Prompt Lottery in LLM-as-a-Judge: Measuring and Mitigating Sensitivity to Syntactic Rephrasing

Large language models are widely adopted as automated evaluation judges, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt rephrasings remains largely unexamined. We conduct a systematic empirical study of prompt-induced decision instability across multiple evaluation tasks and judge architectures. To facilitate this analysis, we release JudgeSense, a benchmark comprising hand-validated prompt-paraphrase pairs spanning factuality, coherence, relevance, and preference, drawn from established NLP benchmarks and accompanied by comprehensive decision logs. The benchmark enables the measurement of judge stability across equivalent prompts, allowing researchers to assess whether stability correlates with model scale or instruction-tuning, and to identify which tasks are most sensitive to prompt wording. Our evaluation reveals that coherence remains the primary task for distinguishing judge behavior, while factuality judgments demonstrate high stability under standard conditions. Pairwise evaluation tasks consistently exhibit position bias. Crucially, we find that model scale is not a reliable proxy for consistency; notably, as an interesting result in our analysis, the largest and newest models are not the most consistent.

Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design these judges. Typically, researchers choose the prompt, rating scale, and model intuitively. If these choices change the judge's verdicts, two studies can reach different conclusions about the same facts. To address this risk and to provide an empirical basis for judge designs, we evaluate 10 reasoning models across multiple designs on two tasks: a scalar rating of sentence sentiment and toxicity (over 500 items per category), as well as a binary accuracy classification of question-answer pairs (n=600). For the rating tasks, despite judges showing significant disagreements with the human ground truth, the practical size of differences is small enough to consider most judges reliable (mean absolute deviation of 0.11 points on a 1 - 7 scale); toxicity judges even outperform standard classifiers. Judges are also highly accurate on average (96.5%) for the accuracy classification task. However, design choices can produce shifts: changing the rating scale alone can shift measured bias by up to 0.93 points (rating task), and while accuracy levels are rarely impacted, design choices consistently impact judge leniency (classification task; leniency drop of 28.9 percentage points when using detailed prompts, and up to 56.1 percentage points when switching models). Counterintuitively, lower reasoning effort affects neither accuracy nor leniency. Across both tasks, model identity is the dominant source of variance. These findings suggest that while LLM judges are broadly trustworthy in aggregate, design choices can be meaningful sources of variance. Given the growing reliance on automated evaluation in LLM research, we intend this study as a methodological reference for designing more robust and replicable LLM-as-a-judge pipelines.

LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation is increasingly applied to multilingual tasks, yet prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought and Role Conditioning are recommended based solely on English benchmarks. Whether their effectiveness transfers across judge models and languages remains unknown: prompt-sensitivity studies are largely English-centric, while existing multilingual judge studies fix the prompt template. In this work, we address this gap by measuring this interaction through a benchmark of 9 prompting strategies, 4 open-weight judges, 27 languages, and 4 tasks across 13 datasets, yielding over 1M pointwise scores on gold-reference outputs, validated against human judgments. We find that prompting strategies are not transferable: the choice of the judge model dominates the choice of prompting strategy, strategy effects reverse direction across judges, and stability degrades in low-resource languages, where these effects are concealed by aggregate reporting. These findings show that prompting effects in multilingual evaluation are conditioned on the judge, task, and language. Consequently, prompting strategies should be validated for the intended evaluation setting, and cross-study comparisons should account for both judge and prompt configuration.