Judged in Company: In-Context Batching Makes LLM Verdicts Depend on Other Items

Peng Xie; Amr Alanwar

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.40241

Judged in Company: In-Context Batching Makes LLM Verdicts Depend on Other Items

Peng Xie·Amr Alanwar

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

To save cost, practitioners often ask a language model to grade many independent items in one prompt. This assumes that verdicts are separable: that the verdict on an item does not depend on the other items in the prompt or on its position among them. Across three judgement tasks (harm in social-media comments, short-answer grading and review star ratings) and five open-weight models with 4-9B parameters, assigning the same 2,000 items to different random batches of 25 changes 11-22% of decisions on harm and grading, 6.5-13.3 points more than renaming the item keys or rewording the instruction, while AUROC against human labels differs from single-item grading only by -0.033 to +0.010; for four models with 14-32B parameters, 6-15% of decisions change, 4.2-9.1 points more. We show that flip rates decompose exactly into components of order, slot and membership, and that under a threshold model they grow with the square root of the variance that the context contributes, so that effects that are small for scores are large for decisions. Most of the latent dissimilarity between partitions comes from the order of the neighbours and the slot. The main effect of which items share the prompt, the part that voting over permutations of a batch cannot remove, accounts for 0.11-0.22 of it, and majority votes over nine permutations still leave 52-60% of the flips. Batched verdicts also differ systematically from single-item verdicts: even the majority of fifteen random batches disagrees with them on 8.4-17.8% of decisions. Editing a single generation shows that both the model's own earlier verdicts and the neighbours' texts carry the effect. On the easy task, star ratings, only 2.9-3.9% of decisions change. We recommend grading ambiguous items one per prompt, recovering most of the cost with a cached prefix, and reporting agreement with single-item grading whenever items are batched.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Peng Xie, Amr Alanwar. 2026-10-29. Judged in Company: In-Context Batching Makes LLM Verdicts Depend on Other Items. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40241

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Statistical Methods to Pre-Trained Models; A Survey on Automatic Speech Recognition for Resource Scarce Urdu Language

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology has witnessed significant advancements in recent years, revolutionizing human-computer interactions. While major languages have benefited from these developments, lesser-resourced languages like Urdu face unique challenges. This paper provides an extensive exploration of the dynamic landscape of ASR research, focusing particularly on the resource-constrained Urdu language, which is widely spoken across South Asian nations. It outlines current research trends, technological advancements, and potential directions for future studies in Urdu ASR, aiming to pave the way for forthcoming researchers interested in this domain. By leveraging contemporary technologies, analyzing existing datasets, and evaluating effective algorithms and tools, the paper seeks to shed light on the unique challenges and opportunities associated with Urdu language processing and its integration into the broader field of speech research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Joint Detection of Fraud and Concept Drift inOnline Conversations with LLM-Assisted Judgment

Detecting fake interactions in digital communication platforms remains a challenging and insufficiently addressed problem. These interactions may appear as harmless spam or escalate into sophisticated scam attempts, making it difficult to flag malicious intent early. Traditional detection methods often rely on static anomaly detection techniques that fail to adapt to dynamic conversational shifts. One key limitation is the misinterpretation of benign topic transitions referred to as concept drift as fraudulent behavior, leading to either false alarms or missed threats. We propose a two stage detection framework that first identifies suspicious conversations using a tailored ensemble classification model. To improve the reliability of detection, we incorporate a concept drift analysis step using a One Class Drift Detector (OCDD) to isolate conversational shifts within flagged dialogues. When drift is detected, a large language model (LLM) assesses whether the shift indicates fraudulent manipulation or a legitimate topic change. In cases where no drift is found, the behavior is inferred to be spam like. We validate our framework using a dataset of social engineering chat scenarios and demonstrate its practical advantages in improving both accuracy and interpretability for real time fraud detection. To contextualize the trade offs, we compare our modular approach against a Dual LLM baseline that performs detection and judgment using different language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SAFE: An LLM-as-Verifier Framework for Evidence-Grounded Multi-Hop Reasoning

Multi-hop QA benchmarks often reward Large Language Models (LLMs) for spurious correctness, where models reach correct answers through invalid intermediate reasoning. We propose SAFE, an LLM-as-verifier framework for evidence-grounded multi-hop QA. Rather than judging only the final answer after generation, SAFE verifies reasoning during generation by checking intermediate steps against the provided passages and previous reasoning trajectory. To make this process checkable, SAFE decomposes reasoning into atomic, evidence-grounded units represented with Knowledge Graph (KG) triples. At train-time, SAFE verifies benchmark supervision under KG-grounded constraints and constructs reliable verifier training data. At inference-time, an external verifier checks each generated step, identifies invalid reasoning, and provides correction feedback before errors propagate. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks, SAFE improves accuracy by 8.8 pp on average. These results show that evidence-grounded multi-hop QA benefits from shifting LLM-based evaluation from post-hoc answer judgment to stepwise reasoning verification.

cs.CL↗