When Does Defendant Statement Matter? A Study of Bias and Persuasion in LLM-Simulated Jurors

What if the twelve jurors of Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men (1957) were not men, but large language models? Would the one juror who disagrees still be able to change everyone's mind? This paper instantiates that scenario as a multi-agent benchmark for LLM deliberation: twelve agents, each conditioned on a film-faithful persona, debate the film's murder case using multi-agent framework. Two models representing opposite ends of the RLHF spectrum are tested: GPT-4o (closed-source, heavy alignment) and Llama-4-Scout (open-weight, lighter alignment), across three conditions (baseline, open-minded prompt, no initial vote), with N = 3 replications per cell (18 runs total). Three findings emerge. (i) Seventeen of eighteen runs end in a hung jury (a state where the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict); the film's central event, gradual minority-to-majority persuasion, almost never occurs, indicating that anchoring is the dominant failure mode of current LLMs in this setting. (ii) The two models exhibit sharply different internal dynamics: GPT-4o produces a mean of 1.0 vote changes per run across all conditions, while Llama-4-Scout ranges from 2.0 (baseline) to 6.0 (open-minded prompt), and is the only model to reach a NOT_GUILTY verdict (1 of 3 runs in the no-initial-vote condition). The same ``open-minded'' instruction is internalized by Llama and ignored by GPT-4o. (iii) This asymmetry suggests that the intensity of RLHF alignment training, not model capability, is the primary determinant of deliberative flexibility in multi-agent settings. Flexibility, not capability, tracks human deliberation. The work is framed as an exploratory study and discusses implications for jury-of-LLMs evaluation and multi-agent debate.

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant paradigm for evaluating language model outputs, yet LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that compromise evaluation reliability. We present a comprehensive empirical study comparing nine debiasing strategies across five judge models from four provider families (Google, Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta), three benchmarks (MT-Bench n=400, LLMBar n=200, custom n=375), and four bias types. Our headline practical finding is that a mid-tier model with the right debiasing can outperform frontier judges at a fraction of the cost: Gemini 2.5 Flash with the Combined Budget strategy reaches the highest agreement of any configuration we tested (71.0%, kappa=0.549) at ~$0.001 per evaluation, about 15x cheaper than the best frontier setup (Claude Sonnet 4, 69.5$0.015). Other key findings: (1) Style bias is the dominant bias (0.10-0.76 across models, favoring markdown over plain prose), far exceeding position bias (<=0.04), yet is rarely studied. (2) Verbosity bias is heterogeneous when measured length-aware: Pro, Flash, and Llama prefer longer answers (+0.24 to +0.44), Claude prefers concise (-0.12), and GPT-4o is neutral (-0.04); on truncation controls all models correctly prefer the complete response (0.88-1.00 accuracy). (3) Debiasing helps multiple models: Claude S8 (+11.5 pp), Flash S8 (+7.5 pp), and Claude S5 (+7.3 pp) survive Holm-Bonferroni correction, with Flash S1 (+4.7 pp) and Llama S8 (+4.5 pp) also significant. We release our evaluation framework, the 375-pair controlled dataset, and per-instance cached results for all nine strategies.

Improving reasoning LLMs requires the ability to judge the quality of long reasoning traces for effective reasoning data curation, strong training signals during reinforcement learning, and an in-depth understanding of reasoning behaviors during model performance evaluation. Additionally, surfacing reasoning mistakes that the model makes would enable improving the model's performance at runtime through providing feedback. Due to the difficulty of this complex task on long reasoning traces, single-model judges (even frontier models) do not do well at identifying reasoning defects. Additionally, leveraging frontier models during online training of reasoning LLMs is generally prohibited due to guardrails in terms of use. In this work, we introduce Reasoning Jury, a system that replaces the single judge with a jury of LLMs and a moderated consensus mechanism, to improve the fidelity of judgments for identifying reasoning defects. In reasoning jury, defects of a reasoning trace and their severity are surfaced through a deliberation where a moderator conducts a discussion amongst the jury where the jurors critique each other's judgments and get to modify their initial votes. The moderator derives a consensus through deliberation amongst jurors or consolidation of judgements. We show that Reasoning Jury with a jury of open-weight models (e.g., gpt-oss-120b) is able to significantly outperform frontier models (opus-4.6, sonnet-4.6, and gemini-3.1-pro) at correctly identifying reasoning defects. Besides accuracy performance improvements, the aggregated cost of the jury (initial verdicts, deliberations, consolidation, etc.) is a fraction (8 to 15%) of the cost of running frontier models in LLM-as-a-judge setup. We also show how these judgements can be leveraged to understand failure modes of reasoning LLMs on benchmarks, which allows much deeper understanding of a model's performance.