Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.21128

When Judges Agree and Are Wrong: Consistency-Accuracy Dissociation as a Blind Spot for Label-Free Evaluation

Xiang Zhang·Lovedeep Gondara·Jekaterina Novikova
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Label-free evaluation methods, such as self-consistency filtering, majority-vote aggregation, and agreement-based reliability scoring, rely on an implicit assumption that consistency can serve as a proxy for correctness when ground-truth labels are unavailable or expensive to obtain. In this paper, we test this assumption directly. Using four financial QA datasets (multiple-choice and free-form), ten consistency dimensions, and two frontier model families, we measure the joint distribution of consistency and accuracy at the level of individual examples rather than in aggregate. We find that 60% of all incorrect answers fall in the high-consistency region (consistency $\geq$ 0.8), and that 77.7% of these show complete answer collapse, i.e. identical wrong answers across all perturbation variants. This high-consistency/incorrect quadrant cannot be detected by any evaluation signal that is built on agreement alone, as the model appears maximally reliable while being wrong. We show that the phenomenon is robust to the choice of consistency threshold t (it persists from t=0.50 to t=1.00), is shared across model families, and is concentrated in specific intersections of perturbation dimension and domain. We map where this quadrant occurs, analyze its stability properties, and discuss the implications for evaluation pipelines that use agreement-based signals in place of human labels.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xiang Zhang, Lovedeep Gondara, Jekaterina Novikova. 2026-10-15. When Judges Agree and Are Wrong: Consistency-Accuracy Dissociation as a Blind Spot for Label-Free Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21128

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning From How Humans Correct

In industry NLP application, our manually labeled data has a certain number of noisy data. We present a simple method to find the noisy data and relabel them manually, meanwhile we collect the correction information. Then we present novel method to incorporate the human correction information into deep learning model. Human know how to correct noisy data. So the correction information can be inject into deep learning model. We do the experiment on our own text classification dataset, which is manually labeled, because we need to relabel the noisy data in our dataset for our industry application. The experiment result shows that our learn-on-correction method improve the classification accuracy from 91.7% to 92.5% in test dataset. The 91.7% accuracy is trained on the corrected dataset, which improve the baseline from 83.3% to 91.7% in test dataset. The accuracy under human evaluation achieves more than 97%.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

MBBQ: A Dataset for Cross-Lingual Comparison of Stereotypes in Generative LLMs

Generative large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit harmful biases and stereotypes. While safety fine-tuning typically takes place in English, if at all, these models are being used by speakers of many different languages. There is existing evidence that the performance of these models is inconsistent across languages and that they discriminate based on demographic factors of the user. Motivated by this, we investigate whether the social stereotypes exhibited by LLMs differ as a function of the language used to prompt them, while controlling for cultural differences and task accuracy. To this end, we present MBBQ (Multilingual Bias Benchmark for Question-answering), a carefully curated version of the English BBQ dataset extended to Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish, which measures stereotypes commonly held across these languages. We further complement MBBQ with a parallel control dataset to measure task performance on the question-answering task independently of bias. Our results based on several open-source and proprietary LLMs confirm that some non-English languages suffer from bias more than English, even when controlling for cultural shifts. Moreover, we observe significant cross-lingual differences in bias behaviour for all except the most accurate models. With the release of MBBQ, we hope to encourage further research on bias in multilingual settings. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/Veranep/MBBQ.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

LLMR: Knowledge Distillation with a Large Language Model-Induced Reward

Large language models have become increasingly popular and demonstrated remarkable performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are typically computationally expensive and difficult to be deployed in resource-constrained environments. In this paper, we propose LLMR, a novel knowledge distillation (KD) method based on a reward function induced from large language models. We conducted experiments on multiple datasets in the dialogue generation and summarization tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that our LLMR approach consistently outperforms traditional KD methods in different tasks and datasets.

cs.CL↗