arXiv AI By Shuyi Fan, Boyuan Deng, Mengyu Xu, Xinhong Xie, Chenyang Li, Hongyang Zhang

Difference-in-Differences on a Censored Rating Scale Can Manufacture an Effect: Evidence from a Pre-Registered LLM-Judge Audit

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The article examines how a difference‑in‑differences (DiD) analysis on a censored rating scale can produce misleading effects. It demonstrates that each DiD component is censored by its own share, causing differential attenuation that can fabricate an interaction effect when the two responses are unequally censored. Using a pre‑registered audit of an LLM judge, the authors show that the reported significant interaction is largely an artifact of this censoring mechanism, with the true preference effect being null.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 31

Exposure is not manifestation: measurement target and output resolution jointly determine which behavioural-faithfulness evaluator wins

arXiv:2607. 09306v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Behavioural auditing asks whether a language model behaves as it claims, but detection scores are reported without separating two targets: whether a reply was produced under a behaviour-inducing condition (exposure) and whether the behaviour surfaced in it (manifestation).

By Kwan Soo Shin
arXiv AI
Aug 26

A Judge Should Know What Changed:Construct Validity for LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation

The paper introduces a two‑dimensional construct validity framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as judges, defining invariance (S) and sensitivity (R) to construct‑preserving and construct‑changing edits. Experiments across seven judges and four domains reveal high invariance (average S = 0.945) but low sensitivity (average R = 0.319), with sensitivity varying by edit type. Audits of public label sets show that surface‑only predictors can reproduce a substantial portion of labels, underscoring that high agreement does not guarantee construct validity.

By Jianlin Chen, Wenhui Chen, Ziyao Lin, Chi Man Vong
arXiv AI
2d ago

The First Token Is Not the Verdict: Hidden Costs of Reading LLM Judges Without Generating

The paper demonstrates that reading a large language model (LLM) judge’s verdict from the logits of its first generated token—an approach used in constrained decoding and likelihood‑scoring evaluation—introduces a significant distortion in position bias. Because judges do not always start with a verdict token (12–49% of cases for Qwen3 judges and <3% for Llama‑3.1‑8B and Phi‑3.5‑mini), this readout often returns the first response rather than a true judgment, inflating position bias by up to 42 points while barely affecting judge accuracy. The authors recommend reporting the frequency with which a judge leads with a verdict token to provide a more accurate assessment of position bias.

By Gnaneswar Villuri, Hashmath Shaik, Alex Doboli