Stronger Judges Do Not See More: Deployment-Integrity Blindness in LLM Evaluation

Jianchang Su, Dawei Xiang, Yifan Zhang, Wei Zhang
10/15/2026
cs.CRcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

LLM-agent evaluation reports behavioral scores but leaves the identity of the deployed runtime stack unreported. A tampered deployment that preserves evaluated outputs passes every output-only evaluator. We introduce DIB-Bench, a benchmark that measures this deployment-integrity blindness across 7,560 scored examples, six tamper types, and an evaluator ladder from regex scorers through LLM judges to GPT-5-nano. Stronger evaluators accept more tampered outputs: mean acceptance rises from 88.6% (rule-based) to 94.1% (GPT-5-nano), and a trigger-conditional tamper invisible on the evaluation suite produces 48-100% harmful outputs, rising with model capability. A PAC-style bound shows that tampers with zero output shift are undetectable from outputs at any sample size; a manifest-hash identity channel detects them with zero samples. Behavioral fingerprinting identifies the model component above chance (76.7%) but covers one of six stack components. We also propose a graded deployment-identity descriptor for evaluation reports.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{su2026stronger,
  title  = {Stronger Judges Do Not See More: Deployment-Integrity Blindness in LLM Evaluation},
  author = {Jianchang Su and Dawei Xiang and Yifan Zhang and Wei Zhang},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2610.21135},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21135v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2610.21135.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2610.21135)

Discussion