Skip to content
Preprint

Persona Conditioning as an Assessor-Sensitivity Probe for LLM-Based IR Evaluation

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 63 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

These findings position persona-conditioned judging as a controlled sensitivity probe for stress-testing LLM-based IR evaluation pipelines and identifying systems whose evaluation outcomes are sensitive to assessor framing.

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as relevance assessors in information retrieval (IR) evaluation, raising questions about how assessor framing affects judgment reliability and downstream system comparison. We study persona conditioning as a diagnostic mechanism for exposing LLM assessor sensitivity. Using task-oriented personas drawn from two complementary sources (PersonaHub and NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-USA), we instantiate five assessor roles emphasizing intent interpretation, domain expertise, contrastive judgment, evidence verification, and global search-quality assessment, compared with a standard UMBRELA baseline. Across six LLM backbones on TREC DL20 and RAG24, our analyses reveal structured rather than uniform assessor sensitivity. Judgments usually remain close to the baseline while shifting assessment strictness, evidential threshold, or interpretation emphasis rather than producing widespread relevance reversals. At the system level, high-capacity models preserve system-ranking agreement, while smaller models amplify persona-induced instability. Local rank-displacement analysis shows sensitivity concentrates on particular retrieval systems and system types, especially neural ranking/reranking systems on DL20 and RAG-oriented pipelines on RAG24. Persona source matters less than assessor role and model capacity. These findings position persona-conditioned judging as a controlled sensitivity probe for stress-testing LLM-based IR evaluation pipelines and identifying systems whose evaluation outcomes are sensitive to assessor framing.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Anchoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems: Prior Scores Compromise Evaluation Independence

It is shown that prior scores, even when included only as context metadata, anchor judgments and systematically shift ratings toward their values, and effective mitigation must be validated for the intended model and task or domain.

A. Kapetanović, Kemal Altwlkany, Andro Merćep et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Evaluating AI-Based Automated Essay Scoring Through Signal Detection Theory: Beyond Aggregate Agreement Metrics.

Signal Detection Theory is applied to evaluate eight state-of-the-art LLMs to provide a robust framework for calibrating and selecting AI scoring systems based on specific pedagogical goals and fairness requirements and demonstrates that low human-machine agreement stems from both a deficit in discriminating accuracy a...

Xiaoliang Zhou · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Aligning LLM-Simulated and Human Examinees for Psychometric Calibration: A Cognitive Diagnostic Profiling Approach

Psychometric calibration for educational tests typically requires costly human response data. Large language models (LLMs) simulated examinees offer a promising route to early calibration, but their responses are too accurate and too uniform. We propose Cognitive Diagnostic Profiling (CDP), a zero-shot framework that p...

Wenjie Zhou, Yunting Liu, Renjiao Tang et al. · 0 citations
Open access 2026

Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation on Social Bias Benchmarks across Small Language Models

A fundamental disconnect is suggested between a model's capacity for factual accuracy and its ability to maintain social fairness, highlighting the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks for small-scale systems.

M.J.F. Valdez, Arghir-Nicolae Moldovan · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Validity-Aware Jailbreak Evaluation for Large Language Models

This work proposes Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness, and shows that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness.

Qilong Wu, Sahil Wadhwa, Pranab Mohanty et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

A Consensus-Based Framework for Relative Preference Evaluation of Large Language Models

A consensus-based evaluation framework that measures relative preference among model-generated responses rather than absolute correctness rather than absolute correctness is introduced, offering an alternative perspective on response quality in scenarios where multiple valid answers exist.

Mohtashim Khan · 0 citations

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