Predictable Compression Failures: Order Sensitivity and Information Budgeting for Evidence-Grounded Binary Adjudication
Leon Chlon, Ahmed Karim, MarcAntonio Awada
Abstract
Transformers used for evidence-grounded binary adjudication (e.g., support/refute, yes/no, or verifier-backed pass/fail decisions) can be sensitive to the order in which exchangeable evidence is presented, producing dispersion across permutations and unreliable attempted answers under a verifier-relative Bernoulli predicate. We treat evidence order as a nuisance variable and formalize an expectation–realization gap: next-token training can minimize expected conditional description length over orderings while a fixed ordering remains position-sensitive. Our Quantified Martingale Violation (QMV) bound predicts the dispersion induced by adjacent-rank positional sensitivity, with growth in the harmonic regime; our Expectation-level Decompression Law (EDFL) specializes a KL convexity/data-processing bound to Bernoulli predicates, yielding Bits-to-Trust (B2T), Risk-of-Hallucination (RoH), and an Information Sufficiency Ratio (ISR) gate for answer/abstain decisions. On 3,059 grounded items from FEVER, HotpotQA, NQ-Open, PopQA, and Controls, we observe logarithmic dispersion and positive Jensen gains from uniform permutation mixtures. In one pre-specified held-out audit (528 items), the analytically fixed gate attains 0.0–0.7% hallucination with 20.6–27.9% abstention (95% CIs), supporting the operating point without claiming universal calibration across all model families or unrestricted generation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 12fe0c04-0c70-4be2-bf71-9976e923d018Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on10
- An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian InferenceSang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, Tengyu MaICLR 2022 · 1,030 citations
- Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language ModelsXuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le et al.ICLR 2023 · 681 citations
- Transformers as Statisticians: Provable In-Context Learning with In-Context Algorithm SelectionYu Bai, Fan Chen, Huan Wang, Caiming Xiong et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 356 citations
- Language Modeling Is CompressionGrégoire Delétang, Anian Ruoss, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Elliot Catt et al.ICLR 2024 · 243 citations
- Calibrated Language Models Must HallucinateAdam Tauman Kalai, Santosh S. VempalaSTOC 2024 · 58 citations
Related papers
- Uncertainty as Feature Gaps: Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification of LLMs in Contextual Question-AnsweringYavuz Faruk Bakman, Sungmin Kang, Zhiqi Huang, Duygu Nur Yaldiz et al.ICLR 2026 · 6 citations
- ABCD: All Biases Come DisguisedMateusz Nowak, Xavier Cadet, Peter ChinICML 2026 · 2 citations
- On Position Embeddings in BERTBenyou Wang, Lifeng Shang, Christina Lioma, Xin Jiang et al.ICLR 2021 · 129 citations
- To Believe or Not to Believe Your LLM: Iterative Prompting for Estimating Epistemic UncertaintyYasin Abbasi-Yadkori, Ilja Kuzborskij, András György, Csaba SzepesváriNeurIPS 2024
- Beyond Verifiable Rewards: Scaling Reinforcement Learning in Language Models to Unverifiable DataYunhao Tang, Sid Wang, Lovish Madaan, Rémi MunosNeurIPS 2025 · 27 citations
