[Submitted on 30 Sep 2026]
Title:Jev-as-a-Judge for RAG Claim Verification: Confidence-Gated Cascading Between a Non-Generative Verifier and a Frontier LLM
View a PDF of the paper titled Jev-as-a-Judge for RAG Claim Verification: Confidence-Gated Cascading Between a Non-Generative Verifier and a Frontier LLM, by Alden Do Rosario and 1 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented generation asks one question at volume: does this evidence support this claim? The answer is one bit, yet most pipelines obtain it from a text generator and pay generation prices for the prose wrapped around it. We compare a non-generative decision model, which returns a typed value from a declared enumeration together with a native probability and no text, against a frontier LLM configured as an engineer would deploy it for binary classification. Both answer the same 495 human-labelled claims from LLM-AggreFact, so every comparison is within-item. We report three things. First, the two systems are statistically indistinguishable on the metric this task is conventionally scored by, a paired difference of -0.56 points, Jev minus Astra, at a 187-fold cost difference. Second, that tie carries almost no information about deployment: the systems disagree on 15.2% of claims, and the cheaper one admits 23.2% of the claims annotators marked unsupported against the frontier model's 14.1%. A component whose job is to catch unsupported claims should be judged on that rate, and the conventional headline hides it. Third, because the errors differ they compose: routing the claims the cheap model is confident about and escalating the rest reaches 74.10 at USD 2.92 per thousand claims against 73.83 at USD 8.93, with the threshold chosen out of fold. But a matched random-escalation control at in-sample thresholds, spending the same budget by coin flip, does as well, so what buys the saving is the escalation share and not the probability that picks what to escalate. Measured against the cheap model it is built from, the cascade costs 61-fold more for 0.83 points, 95% CI [-3.36, 4.86], and it is the more permissive guard of the two. Equal accuracy conceals unequal errors. All predictions, prompts, pricing and code are released.
Comments: 31 pages, 6 figures. Code and data: this https URL
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.20634 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.20634v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.20634
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Alden Do Rosario [view email] [v1] Wed, 30 Sep 2026 15:32:51 UTC (162 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Jev-as-a-Judge for RAG Claim Verification: Confidence-Gated Cascading Between a Non-Generative Verifier and a Frontier LLM, by Alden Do Rosario and 1 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
TeX Source
view license
Additional Features
Audio Summary
Current browse context:
cs.CL
new | recent | 2026-10
Change to browse by:
cs
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?)