arXiv AI
DecisionPivot: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Decision Models in LLM Systems
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
4d ago
DecisionPivot: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Decision Models in LLM Systems
Decision models support routing, guardrails, and output verification in LLM systems. However, item accuracy alone cannot establish whether models make correct decisions across controlled variations or...
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14
Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
arXiv AI
Oct 5
Fast Models, Slow Evidence: A Paired and Self-Audited Evaluation of System-1 Decision Models for LLM Agent Harnesses
arXiv:2610.02267v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent harnesses make many small, typed decisions per task: which model to call, which tool to use, whether retrieved text is relevant, whether an input...
arXiv AI
Oct 7
How Much Do LLM-as-a-Judge Design Choices Matter? A Systematic Comparison of Prompt Designs, Rating Scales, and Models
arXiv:2610.05094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design...
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8
Conditional Accuracy Profiles: Diagnosing LLM Judges across Deployment Conditions
The paper introduces Conditional Accuracy Profiling (CAP), a diagnostic framework that breaks down LLM‑judge accuracy into eight deployment conditions covering content sensitivity, robustness, and rationale quality. CAP is benchmark‑agnostic and can be applied directly when annotations are available, via task‑subset proxies, or through controlled augmentation. Applied to seven judges across six benchmarks, CAP reveals that aggregate accuracy masks important differences—for example, judges highly sensitive to omitted qualifications rank poorly on a Hard‑Constructed subset, and Position Robustness is generally stable but can degrade sharply under adversarial stress.
arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 12
Auditing VLM Benchmarks from Existing Evaluation Runs
The paper introduces an audit layer for vision‑language model benchmarks that reuses per‑question artifacts from evaluation runs to assess the benchmark itself. Six detectors analyze saved outputs, and an additional text‑only rerun removes visual inputs to produce per‑question reports and aggregate statistics, including permutation‑null excess and interval estimates. Applying this method to the MMStar benchmark reveals that 20.2% of its questions show no accuracy gain from images, with a small but significant excess in mathematics and science categories, and identifies questions where all models chose the same non‑gold option.