How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs' Judgment of Answer Factuality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06756v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:21:18 GMT
• Title: How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs' Judgment of Answer Factuality
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) has been widely adopted as a scalable surrogate for human evaluation, yet such judges remain imperfect and susceptible to surface-level biases.<n>With the rise of reasoning-capable models, exposing a generator's reasoning content to the judge provides richer information and is a natural candidate for improving judgment accuracy.<n>We find that weak judges are easily swayed by reasoning presence, while strong judges can partially leverage reasoning as informative evidence.
• Score: 9.19183567561999
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) has been widely adopted as a scalable surrogate for human evaluation, yet such judges remain imperfect and susceptible to surface-level biases. One possible reason is that these judges lack sufficient information in assessing answer correctness. With the rise of reasoning-capable models, exposing a generator's reasoning content to the judge provides richer information and is a natural candidate for improving judgment accuracy. However, its actual impact on judge behavior remains understudied. In this paper, we systematically investigate how access to reasoning chains affects LLM-based judgment across factual question answering (QA) and mathematical reasoning benchmarks. We find that weak judges are easily swayed by reasoning presence, frequently accepting incorrect answers accompanied by fluent reasoning, while strong judges can partially leverage reasoning as informative evidence. Nevertheless, even strong judges are misled by seemingly high-quality reasoning chains. Controlled experiments further reveal that both fluency and factuality of reasoning chains are critical signals driving judge decisions. These findings highlight the need for more robust LLM judges that can distinguish genuine reasoning quality from superficial fluency when evaluating modern reasoning models.

Related papers

• Legibility is Not Interpretability: Comparing Judged and Actual Importance in Chain-Of-Thought Reasoning [48.96460246231164]
  Reasoning traces from chain-of-thought models appear to offer a legible window into how a model arrives at its answer.<n>We operationalize the importance of a reasoning step as its advantage.<n>We find that sufficiently capable LLMs can outperform a prevalence baseline but fall well short of a noise ceiling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T17:59:08Z)
• Reasoning Jury: Multi-Model Consensus for Evaluating Reasoning Traces [8.727904788574602]
  Reasoning Jury is a system that replaces the single judge with a jury of LLMs.<n>In Reasoning Jury, defects of a reasoning trace and their severity are surfaced through a deliberation.<n>We show that Reasoning Jury with a jury of open-weight models is able to significantly outperform frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T21:00:22Z)
• Beyond Surface Judgments: Human-Grounded Risk Evaluation of LLM-Generated Disinformation [26.636844671170422]
  We examine judge--human alignment in terms of overall scoring, item-level ordering, and signal dependence.<n>Relative to humans, judges are typically harsher, recover item-level human rankings only weakly, and rely on different textual signals.<n>At the same time, judges agree far more with one another than with human readers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T08:37:37Z)
• Examining Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges in Non-Verifiable LLM Post-Training [75.98427023288052]
  Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges provide a promising path for extending the success of reasoning models to non-verifiable domains.<n>This study investigates the actual impact of non-reasoning and reasoning judges in reinforcement-learning-based LLM alignment.<n>We find that reasoning-judge-trained policies achieve such strong performance by learning to generate highly effective adversarial outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T17:57:06Z)
• Toward Robust LLM-Based Judges: Taxonomic Bias Evaluation and Debiasing Optimization [44.252712888022835]
  Large language model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling.<n>We propose JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark for systematically quantifying biases in LLM-based judges.<n>We conduct experiments across both generative and discriminative judges, revealing that current judges exhibit significant and diverse bias patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T08:32:21Z)
• CompassJudger-2: Towards Generalist Judge Model via Verifiable Rewards [72.44810390478229]
  CompassJudger-2 is a novel generalist judge model that overcomes limitations via a task-driven, multi-domain data curation strategy.<n> CompassJudger-2 achieves superior results across multiple judge and reward benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T01:34:24Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge [80.07261839142548]
  We introduce JudgeLRM, a family of judgment-oriented Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find a negative correlation between SFT performance gains and the proportion of reasoning-demanding samples, revealing the limits of SFT in such scenarios.<n>We show that JudgeLRM consistently outperform SFT-tuned baselines in the same size, as well as other RL and SFT variants, and even surpass state-of-the-art reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:18:51Z)
• JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
  JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z)
• From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks [11.01213914485374]
  We study large language models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>Our analysis uncovers a strong correlation between judgment performance and the candidate model task performance.<n>As a consequence, we test whether we can predict the behavior of LLM judges using simple features such as part-of-speech tags.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T10:09:41Z)
• Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases [17.069314000437537]
  We propose a novel framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating Misinformation Oversight Bias, Gender Bias, Authority Bias and Beauty Bias on LLM and human judges. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:21:06Z)

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.