Faithful or Fabricated? A Causal Framework for Rationalization Bias in LLM Judges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23970v1
• Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 07:00:16 GMT
• Title: Faithful or Fabricated? A Causal Framework for Rationalization Bias in LLM Judges
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for summarization and dialogue evaluation.<n>We ask whether LLM judges are cue-invariant, i.e., whether their rankings and explanations remain stable when non-evidential cues are perturbed.<n>We introduce a suite of cue interventions (Blind, Truth, Flip, Placebo, Reveal-After) and tie-aware metrics that quantify outcome anchoring and rationale anchoring.
• Score: 19.04544141221272
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for summarization and dialogue evaluation. Prior work has documented biases such as position, verbosity, and style preferences, but largely focuses on outcomes, leaving judge explanations underexplored. We instead ask whether LLM judges are cue-invariant, i.e., whether their rankings and explanations remain stable when non-evidential cues are perturbed while holding the underlying texts fixed. We introduce a suite of cue interventions (Blind, Truth, Flip, Placebo, Reveal-After) and tie-aware metrics that quantify outcome anchoring and rationale anchoring, including label-aligned rhetoric and explanation drift, alongside consistency and stereotype-intrusion checks. We design anchoring attacks using verbosity and confidence cues, and compare two mitigations: structured chain-of-thought prompting and PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE (evidence lock, score, rank). Using a new dataset of 1,000 summaries from traditional extractive models and LLMs, we find substantial cue-anchored rationalization under label and placebo perturbations, while PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE markedly improves cue invariance over baselines.

Related papers

• Semantic Reranking at Inference Time for Hard Examples in Rhetorical Role Labeling [5.963398606353896]
  Rhetorical Role Labeling (RRL) assigns a functional role to each sentence in a document and is widely used in legal, medical, and scientific domains.<n>We introduce RISE, an inference-time semantic reranking framework that leverages label semantics to refine predictions on hard instances.<n>Experiments on eight domain-specific RRL datasets with seven LMs, including encoder-based and causal architectures, show an average gain of +9.15 macro-F1 points on hard examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T08:03:02Z)
• HighlightBench: Benchmarking Markup-Driven Table Reasoning in Scientific Documents [88.16322879912458]
  multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made substantial progress in document understanding, but their ability to treat such cues as explicit logical directives remains under-explored.<n>We introduce HighlightBench, a diagnostic benchmark for markup-driven table understanding that decomposes evaluation into five task families.<n>We show that even strong models remain unstable when visual cues must be consistently aligned with symbolic reasoning under structured output constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T06:15:40Z)
• C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [0.6138671548064355]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>We introduce C2-Faith, a benchmark that targets two complementary dimensions of faithfulness: causality (does each step logically follow from prior context?) and coverage.<n>We evaluate three frontier judges under three tasks: binary causal detection, causal step localization, and coverage scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T13:36:47Z)
• The Judge Who Never Admits: Hidden Shortcuts in LLM-based Evaluation [17.386684382460242]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as reasoning, question answering, and creative writing.<n>We test this ideal via controlled cue perturbations-synthetic metadata labels injected into evaluation prompts for six judge models.<n>We study six cue families: source, temporal, age, gender, ethnicity, and educational status.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T14:45:23Z)
• 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)
• RULERS: Locked Rubrics and Evidence-Anchored Scoring for Robust LLM Evaluation [15.787947727055611]
  We introduce RULERS, a compiler-executor framework that transforms natural language rubrics into executable specifications.<n>RULERS operates by compiling criteria into versioned immutable bundles, enforcing structured decoding with deterministic evidence verification, and applying lightweight Wasserstein-based post-hoc calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T15:31:42Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Judging LLMs on a Simplex [2.088672652658465]
  A common practice is to use large language models (LLMs) themselves as judges, but the theoretical properties of this approach are not yet well understood.<n>We show that a geometric framework that represents both judges and candidates as points on a probability simplex can provide helpful insight on what is or is not identifiable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T04:50:41Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)

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.