Skip to content

Will the Judge Flip? Predicting Position-Sensitive LLM Judgments from Residual Stream Activations

Oct 2026 · 0 citations · 12 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Results show that pre-verdict activations support prediction of susceptibility to candidate order and outperform the non-activation predictors evaluated here.

Abstract

The order in which candidate responses are presented can change an LLM judge's verdict. Detecting such a position flip ordinarily requires judging each pair in both orders, which doubles the number of judgments. We investigate whether residual stream activations recorded immediately before the initial verdict can predict a flip. We use nested grouped cross-validation to evaluate regularized linear probes on 534 JudgeBench pairs for three Qwen3 judges and Llama-3.1-8B. The linear probes achieve AUROCs of .621-.850 and outperform a combined baseline that uses verbalized confidence, verdict-label logits, response lengths, and the judge's initial choice by .062-.113 AUROC. Linear probes trained on JudgeBench and then frozen achieve AUROCs of .685-.853 on 1,802 MT-Bench comparisons without MT-Bench fitting or recalibration. These results show that pre-verdict activations support prediction of susceptibility to candidate order and outperform the non-activation predictors evaluated here.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Sep 2026

OSCAR: Order-aware Sensitivity Correction for AI Rankings

LLM judges evaluate candidate language models through pairwise comparisons of their responses. Judge-aware Bradley--Terry models aggregate pairwise comparisons by jointly estimating candidate scores and judge-specific sensitivities (how strongly each judge responds to quality differences), often interpreted as reliabil...

You Liu, Yue Liu, Quan-Chao Lu et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Oct 2026

VERA: Verdict-Conditioned Reliability for Adaptive LLM Judges

This work proposes VERA, a VErdict-conditioned Reliability Axis that estimates reliability from hidden activations by distinguishing correct from incorrect judgments within each predicted-verdict group within each predicted-verdict group.

Qiu-Shui Xu, S. Razak, Tao Yuan et al. · 0 citations

Overwhelmed by Choice: Studying LLM Decision Making at Scale

It is shown that strong small-option performance does not necessarily imply robust large-scale candidate comparison and that hierarchical partitioning and permutation-based inference improve accuracy by roughly 20 percentage points at $N=160$ on both HotpotQA and MIMIC.

Yu-Chieh Lin, Aryan Seth, A. Aravind et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Oct 2026

Human-Residual Steering: Aligning Frozen LLM Judges with Human Judgment Distributions

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, yet most alignment methods target aggregated human judgments and overlook variation among individual annotators. Existing approaches to matching the full distribution of human ratings mainly rely on output-level calibration or parameter fine-tuning. We p...

Chen Lyu, Phong Do, Gabriele Pergola · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Oct 2026

All Verdicts are Not Equal: Rethinking LLM Judge Reliability

LLM-as-a-Judge is the standard paradigm for NLP evaluation, yet its systemic reliability remains poorly understood despite being widely treated as a deterministic ground truth. We present a comprehensive reliability audit, stresstesting six frontier models across four benchmarks, five prompt formats, two presentation o...

Vineet Kumar, Darshita Rathore, Anindya Moitra · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 29, 2026

Who we become when we talk to machines

Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.