Rubrics Carry the Standard: Shapley Attribution for Checklist-Based LLM Judges

LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs. However, judges are known to exhibit self-preference bias (SPB): they tend to favor outputs produced by themselves or by models from their own family. This skews evaluations and, thus, hinders model development, especially in settings of recursive self-improvement. We present the first study of SPB in rubric-based evaluation, an increasingly popular benchmarking paradigm where judges issue binary verdicts on individual evaluation criteria, instead of assigning holistic scores or rankings. Using IFEval and LiveCodeBench, benchmarks with programmatically verifiable rubrics, we show that SPB persists even when evaluation criteria are entirely objective: among rubrics where generators fail, judges can be more than 50% more likely to incorrectly mark them as satisfied when the output is their own. We also find that, similarly to other evaluation paradigms, ensembling multiple judges helps mitigate SPB, but without fully eliminating it. On HealthBench, a medical chat benchmark with subjective rubrics, we observe that SPB skews model scores by up to 10 points, a potentially decisive margin when ranking frontier models. We analyze the factors that drive SPB in this setting, finding that negative rubrics and subjective topics like communication and emergency referrals are particularly susceptible.

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge relies on a critical assumption, namely that high inter-evaluator agreement indicates reliable and objective evaluation. We present two complementary findings that challenge this assumption. First, we demonstrate that this consensus is frequently illusory. We identify and formalize Evaluation Illusion, a phenomenon where LLM judges generate sophisticated critiques yet anchor scores on shared surface heuristics rather than substantive quality. Through a large-scale study of 105,600 evaluation instances (32 LLMs $\times$ 3 frontier judges $\times$ 100 tasks $\times$ 11 temperatures), we show that model-level agreement (Spearman $ρ= 0.99$) masks fragile sample-level agreement (Pearson $\bar{r} = 0.72$; absolute agreement ICC $= 0.67$), that merely sharing rubric structure restores 62% of total agreement, and that high-quality outputs paradoxically receive the least consistent evaluations. Second, we demonstrate that dynamically generating evaluation rubrics grounded in domain knowledge produces more meaningful assessment. We introduce MERG (Metacognitive Enhanced Rubric Generation), a knowledge-driven rubric generation framework whose domain-selective effects confirm this. Agreement increases in codified domains (Education +22%, Academic +27%) where knowledge anchors evaluators on shared standards, while it decreases in subjective domains where genuine evaluative pluralism emerges. These findings suggest that evaluation rubrics should be dynamically enriched with expert knowledge rather than relying on generic criteria, with implications for reward modeling in RLAIF.

LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines are increasingly used to evaluate AI-generated text, based on the assumption that judgments arise from reasoning over candidate responses with respect to a rubric. We show that this assumption warrants further scrutiny. Classifiers trained only on rubric text, without access to any evaluated response, achieve nontrivial predictive performance on judge outputs. This suggests that rubric formulations encode recoverable evaluative signals, allowing scores to be partially anticipated independently of model outputs. Finally, counterfactual perturbations reveal that judges often fail to reliably update their decisions when either the candidate response or the rubric criterion is reversed. Our findings raise concerns about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation and highlight the need for further methodological study of automated evaluation via LLMs.