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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications like hiring, yet their potential for unfair decision-making remains understudied in generative and retrieval settings. In this work, we examine the allocational fairness of LLM-based hiring systems through two tasks that reflect actual HR usage: resume summarization and applicant ranking. By constructing a synthetic resume dataset with controlled perturbations and curating job postings, we investigate whether model behavior differs across demographic groups. Our findings reveal that generated summaries exhibit meaningful differences more frequently for race than for gender perturbations. Models also display non-uniform retrieval selection patterns across demographic groups and exhibit high ranking sensitivity to both gender and race perturbations. Surprisingly, retrieval models can show comparable sensitivity to both demographic and non-demographic changes, suggesting that fairness issues may stem from broader model brittleness. Overall, our results indicate that LLM-based hiring systems, especially in the retrieval stage, can exhibit notable biases that lead to discriminatory outcomes in real-world contexts.

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.