Skip to content
← Back to explorer

AMEL: Accumulated Message Effects on LLM Judgments

Sid-ali Temkit · May 21, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Coding Tool Use
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation. We ask whether the polarity of prior conversation history biases subsequent judgments, an effect we call the accumulated message effect on LLM judgments (AMEL). Across 75,898 API calls to 11 models from 4 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative evaluations. Models shift toward the conversation's prevailing polarity (d = -0.17, p < 10^-46). The effect concentrates on items where the model is genuinely uncertain at baseline (d = -0.34 for high-entropy items, vs d = -0.15 when the baseline is deterministic). Bias does not grow with context length: 5 prior turns and 50 produce the same shift (Spearman |r| < 0.01; OLS slope p = 0.80). And there is a negativity asymmetry: paired per item, negative histories induce 1.62x more bias than positive (t = 13.46, p < 10^-39, n = 2,481). Scaling helps but does not solve it (Anthropic: Haiku -0.22 to Opus -0.17; OpenAI: Nano -0.34 to GPT-5.2 -0.17). Three follow-ups narrow the mechanism. The token probability distribution shifts continuously, not at a threshold. The negativity asymmetry has both token-level and semantic components, though attributing the balance is exploratory at our sample sizes. Position does not matter: five biased turns anywhere in a 50-turn history produce the same shift. The simplest fix for evaluation pipelines is a fresh context per item; when batching is unavoidable, balancing the history helps.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation."

Reported Metrics

partial

Spearman, Context length

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Bias does not grow with context length: 5 prior turns and 50 produce the same shift (Spearman |r| < 0.01; OLS slope p = 0.80)."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Tool Use
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

spearmancontext length

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation.
  • We ask whether the polarity of prior conversation history biases subsequent judgments, an effect we call the accumulated message effect on LLM judgments (AMEL).
  • Across 75,898 API calls to 11 models from 4 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative evaluations.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Tool-use evaluation) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Across 75,898 API calls to 11 models from 4 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative…
  • The simplest fix for evaluation pipelines is a fresh context per item; when batching is unavoidable, balancing the history helps.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Across 75,898 API calls to 11 models from 4 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative…
  • The simplest fix for evaluation pipelines is a fresh context per item; when batching is unavoidable, balancing the history helps.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: spearman, context length

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now