Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research demonstrates that procedural traces in LLM oversight pipelines do not merely provide context but actively shift the decision criterion of auditors toward excessive rejection, increasing false alarms even when accuracy remains high. The study highlights a critical nuance for AI safety and governance: evaluating overseers requires analyzing their behavioral thresholds and susceptibility to trace detail, not just raw accuracy metrics. Consequently, developers must account for how evidence presentation influences auditor psychology to prevent the erosion of trust in automated compliance loops.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Beyond Accuracy: How Procedural Traces Shift the Decision Criterion of LLM Overseers

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.18204v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Organizations increasingly use oversight loops where one large language model (LLM) audits another's outputs alongside procedural traces of claimed steps. A common concern about such LLM-as-a-judge pipelines is that detailed traces make overseers gullible. Using signal detection theory, we audit five LLM overseers on 19 compliance tasks (4,551 analyzed judgments), varying only trace detail and evidence labeling. With disconfirming evidence always visible, error detection remains near ceiling. Instead, elaborate traces shift the decision criterion toward rejection, increasing false alarms in susceptible overseers. Without option labels, human-validated reason coding shows about 60% of false alarms cite an inability to tie evidence to its option. Labels eliminate this stated reason, yet residual rejection of correct work persists in those overseers and rises with trace detail. Procedural traces thus act as governance artifacts that shape oversight decisions. AI auditors should be evaluated by their decision criterion and false-alarm behavior, alongside accuracy.

Abstract:Organizations increasingly use oversight loops where one large language model (LLM) audits another's outputs alongside procedural traces of claimed steps. A common concern about such LLM-as-a-judge pipelines is that detailed traces make overseers gullible. Using signal detection theory, we audit five LLM overseers on 19 compliance tasks (4,551 analyzed judgments), varying only trace detail and evidence labeling. With disconfirming evidence always visible, error detection remains near ceiling. Instead, elaborate traces shift the decision criterion toward rejection, increasing false alarms in susceptible overseers. Without option labels, human-validated reason coding shows about 60% of false alarms cite an inability to tie evidence to its option. Labels eliminate this stated reason, yet residual rejection of correct work persists in those overseers and rises with trace detail. Procedural traces thus act as governance artifacts that shape oversight decisions. AI auditors should be evaluated by their decision criterion and false-alarm behavior, alongside accuracy.

11 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables. Accepted at the 60th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

I.2.7; I.2.11; H.4.2; K.4.3

arXiv:2609.18204 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.18204v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18204 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 274 words

Related coverage