Forged Peer Judgments Mislead Multimodal LLM Judge Panels: Source-Blind Anchoring and Panel-Consensus Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07920v1
• Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2026 04:55:45 GMT
• Title: Forged Peer Judgments Mislead Multimodal LLM Judge Panels: Source-Blind Anchoring and Panel-Consensus Verification
• Abstract summary: Quoting independent visual judgments creates large anchoring gaps under both self and peer framing.<n>We introduce panel-consensus verification, which cross-checks a quote against independently collected blind votes.
• Score: 9.710464466895521
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal LLM judge panels can cross-reference peers, but a quoted peer judgment may itself be untrusted. We expose source-blind anchoring as a text-level attack surface in vision-language model (VLM) panels. Quoting independent visual judgments creates large anchoring gaps (19--26 percentage points) under both self and peer framing. A matched-content, label-only control changes the broken rate by only $-0.17$pp (95\% CI $[-0.68,0.35]$), showing that the self/peer label itself does not explain the effect. Under our tested construction, deliberately generated, concise wrong quotes overturn originally-correct verdicts 1.5--2.7$\times$ more often than naturally occurring wrong peer statements, with bootstrap 95\% CIs excluding parity across two datasets and seven VLM judges. Because the two statement populations differ in selection and form, this ratio measures differential damage under the tested attack rather than a provenance-only causal effect. We then introduce panel-consensus verification, which cross-checks a quote against independently collected blind votes. It blocks 84.9\% of fabricated attacks, cuts their net harm by 97.5\%, and preserves the positive but statistically inconclusive point estimate for genuine peer information under leave-one-out re-verification. These results identify a low-cost attack surface and a concrete defense for safer multimodal collaborative evaluation.

Related papers

• Difference-in-Differences on a Censored Rating Scale Can Manufacture an Effect: Evidence from a Pre-Registered LLM-Judge Audit [15.81584544074437]
  Audits of LLM judges certify a bias by contrasting matched conditions.<n>We show that this endpoint is not identified on the scale that reports it.<n>We derive the mechanism in closed form and show that its contribution is measurable from an audit's own ratings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T16:10:16Z)
• Blind to the Pivotal Vote: Aggregate Independence Metrics Miss Where Verification Actually Helps [9.710464466895521]
  We show that a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries.<n>On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T08:14:46Z)
• Social Pressure Breaks Majority Voting in LLM Safety Panels [1.6734502292933282]
  A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes.<n>We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment.<n>We find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T03:51:12Z)
• More Debate, Same Evidence: Structural Limits of Homogeneous Multi-Agent Groundedness [1.9036571490366498]
  We evaluate a homogeneous three-agent panel on six public fact-verification benchmarks.<n>Relative to a fixed single-agent reference, the panel's system-level accuracy difference ranges from $+8.5$ to $-4.4$ percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T19:40:15Z)
• Visual Credit Audit for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning [70.16915309526443]
  Visual Credit Audit separates two Estimands: whether the benchmark image gives the model's declared decision more support than text-only and blank controls, and whether the model responds to relation-specific visual evidence.<n>Applying labels yields dependence-credited correctness (D-CC)<n>Across four open MLLMs and two spatial benchmarks, 12.73-26.25% of decisions are correct yet uncredited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T15:55:31Z)
• Dual-Branch Cross-Projection Debiasing through Diffusion-based Disentanglement [66.67463557274358]
  Foundation models trained on biased datasets often rely on spurious correlations between target labels and non-causal attributes.<n>We introduce Confidence-guided Concept Mining (CBCM) to identify reliable spurious attributes without attribute annotations.<n>We propose Dual-branch Cross-projection Debiasing (DCD), a prompt-tuning framework that separates target and spurious representations into two branches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T05:28:47Z)
• Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Errors Undermine LLM Evaluation Panels [0.0]
  LLM-as-a-judge panels aggregate votes from multiple models.<n>We quantify how far their reliability falls short of the independent-voting ideal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T11:48:17Z)
• Turning Bias into Bugs: Bandit-Guided Style Manipulation Attacks on LLM Judges [65.92623263645139]
  We introduce BITE, a black-box adversarial framework that learns semantics-preserving edits to mislead an LLM judge.<n>BITE achieves an attack success rate exceeding 65% and raises scores by 1-2 points on a 9-point scale.<n>Our findings expose a fundamental weakness in the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm and motivate robust, attack-aware evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T05:24:09Z)
• BiAxisAudit: A Novel Framework to Evaluate LLM Bias Across Prompt Sensitivity and Response-Layer Divergence [22.315546054051143]
  Bias audits of large language models now operate within governance frameworks such as the EU AI Act.<n>We introduce textscBiAxisAudit, a protocol that reports each bias score together with a reliability estimate on two axes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-09T16:26:49Z)
• A Coin Flip for Safety: LLM Judges Fail to Reliably Measure Adversarial Robustness [57.510025257780306]
  We show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming.<n>We propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:13:35Z)
• Dependence-Aware Label Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge via Ising Models [55.94503936470247]
  Large-scale AI evaluation increasingly relies on aggregating binary judgments from $K$ annotators, including judges.<n>Most classical methods assume annotators are conditionally independent given the true label $Yin0,1$, an assumption often violated by LLM judges.<n>We study label aggregation through a hierarchy of dependence-aware models based on Ising graphical models and latent factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T21:26:50Z)
• Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios [49.53589774730807]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance on tasks ranging from visual question answering to video understanding.<n>We reveal a response uncertainty phenomenon: twelve state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs overturn a previously correct answer in 65% of cases after receiving a single deceptive cue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T01:11:28Z)

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.