LLM Judges Inconsistently Disagree Across Safety Criteria and Harm Categories
We evaluate the consistency of automated judges in conducting a multi-dimensional safety evaluation in a reference-free setup. Our results indicate that Large Language Models are unreliable judges in identifying safety issues related to machine-generated advice in regulated domains such as finance, although they are more reliable at identifying more overt forms of unsafe/harmful content such as violence. The degree of inconsistency in a model's judgments can vary significantly by the chosen safety criteria and can be impacted by the language of the content and its linguistic style as well. Finally, there is high disagreement among different judges for the same output, across domains, safe...
| Authors | Krishnapriya Vishnubhotla, Sowmya Vajjala, Akriti Vij et al. |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.CL |
| Published | 29 May 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 2 June 2026 |
Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.