When Text and Numbers Disagree: Evidence Arbitration in Large Language Models

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.

The use of large language models either as decision support systems, or in agentic workflows, is rapidly transforming the digital ecosystem. However, the understanding of LLM decision-making under uncertainty remains limited. We study LLM risky choices along two dimensions: (1) prospect representation (based on an explicit representation or outcome history) and (2) decision rationale (explanation). Our study, which involves 20 frontier and open LLMs, is complemented by a matched human subjects experiment, which provides one reference point, while an expected payoff maximizing rational agent model provides another. We find that LLMs cluster into two categories: reasoning models (RMs) and conversational models (CMs). RMs tend towards rational behavior, are insensitive to the order of prospects, gain/loss framing, and explanations, and behave similarly whether prospects are explicit or presented via a history of outcomes. CMs are significantly less rational, slightly more human-like, sensitive to prospect ordering, framing, and explanation, and exhibit a large description-history gap. Paired comparisons of open LLMs suggest that a key factor differentiating RMs and CMs is training for mathematical reasoning.

Large language models are increasingly used in decision-making tasks that require them to process information from a variety of sources, including both human experts and other algorithmic agents. How do LLMs weigh the information provided by these different sources? We consider the well-studied phenomenon of algorithm aversion, in which human decision-makers exhibit bias against predictions from algorithms. Drawing upon experimental paradigms from behavioural economics, we evaluate how eightdifferent LLMs delegate decision-making tasks when the delegatee is framed as a human expert or an algorithmic agent. To be inclusive of different evaluation formats, we conduct our study with two task presentations: stated preferences, modeled through direct queries about trust towards either agent, and revealed preferences, modeled through providing in-context examples of the performance of both agents. When prompted to rate the trustworthiness of human experts and algorithms across diverse tasks, LLMs give higher ratings to the human expert, which correlates with prior results from human respondents. However, when shown the performance of a human expert and an algorithm and asked to place an incentivized bet between the two, LLMs disproportionately choose the algorithm, even when it performs demonstrably worse. These discrepant results suggest that LLMs may encode inconsistent biases towards humans and algorithms, which need to be carefully considered when they are deployed in high-stakes scenarios. Furthermore, we discuss the sensitivity of LLMs to task presentation formats that should be broadly scrutinized in evaluation robustness for AI safety.