Nobody checked whether the judge can see: auditing VLM-as-judge for text style editing
Main takeaways What I found: Judge reliability is judge-dependent, not just task-dependent: on identical stimuli, Gemini 3.1 Pro’s scores track error magnitude on 11 of 12 dimensions, GPT-4o’s on 6, and Qwen2.5-VL’s on 3. Where judges do penalise errors, they start late: onsets sit at or beyond the magnitude that’s clearly visible to a human, and several error types are never reliably penalised at all. Verifying an instructed value (is this the right hex colour, the right angle?) is a harder task for a judge than noticing an incidental anomaly. Colour verification fails outright for every judge tested, at every magnitude. Holistic “overall quality” scores diverge sharply across judges on identical, unedited images (a 2.5-point spread on a 5-point scale) while decomposed rubric dimensions do not (0.41 points). Controlled-stimulus evidence that decomposed rubrics are the right design choice. Judges can see errors they don’t penalise: shown the same images under a reference-based framing instead of the benchmark’s instruction-based one, GPT-4o registers significantly more errors than it penalises. Contents ...