The Format is the Filter: Scoring Format Fixes What an LLM Judge Can Express

Lovedeep Gondara, Jekaterina Novikova, Sagarika Suresh, Jack Ji, Jithin Pradeep

When an LLM judge filters instruction-tuning data, its scoring format (binary verdict, 1--5 rating, 0--100 score, or comparison) is rarely justified or ablated. Holding the candidate pool, judge prompt, decoding and selection budget fixed, we score 15,406 UltraFeedback candidates under five formats with three judges, curate, fine-tune 66 models, and evaluate them with four judges. A 0--100 scale is worth only 7--12 equally used levels, two to three times a 1--5 scale rather than twenty, and a binary verdict leaves the top score tied in 77--78\% of prompts, so most selections are made at random. These properties are set by the format almost independently of the judge. Kendall's $τ_b$ hides them: it ranks binary best while $τ_a$ and top-1 agreement rank it last, because it discounts the ties a selector must break at random. Both comparative formats inherit a slot bias whose sign differs across judges. Downstream, curated data beat random selection under every evaluation judge, robust to length and markdown adjustment, but no ordering among formats is detectable. We propose four quantities that judge-based curation pipelines should report.