arXiv Science⌕ 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

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↗
arXiv2026

C-VARC: A Large-Scale Chinese Value Rule Corpus for Value Alignment of Large Language Models

Aligning LLMs with Chinese values requires culturally grounded resources that connect abstract values to concrete behavioral guidance. We introduce C-VARC, a Chinese Value Rule Corpus containing 257,609 Rules of Thumb (RoTs) organized into three dimensions, 12 core values, and 50 derived values. Among them, 36,000 rules underwent independent human review by two annotators (Cohen's kappa>0.85), with disagreements adjudicated by a third. C-VARC supports reusable rule-driven pipelines for both value evaluation and model alignment. Compared with abstract-value guidance, RoT guidance produces greater semantic and character-level n-gram diversity. Across five non-political sensitive themes, the seven-model average selection rate for C-VARC-consistent options is at least 72.0%, while five Chinese annotators show overall rates of at least 87.5%. Conflicting RoT pairs further enable the construction of 404,505 moral dilemmas, with 7,191 of 10,998 evaluated cases eliciting cross-model disagreement. For alignment, C-VARC-Query consistently outperforms matched Value-only supervision on CMoralEval across both Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, with average gains of 2.97 and 12.82 percentage points, respectively, and positive paired gains across all three seeds for both backbones. It also improves CValues and C-Eval over Value-only supervision on both backbones. C-VARC thus provides a scalable Chinese normative resource for constructing both value-evaluation and alignment supervision.

cs.CL↗