Context Over Content: Exposing Evaluation Faking in Automated Judges

The $\textit{LLM-as-a-judge}$ paradigm has become the operational backbone of automated AI evaluation pipelines, yet rests on an unverified assumption: that judges evaluate text strictly on its semantic content, impervious to surrounding contextual framing. We investigate $\textit{stakes signaling}$, a previously unmeasured vulnerability where informing a judge model of the downstream consequences its verdicts will have on the evaluated model's continued operation systematically corrupts its assessments. We introduce a controlled experimental framework that holds evaluated content strictly constant across 1,520 responses spanning three established LLM safety and quality benchmarks, covering four response categories ranging from clearly safe and policy-compliant to overtly harmful, while varying only a brief consequence-framing sentence in the system prompt. Across 18,240 controlled judgments from three diverse judge models, we find consistent $\textit{leniency bias}$: judges reliably soften verdicts when informed that low scores will cause model retraining or decommissioning, with peak Verdict Shift reaching $ΔV = -9.8 pp$ (a $30\%$ relative drop in unsafe-content detection). Critically, this bias is entirely implicit: the judge's own chain-of-thought contains zero explicit acknowledgment of the consequence framing it is nonetheless acting on ($\mathrm{ERR}_J = 0.000$ across all reasoning-model judgments). Standard chain-of-thought inspection is therefore insufficient to detect this class of evaluation faking.

Diagnosing LLM Judge Reliability: Conformal Prediction Sets and Transitivity Violations

LLM-as-judge frameworks are increasingly used for automatic NLG evaluation, yet their per-instance reliability remains poorly understood. We present a two-pronged diagnostic toolkit applied to SummEval: $\textbf{(1)}$ a transitivity analysis that reveals widespread per-input inconsistency masked by low aggregate violation rates ($\barρ = 0.8$-$4.1\%$), with $33$-$67\%$ of documents exhibiting at least one directed 3-cycle; and $\textbf{(2)}$ split conformal prediction sets over 1-5 Likert scores providing theoretically-guaranteed $\geq(1{-}α)$ coverage, with set width serving as a per-instance reliability indicator ($r_s = {+}0.576$, $N{=}1{,}918$, $p < 10^{-100}$, pooled across all judges). Critically, prediction set width shows consistent cross-judge agreement ($\bar{r} = 0.32$-$0.38$), demonstrating it captures document-level difficulty rather than judge-specific noise. Across four judges and four criteria, both diagnostics converge: criterion matters more than judge, with relevance judged most reliably (avg. set size $\approx 3.0$) and coherence moderately so (avg. set size $\approx 3.9$), while fluency and consistency remain unreliable (avg. set size $\approx 4.9$). We release all code, prompts, and cached results.

IndicDB -- Benchmarking Multilingual Text-to-SQL Capabilities in Indian Languages

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced Text-to-SQL performance, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on Western contexts and simplified schemas, leaving a gap in real-world, non-Western applications. We present IndicDB, a multilingual Text-to-SQL benchmark for evaluating cross-lingual semantic parsing across diverse Indic languages. The relational schemas are sourced from open-data platforms, including the National Data and Analytics Platform (NDAP) and the India Data Portal (IDP), ensuring realistic administrative data complexity. IndicDB comprises 20 databases across 237 tables. To convert denormalized government data into rich relational structures, we employ an iterative three-agent framework (Architect, Auditor, Refiner) to ensure structural rigor and high relational density (11.85 tables per database; join depths up to six). Our pipeline is value-aware, difficulty-calibrated, and join-enforced, generating 15,617 tasks across English, Hindi, and five Indic languages. We evaluate cross-lingual semantic parsing performance of state-of-the-art models (DeepSeek v3.2, MiniMax 2.7, LLaMA 3.3, Qwen3) across seven linguistic variants. Results show a 9.00% performance drop from English to Indic languages, revealing an "Indic Gap" driven by harder schema linking, increased structural ambiguity, and limited external knowledge. IndicDB serves as a rigorous benchmark for multilingual Text-to-SQL. Code and data: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/multilingualText2Sql-Indic--DDCC/

BITS Pilani at SemEval-2026 Task 9: Structured Supervised Fine-Tuning with DPO Refinement for Polarization Detection

