Rubrics as an Attack Surface: Stealthy Preference Drift in LLM Judges
Ruomeng Ding · Yifei Pang · He Sun · Yizhong Wang · Steven Wu · Zhun Deng
Natural-language evaluation rubrics form an overlooked attack surface: benchmark-compliant rubric edits can stealthily bias LLM judges and propagate preference drift into downstream aligned models.
摘要
Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge’s preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. We further stress-test reference-consistent few-shot exemplars, judge ensembling, and multi-source benchmark validation as possible mitigations; they attenuate but do not eliminate RIPD. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone.