analiza aiqbench
This research exposes a critical calibration flaw in LLMs acting as judges, where conversational framing causes significant shifts in verdicts despite stable factual accuracy. The findings reveal that models exhibit distinct behavioral biases depending on whether they attribute claims to humans versus AI, particularly in naturalistic settings like Reddit. While mitigation strategies exist, they risk over-correcting into unwarranted skepticism, highlighting the need for evaluation metrics that account for directional judgment shifts rather than just aggregate accuracy.
DialDefer: A Framework for Detecting and Mitigating LLM Dialogic Deference
arXiv:2601.10896v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used as third-party judges, yet their reliability when evaluating speakers in dialogue remains poorly understood. We show that LLMs judge identical claims differently depending on framing: the same content receives different verdicts when presented as a statement to verify ("Is this statement correct?") versus attributed to a speaker ("Is this speaker correct?"). We call this dialogic deference and introduce DialDefer, a framework for detecting and mitigating these framing-induced judgment shifts. Our Dialogic Deference Score (DDS) captures directional shifts that aggregate accuracy obscures. Across ten domains, 3k+ instances, and five models, conversational framing induces large shifts (mean|DDS|=15.9 percentage points (pp) across models, p < .0001) while accuracy remains stable (<2 pp), with effects amplifying 2--5x on naturalistic Reddit conversations. This effect is domain-dependent: a single model can shift toward disagreement (skepticism) on graduate-level science and toward agreement (deference) on social judgment. Ablations reveal that human-vs-LLM attribution drives the largest shifts (17.7 pp swing), suggesting models treat disagreement with humans as more costly than with AI. Mitigation attempts can reduce deference but over-correct into skepticism, revealing a calibration problem beyond accuracy optimization.
Abstract:LLMs are increasingly used as third-party judges, yet their reliability when evaluating speakers in dialogue remains poorly understood. We show that LLMs judge identical claims differently depending on framing: the same content receives different verdicts when presented as a statement to verify ("Is this statement correct?") versus attributed to a speaker ("Is this speaker correct?"). We call this dialogic deference and introduce DialDefer, a framework for detecting and mitigating these framing-induced judgment shifts. Our Dialogic Deference Score (DDS) captures directional shifts that aggregate accuracy obscures. Across ten domains, 3k+ instances, and five models, conversational framing induces large shifts (mean|DDS|=15.9 percentage points (pp) across models, p < .0001) while accuracy remains stable (<2 pp), with effects amplifying 2--5x on naturalistic Reddit conversations. This effect is domain-dependent: a single model can shift toward disagreement (skepticism) on graduate-level science and toward agreement (deference) on social judgment. Ablations reveal that human-vs-LLM attribution drives the largest shifts (17.7 pp swing), suggesting models treat disagreement with humans as more costly than with AI. Mitigation attempts can reduce deference but over-correct into skepticism, revealing a calibration problem beyond accuracy optimization.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2601.10896 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2601.10896v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.10896 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 276 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

AMD GPU Operator v1.5.0: DRA Support, Automated GPU Node Recovery, and Expanded Kubernetes Infrastructure Control
AMD · 28 iul. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026
Biological Superintelligence
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026