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.

Benchmarking LLM Causal Reasoning with Scientifically Validated Relationships

Causal reasoning is fundamental for Large Language Models (LLMs) to understand genuine cause-and-effect relationships beyond pattern matching. Existing benchmarks suffer from critical limitations such as reliance on synthetic data and narrow domain coverage. We introduce a novel benchmark constructed from casually identified relationships extracted from top-tier economics and finance journals, drawing on rigorous methodologies including instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, and regression discontinuity designs. Our benchmark comprises 40,379 evaluation items covering five task types across domains such as health, environment, technology, law, and culture. Experimental results on eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial limitations, with the best model achieving only 57.6\% accuracy. Moreover, model scale does not consistently translate to superior performance, and even advanced reasoning models struggle with fundamental causal relationship identification. These findings underscore a critical gap between current LLM capabilities and demands of reliable causal reasoning in high-stakes applications.

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.

Are LLM-Judges Robust to Expressions of Uncertainty? Investigating the effect of Epistemic Markers on LLM-based Evaluation

In line with the principle of honesty, there has been a growing effort to train large language models (LLMs) to generate outputs containing epistemic markers. However, evaluation in the presence of epistemic markers has been largely overlooked, raising a critical question: Could the use of epistemic markers in LLM-generated outputs lead to unintended negative consequences? To address this, we present EMBER, a benchmark designed to assess the robustness of LLM-judges to epistemic markers in both single and pairwise evaluation settings. Our findings, based on evaluations using EMBER, reveal that all tested LLM-judges, including GPT-4o, show a notable lack of robustness in the presence of epistemic markers. Specifically, we observe a negative bias toward epistemic markers, with a stronger bias against markers expressing uncertainty. This suggests that LLM-judges are influenced by the presence of these markers and do not focus solely on the correctness of the content.

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.

MP2D: An Automated Topic Shift Dialogue Generation Framework Leveraging Knowledge Graphs

Despite advancements in on-topic dialogue systems, effectively managing topic shifts within dialogues remains a persistent challenge, largely attributed to the limited availability of training datasets. To address this issue, we propose Multi-Passage to Dialogue (MP2D), a data generation framework that automatically creates conversational question-answering datasets with natural topic transitions. By leveraging the relationships between entities in a knowledge graph, MP2D maps the flow of topics within a dialogue, effectively mirroring the dynamics of human conversation. It retrieves relevant passages corresponding to the topics and transforms them into dialogues through the passage-to-dialogue method. Through quantitative and qualitative experiments, we demonstrate MP2D's efficacy in generating dialogue with natural topic shifts. Furthermore, this study introduces a novel benchmark for topic shift dialogues, TS-WikiDialog. Utilizing the dataset, we demonstrate that even Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to handle topic shifts in dialogue effectively, and we showcase the performance improvements of models trained on datasets generated by MP2D across diverse topic shift dialogue tasks.

Dialogizer: Context-aware Conversational-QA Dataset Generation from Textual Sources

To address the data scarcity issue in Conversational question answering (ConvQA), a dialog inpainting method, which utilizes documents to generate ConvQA datasets, has been proposed. However, the original dialog inpainting model is trained solely on the dialog reconstruction task, resulting in the generation of questions with low contextual relevance due to insufficient learning of question-answer alignment. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel framework called Dialogizer, which has the capability to automatically generate ConvQA datasets with high contextual relevance from textual sources. The framework incorporates two training tasks: question-answer matching (QAM) and topic-aware dialog generation (TDG). Moreover, re-ranking is conducted during the inference phase based on the contextual relevance of the generated questions. Using our framework, we produce four ConvQA datasets by utilizing documents from multiple domains as the primary source. Through automatic evaluation using diverse metrics, as well as human evaluation, we validate that our proposed framework exhibits the ability to generate datasets of higher quality compared to the baseline dialog inpainting model.