arXiv (All)
open access
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
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Adversarial Cues in Decision Models Used as Judges: The Role of Request Presentation#1242702
- Commit-first LLM judging inherits the judge's own errors#819563
- Commit-first LLM judging inherits the judge's own errors#809567
- JEV as a Judge for Agent Trace Security: An Empirical Comparison with Generative LLM Judges#1129475
- JEV as a Judge for Agent Trace Security: An Empirical Comparison with Generative LLM Judges#1108630
Record · ID 1248716
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive