Equal Ranking Quality, Different Decisions: Training Order-Consistent LLM Scorers

Rerankers, reward models and multi-document QA scorers score candidate documents or responses in one LLM prompt, so each score depends on their order. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or a preference model selects. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. A published reranker takes the highest retained-set F1 in our comparison and still overlaps by only 0.667. No prompt-time change we test removes that order dependence: the only one that gains ranking quality leaves all three decisions unchanged. Order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT) attenuates it in the weights, training a candidate's score not to depend on the order. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks: it flips the reader's answer on 0.125 of permutation pairs against 0.149-0.164 for three other objectives that target order. It is more stable than order-averaged distillation on 12 base models, and one OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.

Measuring and Improving Behavioral Consistency in Large Language Models through Fact-Heuristic-Emotion State Enforcement

Large language models (LLMs) can give different answers to the same decision problem across runs, and reverse a decision when their own prior answer returns as context. We ask whether this instability can be measured and partially reduced without changing model weights. We test the Cognitive Kernel Model (CKM), a prompt-level state-enforcement layer. Before deciding, the model must separate its input into three epistemic roles: Fact (given or verifiable), Heuristic (inferred or assumed), and Emotion (evaluative or priority signal). CKM adds no capability; it forces the model to track what kind of information it uses before acting. Formally it maintains a structured state S_t = {F_t, H_t, E_t} updated by a transition function. We evaluate CKM on Korean-language decision scenarios (ambiguity, ethical conflict, resource allocation, error handling) across 26 LLMs from four vendors and 37,403 observations, via four core experiments, a 4-arm ablation, a 5-arm sham-restriction ablation, and a temperature probe. Findings: (1) CKM reduces repeated-output variability (random-effects Hedges' g=1.09, 95% CI [0.83, 1.35], 31 model pairs); (2) state persistence cuts the decision-flip rate by 82% in newer models (g=1.52); (3) the effect is not JSON formatting alone (value-only recomputation, g=2.24); (4) intrinsic randomness under fixed anchor states is negligible; (5) the advantage grows under sampling stochasticity (g=2.87 at temperature 0.7); (6) a sham ablation attributes about 45% of the gain to structural scaffolding and 55% to Fact/Heuristic/Emotion content, and CKM is the only arm that both raises consistency and reduces flipping. CKM does not improve reasoning correctness. The narrower result: behavioral consistency is measurable, varies across models, and is partially improvable by forcing models to separate facts, assumptions, and evaluative signals before deciding.