The paper investigates how the order of independent inputs affects large language models’ ability to aggregate predictions. By testing fifteen LLMs on five datasets with seven different instance orderings, the authors find that accuracy can vary by up to 90 percentage points, with models performing best when majority-label instances appear first. Analysis of reasoning traces and attribution scores shows that models disproportionately focus on early instances, indicating uneven positional emphasis.
arXiv:2608. 11947v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge.
Large language models (LLMs) used for ordinal classification exhibit positional bias, where changes in label order, demonstration order, and demonstration placement affect predictions. Systematic experiments across ten frontier LLMs, eight prompt/task/model factors, and five datasets reveal that all models are sensitive to these positional sources, and that accuracy and stability often diverge. Various correction methods, including pointwise, pairwise, and listwise inference, do not reliably mitigate the bias, though a comparison-based listwise approach shows the best overall balance yet varies across models and bias types.
arXiv:2602.02219v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examin...
The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.
arXiv:2610.01428v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generalization in large language models (LLMs) is the ability to produce consistent and semantically stable outputs when the same input is expressed...
arXiv:2607. 04270v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful backbones for recommender systems by reformulating recommendation as a token-level generation task.
Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful backbones for recommender systems by reformulating recommendation as a token-level generation task. Despite their promise, we identify a pervasive yet underexplored issue: $\textit{Length Bias}$.
arXiv:2610.09063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-label topic assignment for user-generated content (UGC) -- including product reviews and buyer-seller conversations -- poses unique scalability c...
arXiv:2606. 18307v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Optimizing the training data distribution for Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) dictates the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs).
arXiv:2606. 08129v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) differ in architecture, training data, and optimization procedures, yet they may still develop similar internal inference patterns.
arXiv:2608. 14649v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present dLLM-SetScore, a training-free method that uses discrete masked-diffusion language models for multi-label text classification.
arXiv:2606. 26079v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines.