Individual and Combined Effects of English as a Second Language and Typos on LLM Performance

Large language models (LLMs) are used globally, and because much of their training data is in English, they typically perform best on English inputs. As a result, many non-native English speakers interact with them in English as a second language (ESL), and these inputs often contain typographical errors. Prior work has largely studied the effects of ESL variation and typographical errors separately, even though they often co-occur in real-world use. In this study, we use the Trans-EnV framework to transform standard English inputs into eight ESL variants and apply MulTypo to inject typos at three levels: low, moderate, and severe. We find that combining ESL variation and typos generally leads to larger performance drops than either factor alone, though the combined effect is not simply additive. This pattern is clearest on closed-ended tasks, where performance degradation can be characterized more consistently across ESL variants and typo levels, while results on open-ended tasks are more mixed. Overall, these findings suggest that evaluations on clean standard English may overestimate real-world model performance, and that evaluating ESL variation and typographical errors in isolation does not fully capture model behavior in realistic settings.

Grading Scale Impact on LLM-as-a-Judge: Human-LLM Alignment Is Highest on 0-5 Grading Scale

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators, yet prior works demonstrate that these LLM judges often lack consistency in scoring when the prompt is altered. However, the effect of the grading scale itself remains underexplored. We study the LLM-as-a-judge problem by comparing two kinds of raters: humans and LLMs. We collect ratings from both groups on three scales and across six benchmarks that include objective, open-ended subjective, and mixed tasks. Using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure absolute agreement, we find that LLM judgments are not perfectly consistent across scales on subjective benchmarks, and that the choice of scale substantially shifts human-LLM agreement, even when within-group panel reliability is high. Aggregated over tasks, the grading scale of 0-5 yields the strongest human-LLM alignment. We further demonstrate that pooled reliability can mask benchmark heterogeneity and reveal systematic subgroup differences in alignment across gender groups, strengthening the importance of scale design and sub-level diagnostics as essential components of LLM-as-a-judge protocols.