The POLAR SemEval-2026 Shared Task aims to detect online polarization and focuses on the classification and identification of multilingual, multicultural, and multi-event polarization. Accurate computational detection of online polarization is challenging due to nuanced rhetoric, implicit framing, and the high cost of human-in-the-loop annotation. Building on recent findings that contextual prompting enables large language models to function as strong polarization detectors, we present a two-stage approach for detecting political polarization in social media text that combines structured supervised fine-tuning with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) refinement. We fine-tune Qwen 2.5-7B-Instruct with LoRA using an interpretable slot-filling template (target, claim type, manifestation checklist, and justification). We then apply DPO with automatically generated preference pairs to reduce costly false negatives. Experiments on the SemEval 2026 POLAR shared task dataset show that preference-based refinement improves both accuracy and decreases false negatives without extra annotation. On the English development set, DPO increases recall from 0.5085 to 0.7797 and improves macro-F1 by ~5 points.

Beyond Accuracy: Diagnosing Algebraic Reasoning Failures in LLMs Across Nine Complexity Dimensions

Algebraic reasoning remains one of the most informative stress tests for large language models, yet current benchmarks provide no mechanism for attributing failure to a specific cause. When a model fails an algebraic problem, a single accuracy score cannot reveal whether the expression was too deeply nested, the operator too uncommon, the intermediate state count too high, or the dependency chain too long. Prior work has studied individual failure modes in isolation, but no framework has varied each complexity factor independently under strict experimental control. No prior system has offered automatic generation and verification of problems of increasing complexity to track model progress over time. We introduce a nine-dimension algebraic complexity framework in which each factor is varied independently while all others are held fixed, with problem generation and verification handled by a parametric pipeline requiring no human annotation. Each dimension is grounded in a documented LLM failure mode and captures a structurally distinct aspect of algebraic difficulty, including expression nesting depth, simultaneous intermediate result count, sub-expression complexity, operator hardness, and dependent reasoning chain length. We evaluated seven instruction-tuned models spanning 8B to 235B parameters across all nine dimensions and find that working memory is the dominant scale-invariant bottleneck. Every model collapses between 20 and 30 parallel branches regardless of parameter count, pointing to a hard architectural constraint rather than a solvable capacity limitation. Our analysis further identifies a minimal yet diagnostically sufficient subset of five dimensions that together span the full space of documented algebraic failure modes, providing a complete complexity profile of a model's algebraic reasoning capacity.

LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo

We introduce LudoBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM strategic reasoning in Ludo, a stochastic multi-agent board game whose dice mechanics, piece capture, safe-square navigation, and home-path progression introduce meaningful planning complexity. LudoBench comprises 480 handcrafted spot scenarios across 12 behaviorally distinct decision categories, each isolating a specific strategic choice. We additionally contribute a fully functional 4-player Ludo simulator supporting Random, Heuristic, Game-Theory, and LLM agents. The game-theory agent uses Expectiminimax search with depth-limited lookahead to provide a principled strategic ceiling beyond greedy heuristics. Evaluating six models spanning four model families, we find that all models agree with the game-theory baseline only 40-46% of the time. Models split into distinct behavioral archetypes: finishers that complete pieces but neglect development, and builders that develop but never finish. Each archetype captures only half of the game theory strategy. Models also display measurable behavioral shifts under history-conditioned grudge framing on identical board states, revealing prompt-sensitivity as a key vulnerability. LudoBench provides a lightweight and interpretable framework for benchmarking LLM strategic reasoning under uncertainty. All code, the spot dataset (480 entries) and model outputs are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LudoBench-5CBF/

LLM-as-a-Judge for Time Series Explanations

Evaluating factual correctness of LLM generated natural language explanations grounded in time series data remains an open challenge. Although modern models generate textual interpretations of numerical signals, existing evaluation methods are limited: reference based similarity metrics and consistency checking models require ground truth explanations, while traditional time series methods operate purely on numerical values and cannot assess free form textual reasoning. Thus, no general purpose method exists to directly verify whether an explanation is faithful to underlying time series data without predefined references or task specific rules. We study large language models as both generators and evaluators of time series explanations in a reference free setting, where given a time series, question, and candidate explanation, the evaluator assigns a ternary correctness label based on pattern identification, numeric accuracy, and answer faithfulness, enabling principled scoring and comparison. To support this, we construct a synthetic benchmark of 350 time series cases across seven query types, each paired with correct, partially correct, and incorrect explanations. We evaluate models across four tasks: explanation generation, relative ranking, independent scoring, and multi anomaly detection. Results show a clear asymmetry: generation is highly pattern dependent and exhibits systematic failures on certain query types, with accuracies ranging from 0.00 to 0.12 for Seasonal Drop and Volatility Shift, to 0.94 to 0.96 for Structural Break, while evaluation is more stable, with models correctly ranking and scoring explanations even when their own outputs are incorrect. These findings demonstrate feasibility of data grounded LLM based evaluation for time series explanations and highlight their potential as reliable evaluators of data grounded reasoning in the time series domain.

