LLM Evaluators are Biased across Languages

Researchers found that LLM evaluators, including trained reward models and prompted judges, assign significantly different scores to semantically identical content across 23 languages, with lower-resource languages receiving more generous scores. This bias persists in frontier models and is invisible to standard pairwise accuracy metrics, meaning harmful content in lower-resource languages is more likely to pass safety filters. The study attributes the bias to structural, language-level misalignment rather than content difficulty alone.

Computer Science Computation and Language Submitted on 16 Jul 2026 Title:LLM Evaluators are Biased across Languages View PDF /pdf/2607.14480 HTML experimental https://arxiv.org/html/2607.14480v1 Abstract:LLM evaluators trained reward models and prompted LLM-as-a-Judge are routinely validated via pairwise accuracy. In a multilingual setting, this operates under the premise that high pairwise accuracy implies reliable, language-neutral scoring. We show that this assumption does not hold. We conduct experiments with semantically identical instruction-response pairs across 23 languages, and find that multilingual evaluators assign significantly different scores to different evaluation languages. The bias is statistically significant and consistent across eight open-weight evaluators of different architectures and training paradigms, persists in frontier judges, and is strongly correlated with language resource level: lower-resource languages are scored more generously. Meanwhile, these biases are invisible to pairwise accuracy: evaluators achieve above 90% pairwise accuracy, yet have up to 43% difference in acceptance rate across languages under a global decision threshold, meaning, for instance, that harmful content in lower-resource languages is more likely to pass safety filters. Per-language thresholds would require language identification, which can be defeated by code-switched prompts. We then investigate why lower-resource languages receive higher rather than lower scores, and we find that model uncertainty is linked with the effect: models tend to give higher scores when less confident, both under negative log-likelihood and under token-free uncertainty measures; however, language identity remains a significant predictor after controlling for uncertainty, and the bias cannot be explained away by content difficulty alone, but is a structural, language-level misalignment. References & Citations Loading... Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer What is the Explorer? https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html arxiv-bibliographic-explorer Connected Papers What is Connected Papers? https://www.connectedpapers.com/about Litmaps What is Litmaps? https://www.litmaps.co/ scite Smart Citations What are Smart Citations? https://www.scite.ai/ Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv What is alphaXiv? https://alphaxiv.org/ CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers What is CatalyzeX? https://www.catalyzex.com DagsHub What is DagsHub? https://dagshub.com/ Gotit.pub What is GotitPub? http://gotit.pub/faq Hugging Face What is Huggingface? https://huggingface.co/huggingface ScienceCast What is ScienceCast? https://sciencecast.org/welcome Demos Recommenders and Search Tools Influence Flower What are Influence Flowers? https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/ CORE Recommender What is CORE? https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html .