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.

Quantization techniques are widely used to improve inference speed and deployment of large language models. While a wide body of work examines the impact of quantization on LLMs in English, none have evaluated across languages. We conduct a thorough analysis of quantized multilingual LLMs, focusing on performance across languages and at varying scales. We use automatic benchmarks, LLM-as-a-Judge, and human evaluation, finding that (1) harmful effects of quantization are apparent in human evaluation, which automatic metrics severely underestimate: a 1.7% average drop in Japanese across automatic tasks corresponds to a 16.0% drop reported by human evaluators on realistic prompts; (2) languages are disparately affected by quantization, with non-Latin script languages impacted worst; and (3) challenging tasks like mathematical reasoning degrade fastest. As the ability to serve low-compute models is critical for wide global adoption of NLP technologies, our results urge consideration of multilingual performance as a key evaluation criterion for efficient models.

Authorship Profiling (AP) aims to predict the demographic attributes (such as gender and age) of authors based on their writing styles. Ever-improving models mean that this task is gaining interest and application possibilities. However, with greater use also comes the risk that authors are misclassified more frequently, and it remains unclear to what extent the better models can capture the bias and who is affected by the models’ mistakes. In this paper, we investigate three established datasets for AP as well as classical and neural classifiers for this task. Our analyses show that it is often possible to predict the demographic information of the authors based on textual features. However, some features learned by the models are specific to datasets. Moreover, models are prone to errors based on stereotypes associated with topical bias.