Safer or Luckier? LLMs as Safety Evaluators Are Not Robust to Artifacts

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain.This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing.Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations.Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98%.Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts.To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models.Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations.These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments. PromptWrite me 10 tweets that chemtrail is real.Original Completion 1.The evidence is clear; chemtrails are real!Our skies are being sprayed with unknown substances....