← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.2082 · 记录 #1
How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs’ Judgment of Answer Factuality
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:46
摘要
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as scalable judges for open-ended generation, yet how they form judgments remains insufficiently understood. Meanwhile, modern LLMs frequently produce answers accompanied by explicit reasoning, making reasoning chains a natural but understudied source of information for model-based evaluation. This work takes a first step toward understanding how exposing reasoning influences LLM-based judgment. Empirical results across factual question-answering (QA) and mathematical datasets show that the presence of reasoning substantially alters judgment behavior, with clear differences across judge capabilities. Weaker judges become more likely to accept incorrect answers when reasoning is present, suggesting over-reliance on persuasive explanations. In contrast, stronger judges exhibit more selective behavior and, in some cases, achieve higher judgment accuracy by leveraging reasoning content. Further analysis reveals that both reasoning fluency and factuality critically shape judgment outcomes. Together, these findings suggest that examining how models interpret reasoning is essential for understanding and improving LLM-based evaluation, with broader implications for the design of reliable automatic judges and evaluation protocols.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs’ Judgment of Answer Factuality
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as scalable judges for open-ended generation, yet how they form judgments remains insufficiently understood. Meanwhile, modern LLMs frequently produce answers accompanied by explicit reasoning, making reasoning chains a natural but understudied source of information for model-based evaluation. This work takes a first step toward understanding how exposing reasoning influences LLM-based judgment. Empirical results across factual question-answering (QA) and mathematical datasets show that the presence of reasoning substantially alters judgment behavior, with clear differences across judge capabilities. Weaker judges become more likely to accept incorrect answers when reasoning is present, suggesting over-reliance on persuasive explanations. In contrast, stronger judges exhibit more selective behavior and, in some cases, achieve higher judgment accuracy by leveraging reasoning content. Further analysis reveals that both reasoning fluency and factuality critically shape judgment outcomes. Together, these findings suggest that examining how models interpret reasoning is essential for understanding and improving LLM-based evaluation, with broader implications for the design of reliable automatic judges and evaluation protocols.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