LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant paradigm for grading model outputs at scale, yet the same model assigns systematically different scores when its output format changes (e.g., a 1-5 rating vs. a True/False label). Existing diagnoses of these format-induced inconsistencies stop at the input-output level. Using Position-aware Edge Attribution Patching (PEAP), we causally investigate the internal mechanism in five open-weight instruction-tuned models (Gemma-3, Qwen2.5, Llama-3.1) across five judgment tasks. We find that judgments across structured understanding and open-ended preference tasks share a sparse Latent Evaluator sub-graph in the mid-to-late layers; zero-ablating it collapses judgment while damaging knowledge probes substantially less than a random ablation of equal size in architecturally modular models. By structurally decoupling abstract judging from output formatting, we provide a mechanistic account of format-induced inconsistency on the open-weight models we study: a continuous judgment signal computed in the shared trunk is mapped through fragile, format-specific terminal branches. The judgment itself can therefore be read out independently of the requested output format. Our findings imply that benchmark comparisons of judge reliability across formats partly measure the fragile formatting stage, and can understate the quality of the underlying evaluation.

翻译：暂无翻译