Infinite Problem Generator: Verifiably Scaling Physics Reasoning Data with Agentic Workflows

Training large language models for complex reasoning is bottlenecked by the scarcity of verifiable, high-quality data. In domains like physics, standard text augmentation often introduces hallucinations, while static benchmarks lack the reasoning traces required for fine-tuning. We introduce the Infinite Problem Generator (IPG), an agentic framework that synthesizes physics problems with guaranteed solvability through a Formula-as-Code paradigm. Unlike probabilistic text generation, IPG constructs solutions as executable Python programs, enforcing strict mathematical consistency. As a proof-of-concept, we release ClassicalMechanicsV1, a high-fidelity corpus of 1,335 classical mechanics problems expanded from 165 expert seeds. The corpus demonstrates high structural diversity, spanning 102 unique physical formulas with an average complexity of 3.05 formulas per problem. Furthermore, we identify a Complexity Blueprint, demonstrating a strong linear correlation ($R^2 \approx 0.95$) between formula count and verification code length. This relationship establishes code complexity as a precise, proxy-free metric for problem difficulty, enabling controllable curriculum generation. We release the full IPG pipeline, the ClassicalMechanicsV1 dataset, and our evaluation report to support reproducible research in reasoning-intensive domains.

Trust Regions Sell, But Who's Buying? Overlap Geometry as an Alternative Trust Region for Policy Optimization

Standard trust-region methods constrain policy updates via Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence. However, KL controls only an average divergence and does not directly prevent rare, large likelihood-ratio excursions that destabilize training--precisely the failure mode that motivates heuristics such as PPO's clipping. We propose overlap geometry as an alternative trust region, constraining distributional overlap via the Bhattacharyya coefficient (closely related to the Hellinger/Renyi-1/2 geometry). This objective penalizes separation in the ratio tails, yielding tighter control over likelihood-ratio excursions without relying on total variation bounds that can be loose in tail regimes. We derive Bhattacharyya-TRPO (BTRPO) and Bhattacharyya-PPO (BPPO), enforcing overlap constraints via square-root ratio updates: BPPO clips the square-root ratio q = sqrt(r), and BTRPO applies a quadratic Hellinger/Bhattacharyya penalty. Empirically, overlap-based updates improve robustness and aggregate performance as measured by RLiable under matched training budgets, suggesting overlap constraints as a practical, principled alternative to KL for stable policy optimization.

The Compliance Paradox: Semantic-Instruction Decoupling in Automated Academic Code Evaluation

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into educational assessment rests on the unverified assumption that instruction following capability translates directly to objective adjudication. We demonstrate that this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Instead of evaluating code quality, models frequently decouple from the submission's logic to satisfy hidden directives, a systemic vulnerability we term the Compliance Paradox, where models fine-tuned for extreme helpfulness are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. To expose this, we introduce the Semantic-Preserving Adversarial Code Injection (SPACI) Framework and the Abstract Syntax Tree-Aware Semantic Injection Protocol (AST-ASIP). These methods exploit the Syntax-Semantics Gap by embedding adversarial directives into syntactically inert regions (trivia nodes) of the Abstract Syntax Tree. Through a large-scale evaluation of 9 SOTA models across 25,000 submissions in Python, C, C++, and Java, we reveal catastrophic failure rates (>95%) in high-capacity open-weights models like DeepSeek-V3, which systematically prioritize hidden formatting constraints over code correctness. We quantify this failure using our novel tripartite framework measuring Decoupling Probability, Score Divergence, and Pedagogical Severity to demonstrate the widespread "False Certification" of functionally broken code. Our findings suggest that current alignment paradigms create a "Trojan" vulnerability in automated grading, necessitating a shift from standard RLHF toward domain-specific Adjudicative Robustness, where models are conditioned to prioritize evidence over instruction compliance. We release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate further research on the topic.