arXiv AI
SemTree: Judge-Aware Semantic Decision Trees for Inspectable and Repairable Rule Decisions
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 2
Commit-first LLM judging inherits the judge's own errors
The paper investigates whether widely used evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) implement a defense called commit‑first judging, which requires a judge to solve a task itself before accepting a candidate answer. Across 24 configurations in eight popular frameworks, none use the full commit‑first method; nine use a weaker variant that is ineffective. In controlled experiments, the weaker variant allowed systems to game the judge, while the full commit‑first approach eliminated this vulnerability but sometimes worsened evaluation when the judge’s own answer was incorrect.
arXiv AI
Sep 3
LLM-as-a-Judge Is Not an Oracle: Why Self-Improving Agents Need Deterministic Guardrails
The paper argues that using a large language model (LLM) as the sole judge in self‑improving agent pipelines is problematic, as the judge can be biased or manipulated, leading to false confidence in system performance. The authors propose a new framework, PROCTOR, which replaces the oracle judge with a deterministic, teacher‑student loop that enforces guardrails such as sandboxing, role separation, and acceptance checks to prevent cheating and ensure reliable evaluation. Experiments across contract analysis, compliance review, and code quality demonstrate that PROCTOR mitigates eleven identified failure modes that previously allowed agents to achieve perfect scores while hiding significant capability gaps.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 23
From Clinical Judgment to Checkable Rules: Clinician-Led Guardrails for Mental-Health Chatbots
The paper presents a clinician‑led safety guardrail for mental‑health chatbots that replaces typical prompt‑engineering or Constitutional AI methods. Two clinicians design, finalize, and adjudicate a rule base of four safety checks, which is formally verified for internal consistency and applied to LLM outputs. The verification layer’s verdicts are recomputable from a named rule and sixteen facts, and it consistently avoids false crisis‑resource demands that a matched LLM judge frequently raises.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
What Do Compliance Detectors Read? An Audit of Activation Probes and Guard Models
arXiv:2608. 16852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulatory compliance monitoring in deployed language models is increasingly implemented as a legal and audit control, checking model outputs against written rules spanning data protection, healthcare, financial regulation, and platform policy.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
When the Judge Should Not Decide: Evidence-Locked, Non-Compensatory Selection Bounds LLM-Judge Failure in Reasoning Pipelines
arXiv:2608. 07813v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An LLM judge deployed inside a reasoning pipeline does not merely measure quality, it decides which answer ships.
arXiv AI
2d ago
Are LLM Safety Judges Policy-Invariant? A Three-Principle Stress-Test
The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) safety judges are truly policy‑invariant, meaning their verdicts should depend only on the agent’s behavior and not on how the evaluation policy is phrased. It introduces three testable principles—rubric‑semantics invariance, rubric‑threshold invariance, and ambiguity‑aware calibration—and applies them in a stress‑test protocol across four agent‑class judges using trajectories from ASSEBench and R‑Judge. The study finds that current judges often change verdicts in response to both meaningful normative shifts and meaningless structural rewrites, with up to 9.1% of verdicts flipping due to content‑preserving rewrites and 18‑43% of flips occurring on unambiguous cases, indicating that safety scores conflate agent actions with evaluator wording. whyItMatters":"The findings reveal a hidden failure mode in safety evaluation that could mislead researchers about agent performance, underscoring the need for policy‑invariant judges and transparent reporting protocols."