arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.01471

When Does a Second Model Help? Cross-Model Review in LLM Verification

Tae-Eun Song
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large language models now generate code, documentation, and analyses, and are increasingly used to review such output. We ask when a second review by a different model helps. Building on the author's earlier preprints, which varied context, repetition, and role structure within one model, we test model independence in a controlled experiment: 30 artifacts with 150 planted errors, 10 review conditions, and 900 review sessions with three reviewer models from two developers. In this experiment, (1) a top-tier cross-model reviewer is not significantly different in F1 from same-model review in a fresh session (CCR), which does not establish equivalence; (2) the two find partly different errors (Jaccard 41.2%); and (3) at two review calls, one CCR plus one cross-model review matches more planted errors than two CCR reviews (56.7% vs. 42.7%; Holm-adjusted p=.006), but not significantly more than two reviews by the top-tier cross-model reviewer, so model difference and reviewer capability are not separated. A lightweight cross-model reviewer scores no higher than same-model review. Withholding requirements from the reviewer raises F1 for the two lower tiers but not the top tier, in untested point estimates whose pattern depends on how failed sessions are scored. Before analysis we audited all session records, excluding one baseline run of uncertain provenance and 14 failed calls; results with all sessions are also reported. A partial check on public detector outputs from another benchmark neither replicates nor contradicts the main comparison. Records, artifacts, and scripts are available from the author on request.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AIcs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tae-Eun Song. 2026-10-01. When Does a Second Model Help? Cross-Model Review in LLM Verification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01471

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

UniGuardian: A Unified Defense for Detecting Prompt Injection, Backdoor Attacks and Adversarial Attacks in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to attacks like prompt injection, backdoor attacks, and adversarial attacks, which manipulate prompts or models to generate harmful outputs. In this paper, departing from traditional deep learning attack paradigms, we explore their intrinsic relationship and collectively term them Prompt Trigger Attacks (PTA). This raises a key question: Given a prompt, can we tell whether a hidden trigger is steering the model's behavior? We propose UniGuardian, to the best of our knowledge the first training-free LLM detector to jointly detect successfully activated prompt injection, backdoor, and adversarial attacks without knowing the attack type. Its shared mechanism measures how structured prompt perturbations shift the model's output distribution. Additionally, we introduce a single-forward strategy to optimize the detection pipeline, enabling simultaneous attack detection and text generation within a shared batched forward pass at each decoding step. Our experiments confirm that UniGuardian accurately and efficiently identifies trigger-activated prompts in LLMs.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

PUMA: Learning a Mutation-Aware Vocabulary of Protein Units

Modeling protein sequences as a language has made language models a powerful tool in computational biology, yet the language itself remains poorly understood. A key step toward understanding it is identifying its constituent units. In natural languages, morphemes can occur in multiple forms; similarly, in proteins, mutations can give rise to variations of a unit that persist through evolution, forming families of related units. We introduce PUMA (Protein Units via Mutation-Aware Merging), an algorithm that learns protein units from sequence and explores their mutational variants using substitution matrices, forming a genealogy of unit families. Our results show that mutations remaining within a PUMA family are more often benign than the substitution matrix alone predicts, and that PUMA genealogy improves molecular function representations compared to treating units independently. A case study of a unit family demonstrates relatedness beyond homology. PUMA achieves competitive performance on downstream tasks when used as a protein language model tokenizer. Moreover, collapsing units into families results in a smaller embedding table and faster training. Together, these results support PUMA as a biologically grounded protein vocabulary that organizes protein units into plausible families of mutational variants. The source code is available at https://github.com/boun-tabi-lifelu/PUMA.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

When Guessing is Rewarded: Rethinking Language Model Evaluation with Distributional Uncertainty Scoring

Standard language model evaluation assigns scores to single predicted answers, rewarding high-confidence responses regardless of how residual probability mass is distributed over alternative options. This creates a systematic pressure toward overconfident guessing: under accuracy-based schemes, a model maximises its expected score by always committing to an answer rather than abstaining, even when its uncertainty is high. While penalty-based approaches partially address this by raising the confidence threshold for strategic guessing, they still treat all sub-threshold responses identically, ignoring a fundamental distinction in how models can express uncertainty - for example between hedging toward incorrect answers versus hedging toward "I don't know" responses. This paper introduces a novel evaluation metric to solve this problem of not considering a model's entire probability distribution over answer choices. The metric naturally distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range. Through theoretical analysis and illustrative examples, the metric is shown to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing. Adapting 12 existing evaluation benchmarks to the metric's variants and measuring performance on six language models shows that for half of the tested benchmarks scores are negative across all tested models, indicating significant tendencies towards hallucination.

cs.CL↗