cs.CLJul 19, 2026

Auditing Question-Order Effects in Large Language Models with the QQ Equality: Mechanism Characterization and a Saturation Caveat

Authors: Pilsung Kang

Organizations: Department of Software Science, Dankook University Yongin, South Korea

Abstract

Question-order effects in human survey data have been reported to approximately satisfy the QQ (quantum question) equality, a parameter-free prediction of the standard projective quantum question-order model. We develop this equality into an audit framework for sequential binary judgments of autoregressive large language models (LLMs). Theoretically, we characterize mechanism families that satisfy QQ robustly, show that classical repetition can reproduce the equality exactly, and combine QQ with the rank-2 Contextuality-by-Default criterion through ∣qQQ∣≤OSS|q_{QQ}| \le \mathrm{OSS}. This separates order sensitivity, QQ imbalance, and residual contextuality rather than treating them as interchangeable signatures. Methodologically, we introduce a committed multi-turn forced-branch protocol that reconstructs order-conditioned joint distributions from next-token log-probabilities under counterbalanced label mappings and pre-specified health gates. A first-signal pilot on an open-weight instruction-tuned model reveals the central measurement problem. Although all pre-specified health gates passed, the binary-conditioned distributions were near-deterministic for 17 of 18 item pairs under the direct-evaluation framing and 7 of 8 under the persona framing. Label assignment materially changed several mapping-specific QQ verdicts, and no item was certified as residually contextual. Thus, under the tested conditions, the observed QQ outcomes did not uniquely identify a response mechanism in the presence of a saturated and label-sensitive measurement interface. The main implication is methodological: next-token probabilities should not be interpreted as survey-response distributions without first establishing adequate dispersion. We therefore argue that saturation screening and label counterbalancing should precede structural interpretation in distribution-level audits of LLM judgments.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 24, 2026cs.CL

Same Evidence, Different Answer: Auditing Order Sensitivity in Multimodal Large Language Models

Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines. We introduce Facet-Probe, a five-facet audit (option, evidence-chunk, document-rank, image-set, and mixed-modality ordering) of 18 frontier and open-weight MLLMs. A Bayesian item-response model separates ordering noise from per-facet bias, and a same-ordering control estimates the decoder-stochastic floor for observed flips. We find that none of the 18 MLLMs we audit are order-invariant: screened per-facet panel-mean flip rates span 24-50%. A Gemini same-ordering control at temperature 0 estimates a substantial ordering excess over a same-input decoder-noise floor in verified cells. Capability predicts but does not eliminate flips; the best model still flips on 13.4% of trials. In our Gemini mitigation tests, training-free prompt changes are modality-conditional and do not transfer from text to visual reasoning. These results suggest that prompt-level mitigation alone is unlikely to provide general order robustness, motivating future work on training-time and architectural approaches. We propose cross-ordering flip rate as a standard reporting axis for MLLMs.
Akshay Paruchuri, Sanmi Koyejo, Ehsan Adeli
Multi-Modal Large Language ModelsFlipsItem Response TheoryAlgorithm AuditingArtificial Intelligence Evaluation
AskPDF
May 9, 2026cs.CL

BiAxisAudit: A Novel Framework to Evaluate LLM Bias Across Prompt Sensitivity and Response-Layer Divergence

Bias audits of large language models now operate within governance frameworks such as the EU AI Act, making benchmark reliability a security concern in its own right. Many current benchmarks, however, collapse bias into a single scalar from one prompt format and one surface label. This design misses two failure modes that can be exploited without changing model weights. Across prompts, meaning-preserving format changes shift bias endorsement by more than 0.70.7 on a fixed statement pool. Within a response, the discrete Selection and free-text Elaboration can take opposing stances, so an apparently clean aggregate may hide substantial internal inconsistency (a ``cancellation trap''). Selection-only and elaboration-only rankings are therefore nearly uncorrelated across eight LLMs (Spearman ρ=0.238ρ= 0.238, p=0.570p = 0.570): LLaMA3-70B ranks in the middle under selection-only scoring but highest under elaboration-only scoring on the same responses. We introduce \textsc{BiAxisAudit}, a protocol that reports each bias score together with a reliability estimate on two orthogonal axes. The across-prompt axis evaluates each statement under a factorial grid of task format, perspective, role, and sentiment, treating bias as a distribution rather than a point estimate. The within-response axis uses Split Coding to recover Selection and Elaboration as separate signals, measured by the Inconsistency Rate and Divergence Net Imbalance. Across eight LLMs with 80,20080{,}200 coded responses each, task format alone explains as much variance as model choice; 63.6%63.6\% of pooled bias signals (up to 85.2%85.2\% per model) appear in only one coding layer, and prompt-dimension interactions exceed main effects. The instrument also separates real bias reductions from apparent reductions caused by cross-layer redistribution: some prompt configurations reduce both BER and IR, whereas others suppress only selection-layer bias.
Jialing Gan, Junhao Dong, Songze Li
Large Language Model BiasAlgorithm AuditingScoringSelection BiasDivergenceDomain Shift
AskPDF
May 13, 2026cs.CL

Faithful or Fabricated? A Causal Framework for Rationalization Bias in LLM Judges

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for summarization and dialogue evaluation. Prior work has documented biases such as position, verbosity, and style preferences, but largely focuses on outcomes, leaving judge explanations underexplored. We instead ask whether LLM judges are cue-invariant, i.e., whether their rankings and explanations remain stable when non-evidential cues are perturbed while holding the underlying texts fixed. We introduce a suite of cue interventions (Blind, Truth, Flip, Placebo, Reveal-After) and tie-aware metrics that quantify outcome anchoring and rationale anchoring, including label-aligned rhetoric and explanation drift, alongside consistency and stereotype-intrusion checks. We design anchoring attacks using verbosity and confidence cues, and compare two mitigations: structured chain-of-thought prompting and PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE (evidence lock, score, rank). Using a new dataset of 1,000 summaries from traditional extractive models and LLMs, we find substantial cue-anchored rationalization under label and placebo perturbations, while PROOF-BEFORE-PREFERENCE markedly improves cue invariance over baselines.
Riya Tapwal, Abhishek Kumar, Carsten Maple
Large Language Model JudgesRationalityFake News
AskPDF