When Wording Steers the Evaluation: Framing Bias in LLM judges

Large language models (LLMs) are known to produce varying responses depending on prompt phrasing, indicating that subtle guidance in phrasing can steer their answers. However, the impact of this framing bias on LLM-based evaluation, where models are expected to make stable and impartial judgments, remains largely underexplored. Drawing inspiration from the framing effect in psychology, we systematically investigate how deliberate prompt framing skews model judgments across four high-stakes evaluation tasks. We design symmetric prompts using predicate-positive and predicate-negative constructions and demonstrate that such framing induces significant discrepancies in model outputs. Across 14 LLM judges, we observe clear susceptibility to framing, with model families showing distinct tendencies toward agreement or rejection. These findings suggest that framing bias is a structural property of current LLM-based evaluation systems, underscoring the need for framing-aware protocols.

Judging Against the Reference: Uncovering Knowledge-Driven Failures in LLM-Judges on QA Evaluation

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for question answering (QA) and other reference-conditioned evaluation tasks, little is known about their ability to adhere to a provided reference. We identify a critical failure mode of such reference-based LLM QA evaluation: when the provided reference conflicts with the judge model's parametric knowledge, the resulting scores become unreliable, substantially degrading evaluation fidelity. To study this phenomenon systematically, we introduce a controlled swapped-reference QA framework that induces reference-belief conflicts. Specifically, we replace the reference answer with an incorrect entity and construct diverse pairings of original and swapped references with correspondingly aligned candidate answers. Surprisingly, grading reliability drops sharply under swapped references across a broad set of judge models. We empirically show that this vulnerability is driven by judges' over-reliance on parametric knowledge, leading judges to disregard the given reference under conflict. Finally, we find that this failure persists under common prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting a fundamental limitation of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and motivating reference-based protocols that enforce stronger adherence to the provided reference.

Can You Trick the Grader? Adversarial Persuasion of LLM Judges

As large language models take on growing roles as automated evaluators in practical settings, a critical question arises: Can individuals persuade an LLM judge to assign unfairly high scores? This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks, where correctness should be independent of stylistic variation. Grounded in Aristotle's rhetorical principles, we formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses. Across six math benchmarks, we find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion. Notably, increasing model size does not substantially mitigate this vulnerability. Further analysis demonstrates that combining multiple persuasion techniques amplifies the bias, and pairwise evaluation is likewise susceptible. Moreover, the persuasive effect persists under counter prompting strategies, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines and underscoring the need for robust defenses against persuasion-based attacks.

Don't Judge Code by Its Cover: Exploring Biases in LLM Judges for Code Evaluation

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

Fooling the LVLM Judges: Visual Biases in LVLM-Based Evaluation

Recently, large vision-language models (LVLMs) have emerged as the preferred tools for judging text-image alignment, yet their robustness along the visual modality remains underexplored. This work is the first study to address a key research question: Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores? We define potential image induced biases within the context of T2I evaluation and examine how these biases affect the evaluations of LVLM judges. Moreover, we introduce a novel, fine-grained, multi-domain meta-evaluation benchmark named FRAME, which is deliberately constructed to exhibit diverse score distributions. By introducing the defined biases into the benchmark, we reveal that all tested LVLM judges exhibit vulnerability across all domains, consistently inflating scores for manipulated images. Further analysis reveals that combining multiple biases amplifies their effects, and pairwise evaluations are similarly susceptible. Moreover, we observe that visual biases persist under prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting the vulnerability of current LVLM evaluation systems and underscoring the urgent need for more robust LVLM judges.

LLMs can be easily Confused by Instructional Distractions

Despite the fact that large language models (LLMs) show exceptional skill in instruction following tasks, this strength can turn into a vulnerability when the models are required to disregard certain instructions. Instruction-following tasks typically involve a clear task description and input text containing the target data to be processed. However, when the input itself resembles an instruction, confusion may arise, even if there is explicit prompting to distinguish between the task instruction and the input. We refer to this phenomenon as instructional distraction. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark, named DIM-Bench, specifically designed to assess LLMs' performance under instructional distraction. The benchmark categorizes real-world instances of instructional distraction and evaluates LLMs across four instruction tasks: rewriting, proofreading, translation, and style transfer -- alongside five input tasks: reasoning, code generation, mathematical reasoning, bias detection, and question answering. Our experimental results reveal that even the most advanced LLMs are susceptible to instructional distraction, often failing to accurately follow user intent in such cases.

SWITCH: Studying with Teacher for Knowledge Distillation of Large Language Models

Despite the success of Large Language Models (LLMs), they still face challenges related to high inference costs and memory requirements. To address these issues, Knowledge Distillation (KD) has emerged as a popular method for model compression, with student-generated outputs (SGOs) being particularly notable for reducing the mismatch between training and inference. However, SGOs often produce noisy and biased sequences, which can lead to misguidance from the teacher model, especially in long sequences. To mitigate these challenges, we propose SWITCH (Studying WIth TeaCHer for Knowledge Distillation), a novel approach that strategically incorporates the teacher model during the student's sequence generation. SWITCH identifies discrepancies between the token probabilities of the teacher and student models, allowing the teacher to intervene selectively, particularly in long sequences that are more prone to teacher misguidance. Extensive experimental results across three model families and five instruction-following datasets show that SWITCH surpasses traditional KD methods, particularly excelling in the generation of long sequential data.

CRISPR: Eliminating Bias Neurons from an Instruction-following Language Model

Large language models (LLMs) executing tasks through instruction-based prompts often face challenges stemming from distribution differences between user instructions and training instructions. This leads to distractions and biases, especially when dealing with inconsistent dynamic labels. In this paper, we introduces a novel bias mitigation method, CRISPR, designed to alleviate instruction-label biases in LLMs. CRISPR utilizes attribution methods to identify bias neurons influencing biased outputs and employs pruning to eliminate the bias neurons. Experimental results demonstrate the method's effectiveness in mitigating biases in instruction-based prompting, enhancing language model performance on social bias benchmarks without compromising pre-existing knowledge. CRISPR proves highly practical, model-agnostic, offering flexibility in adapting to evolving social biases.