Organizations: School of Software and Microelectronics, Peking University, Beijing, China
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from order bias, where their performance is affected by the arrangement order of input elements. This unfairness limits the model's applications in scenarios such as in-context learning and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Recent studies attempt to obtain optimal or suboptimal arrangements based on statistical results or using dataset-based search, but these methods increase inference overhead while leaving the model's inherent order bias unresolved. Other studies mitigate order sensitivity through supervised fine-tuning using augmented training sets with multiple order variants, but often at the cost of accuracy, trapping the model in consistent yet incorrect hallucinations. In this paper, we propose \textbf{D}ual \textbf{G}roup \textbf{A}dvantage \textbf{O}ptimization (\textbf{DGAO}), which aims to improve model accuracy and order stability simultaneously. DGAO calculates and balances intra-group relative accuracy advantage and inter-group relative stability advantage, rewarding the policy model for generating order-stable and correct outputs while penalizing order-sensitive or incorrect responses. This marks the first time reinforcement learning has been used to mitigate LLMs' order sensitivity. We also propose two new metrics, Consistency Rate and Overconfidence Rate, to reveal the pseudo-stability of previous methods and guide more comprehensive evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DGAO achieves superior order fairness while improving performance on RAG, mathematical reasoning, and classification tasks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Hyalinesky/DGAO.
Large language models are increasingly used for ordinal classification, yet semantically equivalent changes to prompt organization can alter their predictions. We conduct systematic experiments to characterize positional bias from label order, demonstration order, and demonstration placement. First, we apply the three probes to ten frontier LLMs on a common ordinal-classification task; every model is sensitive to all three positional sources, showing that the problem is pervasive. Second, we vary eight prompt-, task-, and model-level factors across five datasets; accuracy and stability are often misaligned, and only lower scale cardinality consistently improves both. Third, we compare pointwise, pairwise, and listwise inference, alternative aggregation and debiasing methods, and joint configurations; the tested corrections do not provide a reliable remedy, while a comparison-based listwise formulation offers the best balance but transfers unevenly across models and bias sources. These findings show that positional robustness depends on the full system configuration rather than the model alone. Ordinal-classification systems should therefore be selected jointly for predictive performance and stability.
Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge. In this paper, we test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance. We evaluate two different strategies for mitigating bias. The first uses a generation-then-matching approach, and the second scores options in isolation, which is positionally unbiased by construction. Neither reliably improves accuracy. A complete decomposition shows that the bottleneck is withholding options, not the matching step. The only configuration that consistently matches the baseline is the one that shows the model all options paired with an LLM matcher. However, eliminating positional influence entirely still does not reliably yield accuracy gains, while cyclic permutation often improves them. For two-stage prompting, an aggregate measure of recall imbalance and a direct per-question measure of order sensitivity both fail to show reliable debiasing.
The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) utilizes Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) for non-verifiable domains such as long-form question answering and open-ended instruction following. These domains often rely on LLM based auto-raters to provide granular, multi-tier discrete rewards (e.g., 1-10 rubrics) that are inherently stochastic due to prompt sensitivity and sampling randomness. We empirically verify the stochasticity of auto-raters that can propagate and corrupt standard advantage estimators like GRPO and MaxRL, as a noisy reward samples can skew normalization statistics and degrade the global learning signal. Empirically, sampling more rewards and taking majority voting may reduce the noise and improve performance, but this approach is computationally expensive. To address this bottleneck, we introduce Ordinal Decomposition for Robust Policy Optimization (ODRPO), a framework that structurally isolates evaluation noise by decomposing discrete rewards into a sequence of ordinal binary indicators. By independently computing and accumulating advantages across these progressively challenging success thresholds, ODRPO prevents outlier evaluations from corrupting the global update while establishing an implicit, variance-aware learning curriculum. Empirically, ODRPO achieves robust performance on Qwen2.5-7B and Qwen3-4B models, outperforming baselines with relative improvements of upto 14.8% on FACTS-grounding-v2 and 7.5% on Alpaca-Evals. Critically, these gains are achieved with negligible training-time overhead, as ODRPO requires no additional compute per step compared to standard estimators. Supported by theoretical analysis confirming its optimization stability, ODRPO provides a scalable and robust framework for aligning models within the noisy, discrete evaluation landscape of modern RLAIF.