Prior Audit-Repair Context Shifts LLM Verifier Thresholds Toward Leniency
Summary
This paper finds that prior audit and repair episodes in context reduce false alarms in LLM verifiers by shifting decision thresholds, with repair content and audit verdict complementarily affecting different model families.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/18/26, 07:52 AM
Paper page - Prior Audit-Repair Context Shifts LLM Verifier Thresholds Toward Leniency
Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2608.16003
Abstract
Prior audit and repair episodes in context reduce false alarms by shifting decision thresholds rather than discrimination, with repair content and audit verdict complementarily affecting different model families.
Automated checking pipelines increasingly place one language model as the checker and another (or the same one) as the fixer. We ask whether that wiring changes what the checker reports. Measuringfalse alarmson human-verified-correct ProcessBench traces with the present task held byte-identical, we find that a completedaudit->repairepisode already in the model’s context lowersfalse alarmsin 15 of 15 model x wording combinations, by 2.8 to 11.5 percentage points against a length-matched non-auditcontrol, a 9 to 25% reduction relative to that control. The direction contradicts what the accumulated-message literature predicts: an episode whoseauditreported an error lowersfalse alarmsfurther still, at all five wordings on the model where that manipulation lands cleanly, though a negativity asymmetry predicts more flagging. Decomposing the episode findsrepaircontent andauditverdict complementary: different components carry the effect on different model families.Signal-detection analysislocates the change in thethresholdrather than indiscrimination-- the criterion moves in 15 of 15 combinations and survives correction in 13 whiled’survives in none, though thed’test is half as sensitive by construction -- and a handauditof 50false alarmsfinds 82% simply wrong, so at this operating point the shift need not be harmful. Withreasoningenabled the effect keeps its relative size on both models tested, and thethresholdreading holds there too.
View arXiv pageView PDFGitHub0Add to collection
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2608\.16003
Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash
Models citing this paper0
No model linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.16003 in a model README.md to link it from this page.
Datasets citing this paper0
No dataset linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.16003 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.
Spaces citing this paper0
No Space linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.16003 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.
Collections including this paper0
No Collection including this paper
Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.
Similar Articles
LLM Attribution Analysis Across Different Fine-Tuning Strategies and Model Scales for Automated Code Compliance
This paper analyzes how different fine-tuning strategies (FFT, LoRA, quantized LoRA) and model scales affect LLM interpretive behavior for automated code compliance tasks using perturbation-based attribution analysis. The findings show FFT produces more focused attribution patterns than parameter-efficient methods, and larger models develop specific interpretive strategies with diminishing performance returns beyond 7B parameters.
Don't Go Breaking My LLM: The Impact of Pruning Attention Layers on Explanation Faithfulness and Confidence Calibration
This paper studies how pruning attention layers in LLMs affects explanation faithfulness and confidence calibration, finding that accuracy often remains high but interpretability and reliability degrade, highlighting a misalignment between model confidence, interpretability, and accuracy.
Faithful uncertainty in LLM agents: calibration vs utility tradeoff in practice[D]
A practitioner discusses the calibration vs. utility tradeoff in LLM agents, sharing experience with a verifier-based pipeline that reduces hallucinated tool calls by ~60% but introduces latency costs and drops easy correct answers.
DART: Mitigating Harm Drift in Difference-Aware LLMs via Distill-Audit-Repair Training
DART (Distill-Audit-Repair Training) is a new training framework that addresses 'harm drift' in safety-aligned LLMs, where fine-tuning for demographic difference-awareness causes harmful content to appear in model explanations. On eight benchmarks, DART improves Llama-3-8B-Instruct accuracy from 39.0% to 68.8% while reducing harm drift cases by 72.6%.
Safety is Contextual, LLM-Judges Are Not: Navigating the Rigid Priors of Evaluators
This paper investigates the ability of LLMs-as-judges for safety to adapt to contextual information and varying safety definitions, finding that they are largely rigid and fail to adjust when the context contradicts their internal priors.