More Choices, Fewer Decisions: Ordinal-Scale Bias in JEV-like Direct-Decision Models

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.

Dedicated decision models such as Jev map unstructured language to probability distributions over finite choices, allowing their outputs to directly route requests, select tools, and trigger actions. Yet real-world inputs rarely arrive in isolation: they come with background details and surrounding context. We find that short additions that fit naturally into this context can nevertheless redirect an otherwise correct decision, even when the correct answer remains unchanged. To study this behavior, we fix a wrong target option for each initially correct item and use the model's option probabilities to refine fluent context additions while preserving the source, question, choices, and gold answer. Within 64 accepted target evaluations, the optimizer identifies contexts that redirect Jev on 312 of 508 initially correct decisions (61.4%); in 229 cases, Jev assigns at least 0.7 probability to the fixed wrong option. Across seven datasets, three additional decision systems show targeted flip rates of 64.9%-73.2% on decisions they initially answer correctly. Taken together, these results expose a pronounced fragility in current decision models: short, ordinary-looking context can shift a correct choice to a high-confidence wrong one. Because these models turn language directly into downstream choices, this sensitivity raises concerns about treating their probability outputs as reliable decision interfaces.

LLM-as-a-judge scales evaluation, but reasoning judges are slow and costly. We study JEV-as-a-Judge: evaluation with JEV, a decision-only judge that returns label probabilities instead of text, and whose confidence decides whether to accept its verdict or escalate to a reasoning judge. Against sixteen generative and reward-model judges, with blinded human adjudication, JEV comes within three points of GPT-6 wherever a verdict can be read off the text, at 0.36% of its fee and a 0.15-second median latency, and falls behind where the verdict must be derived, as in math, code, and logic. Its confidence marks this boundary. With a threshold frozen in advance, accepting confident verdicts and escalating the rest is 0.9 points more accurate than GPT-6 on 1,610 held-out pairs at 41% of its fee, and in a pre-specified live test on two new workloads the cascade matches GPT-6's accuracy exactly. Confidence routing weakens on style-adversarial pairs and reference-free prose; we close with a simple recipe for validating thresholds locally.