the framework to agentic evaluation via nine trajectory-level perturbations (argument corruption, tool swaps, hallucinated calls, missing steps) and three new metrics: tool accuracy, hallucination detection rate, and trajectory-length bias. BabelJudge is released as a Python package supporting 11 judge backends. Code: https://github.com/Shreyaskc/BabelJudge

Modern LLM evaluation assumes that pinning a judge to a fixed model version and decoding at temperature zero yields reproducible verdicts. We show this assumption fails as a property of how LLM-as-Judge is operationalized on cloud serving infrastructure, not of any particular model family. Across four frontier judges served via a single major enterprise cloud platform and three standard benchmarks (Arena-Hard, AlpacaEval 2, MT-Bench), identical inputs to the same temperature-zero judge, at a constant serving-reported model version, produce different verdicts across re-runs: per-item flip rates of roughly 5% on average and about 40% on the close-call items that decide leaderboard margins, with a per-judge magnitude spanning a 40x range (0.13% to nearly 10%). We introduce metrics tailored to this instability: per-item flip rate, a two-part stability profile (waver fraction and conditional intensity), and adjacency separability. For the principal judge the aggregate ranking is stable (0% top-K instability, 0% pooled winner flip); what degrades is precision: under a paired hierarchical bootstrap, roughly one-fifth to three-quarters of adjacent leaderboard positions are statistically indistinguishable, a noise floor driven mainly by finite prompt sampling rather than the judge. Across judges, leaderboards agree on the coarse ordering but diverge in the middle (Kendall's tau of 0.42-0.64 between Gemini and Sonnet judges on Arena-Hard, values sensitive to answers truncated at the generation cap). Of 15 expected head-to-head orderings we re-judge, 12 survive every re-run of the principal judge but only 8 survive every judge. Leaderboards thus report unhedged point estimates that overstate their precision. We propose a minimal, low-cost reporting protocol: several judge re-runs, published stability profiles and adjacency intervals, and results under at least two judges from different families.

LLMs are increasingly used as automated judges for model training and evaluation, yet individual judges exhibit systematic biases that undermine reliability. Much of prior work has studied biases in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge settings; in this paper, we focus on absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use cases. Across four benchmarks and six models (36 judge-examinee pairs), we show that a model's task accuracy strongly predicts its judging accuracy (Pearson $r \geq 0.90$ on most models) and inversely predicts its directional bias ($r \leq -0.83$), but that accuracy alone does not ensure fair evaluation: more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges ($r \geq 0.83$). To address this, we propose calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV), an ensemble evaluation method that aggregates multiple LLM judges weighted by online estimates of their false-positive and false-negative rates. We introduce a disagreement-based estimator that derives these error rates purely from inter-judge agreement patterns, requiring no ground-truth labels or task metadata. In a simulated experiment with shifting task distributions, our label-free WMV tracks an oracle with perfect error-rate knowledge to within 0.5 percentage points on average, outperforming both individual judges and unweighted majority voting. These results demonstrate that principled multi-judge calibration can simultaneously improve accuracy and correct for systematic leniency without requiring labeled data, offering a scalable path to reliable automated evaluation as model capabilities increase.