ai model evaluators

Abstract: Language models are increasingly evaluated as vulnerability detectors, and scores reported for similar models differ widely between papers. We measured how much of that difference evaluation protocol accounts for, with model outputs held fixed. In a paired test, a model must flag a vulnerable function and clear its version after a fixing commit. Three choices that published evaluations make differently were varied one at a time: metric, verdict extraction and output budget. Seven frontier and large open models were evaluated on five released pair benchmarks and a set pooled for this work under one protocol, and 61 open models of 1.5B to 36B parameters on the pooled set. Function-level F1 follows how often a model flags both functions of a pair (Spearman $+0.86$ over 42 combinations) and is nearly unrelated to pair-level correctness ($+0.16$). On the pair score, extraction changes a model's number by $+0.001$ at the median and budget by $+0.02$ with an interval through zero, whereas the model changes a benchmark's number by up to 0.18 and the benchmark a model's by up to 0.16; a function-level score therefore measures flag rate more than model. For 37 of 68 models the difference between correct and reversed pairs is within its 95% interval of zero, the value for a null model that flags each function at a fixed rate, while both-flagged and both-cleared rates exceed that null by 0.055 on median, and for 64 of 68 both functions of a pair receive one answer more often than independence predicts: verdicts are determined by the text common to both functions. On length-matched pairs a linear probe on activations separates 0.78 by within-pair ranking, against 0.64 for a tf-idf baseline and 0.5 for length; the generated verdict is near chance for three of six models and at 0.55 to 0.57 for the other three, and a prompted logit is at chance for all six.

Abstract: We audit a multilingual affective generation benchmark eight instruction-tuned LLMs producing emoji summaries for 17,100 Bangla, English and Hindi sentences, with 6,960 human judgements and find its headline conclusions to be artefacts of the measurement instrument rather than properties of the systems. Treating annotators as a random rather than a fixed factor, no system differs significantly from any other ($F(7,14)=0.59$, $p=0.76$), although the conventional analysis declares 19 of 28 pairwise differences significant. Annotator identity explains far more rating variance than system identity, and the winning system changes whenever any single annotator is removed. The ordering that does emerge tracks output length: mean emoji count explains 78.7\% of between-system variance, and a within-item length-matched comparison over 2,599 pairs reverses the leaderboard. We further show that cross-provider anisotropy differences vanish under mean-centring, that per-language token costs change sign with the normalising unit, and that multi-view row-wise splits inflate macro-F1 by $3.1$ points and change the top-ranked system. In place of preference scoring we propose **emoji-affect decodability**, a reference-based probe whose rankings are stable to $\pm0.003$ macro-F1 across seeds.

Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge enables evaluation across diverse tasks, but inference cost and confidence reliability become critical at scale. We study whether a decision-only judge can provide an economical first pass and identify when stronger evaluation is needed. Comparing jev-as-a-judge with sixteen generative and reward-model judges, with blinded human adjudication, we find it within three percentage points of a state-of-the-art LLM judge, our strongest comparator, on ordinary preference and evidence-grounded factuality at 0.36% of the comparator's fee. Larger gaps arise when judgments require checking a derivation or resisting an elaborately written wrong answer. On several benchmarks, JEV's gap to this comparator is concentrated in low-confidence decisions. A frozen cascade that accepts confident verdicts and escalates uncertain ones retains 99% of the comparator's accuracy at lower cost.

Abstract: De-identified résumé screening assumes that redacting explicit fields prevents ethnocultural inference; however, recent audits attribute residual leakage to declared languages. We investigate whether eliminating language fields resolves this leakage across nine open-weight models and 620 counterfactual résumés. By holding language attributes strictly identical, we isolate unstructured prose across five ethnocultural conditions and three cue-salience tiers. Target-group recovery averages 0.757 overall and saturates at 1.000 under high salience, demonstrating that non-language prose sustains demographic inference. Crucially, models diverge only under faint cues (0.086-0.690), establishing salience as an essential evaluation axis. Furthermore, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge outcomes are highly sensitive to evaluation design: forbidding ties yields an apparent selection-rate ratio of 0.39 alongside strong position and content effects, whereas permitting ties produces near-universal ties for most models ($\ge94\%$). Downstream scoring shows only very small between-condition differences, highlighting the need to distinguish demographic signals recoverable from résumé content from effects introduced by the evaluation protocol.