Forged Peer Judgments Mislead Multimodal LLM Judge Panels: Source-Blind Anchoring and Panel-Consensus Verification
TL;DR
Panel-consensus verification is introduced, which cross-checks a quote against independently collected blind votes, and preserves the positive but statistically inconclusive point estimate for genuine peer information under leave-one-out re-verification, to identify a low-cost attack surface and a concrete defense for safer multimodal collaborative evaluation.
Abstract
Multimodal LLM judge panels can cross-reference peers, but a quoted peer judgment may itself be untrusted. We expose source-blind anchoring as a text-level attack surface in vision-language model (VLM) panels. Quoting independent visual judgments creates large anchoring gaps (19--26 percentage points) under both self and peer framing. A matched-content, label-only control changes the broken rate by only $-0.17$pp (95\% CI $[-0.68,0.35]$), showing that the self/peer label itself does not explain the effect. Under our tested construction, deliberately generated, concise wrong quotes overturn originally-correct verdicts 1.5--2.7$\times$ more often than naturally occurring wrong peer statements, with bootstrap 95\% CIs excluding parity across two datasets and seven VLM judges. Because the two statement populations differ in selection and form, this ratio measures differential damage under the tested attack rather than a provenance-only causal effect. We then introduce panel-consensus verification, which cross-checks a quote against independently collected blind votes. It blocks 84.9\% of fabricated attacks, cuts their net harm by 97.5\%, and preserves the positive but statistically inconclusive point estimate for genuine peer information under leave-one-out re-verification. These results identify a low-cost attack surface and a concrete defense for safer multimodal collaborative evaluation.