Reviewing the Reviewer: Graph-Enhanced LLMs for E-commerce Appeal Adjudication

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19267v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:43:59 GMT
• Title: Reviewing the Reviewer: Graph-Enhanced LLMs for E-commerce Appeal Adjudication
• Abstract summary: We propose a minimal representation for adjudication reasoning that prevents hallucination through operational grounding.<n>We develop a conflict-aware graph reasoning framework that performs top-down deductive reasoning for new cases.<n>We evaluate the framework in large-scale e-commerce seller appeal adjudication.
• Score: 0.7136933021609076
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Hierarchical review workflows, where a second-tier reviewer (Checker) corrects first-tier (Maker) decisions, generate valuable correction signals that encode why initial judgments failed. However, learning from these signals is hindered by information asymmetry: corrections often depend on verification actions unavailable to Makers or automated systems. We address this challenge by introducing explicit action modeling as an inferential constraint that grounds reasoning in verifiable operations rather than unconstrained text generation. We propose the Evidence-Action-Factor-Decision (EAFD) schema, a minimal representation for adjudication reasoning that prevents hallucination through operational grounding and enables learning from correction signals via explicit conflict modeling. Building on this schema, we develop a conflict-aware graph reasoning framework that: (1) constructs EAFD graphs from historical cases capturing Maker-Checker disagreements, (2) aggregates them into a retrievable knowledge base, and (3) performs top-down deductive reasoning for new cases by projecting validated resolution paths from precedents. A distinctive capability is the Request More Information (RMI) outcome: when evidence is insufficient, the system identifies precisely which verification actions remain unexecuted and generates targeted information requests. We evaluate the framework in large-scale e-commerce seller appeal adjudication. While a standard LLM-only baseline achieves only 70.8% alignment with human experts, incorporating action modeling with RMI improves alignment to 87.5%. Augmenting this with the retrieval-based knowledge graph yields the best offline performance of 95.8%. Following online deployment, the framework maintains robust performance, achieving a 96.3% alignment rate in production, demonstrating its real-world effectiveness.

Related papers

• The RAT: A Unified Bayesian Model for RAG Evaluation [8.650407684623714]
  We introduce a Bayesian evaluation framework that jointly models retrieval success, abstention behavior, and answer correctness.<n>We apply the framework to 27 RAG configurations across three datasets, three retrievers, and three generators.<n>We extend the model to incorporate LLM-as-a-judge annotations as calibrated noisy observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T15:54:30Z)
• Metacognition as Reward: Reinforcing LLM Reasoning via Knowledge and Regulation Signals [75.25256166997414]
  We introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework.<n>MaR guides reasoning through two general process dimensions.<n>MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T08:54:37Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• JARVIS: An Evidence-Grounded Retrieval System for Interpretable Deceptive Reviews Adjudication [4.797952842010917]
  JARVIS is a framework providing Judgment via Augmented Retrieval and eVIdence graph Structures.<n>It retrieves semantically similar evidence via hybrid dense-sparse multimodal retrieval, expands relational signals through shared entities, and constructs a heterogeneous evidence graph.<n>Our framework achieves a 27% increase in the recall volume and reduces manual inspection time by 75%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T13:57:45Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• Outcome Accuracy is Not Enough: Aligning the Reasoning Process of Reward Models [108.26461635308796]
  We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model's reasoning process and human judgment.<n>Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models.<n>We introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:24:52Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Structured Uncertainty guided Clarification for LLM Agents [126.26213027785813]
  LLM agents extend large language models with tool-calling capabilities, but ambiguous user instructions often lead to incorrect invocations and task failures.<n>We introduce a principled formulation of structured uncertainty over tool-call parameters, modeling joint tool-argument clarification as a POMDP with Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) objective for optimal question selection and aspect-based cost modeling to prevent redundancy.<n>Our SAGE-Agent leverages this structured uncertainty to achieve superior efficiency: increasing coverage on ambiguous tasks by 7-39% while reducing clarification questions by 1.5-2.7$times$ compared to strong prompting and uncertainty-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T21:50:44Z)
• Verifying Large Language Models' Reasoning Paths via Correlation Matrix Rank [71.09032766271493]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to errors and hallucinations.<n>How to check their outputs effectively and efficiently has become a critical problem in their applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T11:01:10Z)
• STRIVE: Structured Reasoning for Self-Improvement in Claim Verification [30.15803409441136]
  We propose STRIVE: Structured Reasoning for Self-Improved Verification.<n>Our method introduces a structured reasoning design with Claim Decomposition, Entity Analysis, and Evidence Grounding Verification.<n>It is then applied to generate reasoning chains for all training examples, selecting only those that are correct and structurally sound for subsequent self-improvement training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T16:07:07Z)
• TrendFact: A Benchmark for Explainable Hotspot Perception in Fact-Checking with Natural Language Explanation [9.221637941193606]
  We introduce TrendFact, the first benchmark capable of evaluating hotspot perception ability (HPA) and all fact-checking tasks.<n> TrendFact consists of 7,643 curated samples sourced from trending platforms and professional fact-checking datasets.<n>We also propose FactISR, a reasoning framework that integrates dynamic evidence augmentation with influence score-based iterative self-reflection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T15:25:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.