翻訳待ち：Sharding Prevents LLM Oversight Failures and Adversarial Exploitation
AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。ソース概要：arXiv:2608.06422v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Giving an LLM judge more compute does not necessarily make it check more requirements. When one call must return many verdicts, some decisions become weakly grounded in the evidence, even when that call receives the same token or tool budget as a panel of separate calls. Across expert-graded research replications, legal work, and clinical-trial assessments, agreement with experts falls as the number of verdicts per call grows. We identify sharding as the intervention that mitigates this failure in model-based oversight. Sharding partitions the requirements into smaller groups, assigns each group to a separate call, and aggregates the verdicts. Against a single call with the panel's full budget, sharding improves agreement while holding the model, evidence, total budget, and per-decision budget fixed. Overall, we find that a sharded weaker judge can outperform a more capable holistic judge and match that judge even when the latter receives the panel's full budget. Additionally, we find that sharding exhibits robustness against adversaries. A best-of-N adversary can hold the underlying work fixed, vary only its presentation, and increase an overloaded judge's acceptance of genuinely unmet criteria severalfold. Wherever sharding reduces baseline error, it removes this adversarial advantage, keeping over-acceptance low even as the adversary's search widens. Sharding does not address attacks that persuade the judge separately on each criterion rather than exploiting overload. In that setting, we find that debate-style opposition on top of sharding withstands such adaptive re-optimization.
AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。
--> [Submitted on 5 Aug 2026] Title:Sharding Prevents LLM Oversight Failures and Adversarial Exploitation View a PDF of the paper titled Sharding Prevents LLM Oversight Failures and Adversarial Exploitation, by Victor Akinwande and 2 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Giving an LLM judge more compute does not necessarily make it check more requirements. When one call must return many verdicts, some decisions become weakly grounded in the evidence, even when that call receives the same token or tool budget as a panel of separate calls. Across expert-graded research replications, legal work, and clinical-trial assessments, agreement with experts falls as the number of verdicts per call grows. We identify sharding as the intervention that mitigates this failure in model-based oversight. Sharding partitions the requirements into smaller groups, assigns each group to a separate call, and aggregates the verdicts. Against a single call with the panel's full budget, sharding improves agreement while holding the model, evidence, total budget, and per-decision budget fixed. Overall, we find that a sharded weaker judge can outperform a more capable holistic judge and match that judge even when the latter receives the panel's full budget. Additionally, we find that sharding exhibits robustness against adversaries. A best-of-N adversary can hold the underlying work fixed, vary only its presentation, and increase an overloaded judge's acceptance of genuinely unmet criteria severalfold. Wherever sharding reduces baseline error, it removes this adversarial advantage, keeping over-acceptance low even as the adversary's search widens. Sharding does not address attacks that persuade the judge separately on each criterion rather than exploiting overload. In that setting, we find that debate-style opposition on top of sharding withstands such adaptive re-optimization. Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2608.06422 [cs.LG] (or arXiv:2608.06422v1 [cs.LG] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.06422 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Victor Akinwande [view email] [v1] Wed, 5 Aug 2026 18:21:21 UTC (3,452 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Sharding Prevents LLM Oversight Failures and Adversarial Exploitation, by Victor Akinwande and 2 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.LG new | recent | 2026-08 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?) IArxiv recommender toggle IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?) 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?)