Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

No Judgment Without a Reason: Counterfactual Receipts for Versioned AI Evaluators

Evaluators often produce correct labels via flawed reasoning, a critical failure for agentic systems gating actions, routing reviews, or supplying training feedback. Standard evaluation only verifies final label correctness, ignoring whether judgment changes stem from valid evidence, consistent rules, or proper rule applicability. We formalize evaluator reasoning accountability via three core sources: grounds, norms, and authority. Varying these sources yields an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube to characterize judgment updates. We define judgment receipts as minimal source replacement sets that reproduce revised verdicts to explain judgment transitions. We derive certification cos...

AuthorsYe Chen, Weining Zhang
Primary categorycs.AI
Published21 August 2026
Last updated at source21 August 2026
cs.AI
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/9005f315-280f-4c2d-8399-da150b22b4ad" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.