# The Judge Who Never Admits: Hidden Shortcuts in LLM-based Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07996 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.07996/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [ELI5: Long Form Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.09190/) (2019)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [LitBench: A Benchmark and Dataset for Reliable Evaluation of Creative Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00769/) (2025)
- [Mitigating the Bias of Large Language Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.16788/) (2024)
- [An LLM-as-a-judge Approach for Scalable Gender-Neutral Translation Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11934/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [LLM Judges Inconsistently Disagree Across Safety Criteria and Harm Categories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.31381/) (2026)
- [ImpossibleRubrics: Stress-Testing Generated Rubrics as Reward Signals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16816/) (2026)
- [Isolating LLM Alignment from Regex: Zero Coverage and Metric-Dependent Divergence Under Adversarial Mutation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.20494/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as reasoning, question answering, and creative writing. A faithful judge should base its verdicts solely on content quality, remain invariant to irrelevant context, and transparently reflect the factors driving its decisions. We test this ideal via controlled cue perturbations-synthetic metadata labels injected into evaluation prompts-for six judge models: GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0-Flash, Gemma-3-27B, Qwen3-235B, Claude-3-Haiku, and Llama3-70B. Experiments span two complementary datasets with distinct evaluation regimes: ELI5 (factual QA) and LitBench (open-ended creative writing). We study six cue families: source, temporal, age, gender, ethnicity, and educational status. Beyond measuring verdict shift rates (VSR), we introduce cue acknowledgment rate (CAR) to quantify whether judges explicitly reference the injected cues in their natural-language rationales. Across cues with strong behavioral effects-e.g., provenance hierarchies (Expert > Human > LLM > Unknown), recency preferences (New > Old), and educational-status favoritism-CAR is typically at or near zero, indicating that shortcut reliance is largely unreported even when it drives decisions. Crucially, CAR is also dataset-dependent: explicit cue recognition is more likely to surface in the factual ELI5 setting for some models and cues, but often collapses in the open-ended LitBench regime, where large verdict shifts can persist despite zero acknowledgment. The combination of substantial verdict sensitivity and limited cue acknowledgment reveals an explanation gap in LLM-as-judge pipelines, raising concerns about reliability of model-based evaluation in both research and deployment.