待翻譯：Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges
AI 服務暫時不可用，以下為來源摘要，待恢復後補全翻譯：arXiv:2607.28636v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs increasingly serve as automated judges, but their judgments remain vulnerable to cognitive biases. Existing mitigations mostly rely on prompt-driven debiasing, which is brittle across bias types, or human evaluation, which does not scale. We study \emph{Chain-of-Models} (CoM), an automated audit pipeline in which a second model inspects the first model's reasoning trace before producing the final judgment. The key design question is whether the auditor should be the same model, a same-family model, or a different-family model. Across 9 models from 6 families, 4 cognitive biases, and 4 factual datasets, we find that auditor identity matters in two ways. First, standalone bias resistance does not predict audit effectiveness: Kimi-K2.5 is the strongest standalone model on several biases, yet is a weak auditor for Qwen2.5-72B's biased traces. Second, the best auditor is bias-specific: GPT-4o is strongest on bandwagon, authority, and distraction, while GLM-5 is strongest on sycophancy. We operationalize these findings with a per-bias auditor selection rule that, given the bias type, scores candidates along functional diversity, per-bias standalone resistance, and calibrated audit effectiveness. Under a calibration/test split, the selector reaches the highest accuracy across the four biased slices ($0.884$ vs.\ $0.824$ for the strongest single fixed auditor and $0.805$ for the no-audit baseline). We release data, configurations, and an LLM-agent skill at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/chain-of-models-B585 .
AI 服務暫時不可用，以下為來源正文，待恢復後補全翻譯。
--> [Submitted on 19 May 2026] Title:Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges View a PDF of the paper titled Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges, by Qian Wang and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:LLMs increasingly serve as automated judges, but their judgments remain vulnerable to cognitive biases. Existing mitigations mostly rely on prompt-driven debiasing, which is brittle across bias types, or human evaluation, which does not scale. We study \emph{Chain-of-Models} (CoM), an automated audit pipeline in which a second model inspects the first model's reasoning trace before producing the final judgment. The key design question is whether the auditor should be the same model, a same-family model, or a different-family model. Across 9 models from 6 families, 4 cognitive biases, and 4 factual datasets, we find that auditor identity matters in two ways. First, standalone bias resistance does not predict audit effectiveness: Kimi-K2.5 is the strongest standalone model on several biases, yet is a weak auditor for Qwen2.5-72B's biased traces. Second, the best auditor is bias-specific: GPT-4o is strongest on bandwagon, authority, and distraction, while GLM-5 is strongest on sycophancy. We operationalize these findings with a per-bias auditor selection rule that, given the bias type, scores candidates along functional diversity, per-bias standalone resistance, and calibrated audit effectiveness. Under a calibration/test split, the selector reaches the highest accuracy across the four biased slices ($0.884$ vs.\ $0.824$ for the strongest single fixed auditor and $0.805$ for the no-audit baseline). We release data, configurations, and an LLM-agent skill at this https URL . Comments: WIP Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY) Cite as: arXiv:2607.28636 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2607.28636v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28636 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Qian Wang [view email] [v1] Tue, 19 May 2026 13:56:13 UTC (311 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges, by Qian Wang and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-07 Change to browse by: cs cs.CY References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)