Adversarial Cues in Decision Models Used as Judges: The Role of Request Presentation
An answer judge instructed to grade the final commitment should reject an explicitly wrong final value even when an earlier value matches the reference. We show that adding one colon to a candidate can violate this requirement depending on the presentation of the structured judging request. Numeric references certify the error, and paired interventions distinguish the candidate edit from the integration's presentation choices. On 200 previously unused DROP and GSM8K source clusters, the edit increased Jev's false acceptance from 1.0% to 26.0% with three output labels and from 3.0% to 26.5% with the published four-label grading instruction under sorted JSON keys. Both candidate variants we...
| Authors | Hongliang Liu |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.CL |
| Published | 8 October 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 8 October 2026 |
Popularity, last 2 days
0 now. Counts as reported by the source, snapshotted daily by Silytics.
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 Information may be incomplete or out of date.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.