Abstract
Atomic decomposition -- breaking a candidate answer into claims before verifying each against a reference -- is a widely adopted design for LLM-based reference-grounded judges. However, atomic prompts are typically richer and longer, making it unclear whether any advantage comes from decomposition or from richer prompting. We study this for benchmark-style completeness-sensitive reference-support classification: classifying a candidate as fully supported, partially supported, or unsupported relative to a supplied reference. We compare a self-decomposing atomic judge (single-prompt decompose-and-verify) against a prompt-controlled holistic judge with the same inputs and a similarly detailed rubric. On 200 source examples per dataset across TruthfulQA, ASQA, and QAMPARI, with four model families, source-level paired tests, cluster bootstrap, and aggregation across three pre-frozen prompt variants per design family, we find the holistic judge matches or exceeds the atomic judge on two of three benchmarks: ASQA and QAMPARI favor holistic across all four families (statistically reliable in three of four), while TruthfulQA shows a small atomic edge. The holistic advantage is concentrated in partially\_supported cases -- incompleteness detection. A sensitivity check against human annotations confirms the ranking under both benchmark-completeness and human factual-correctness standards. Our finding is specific to the self-decomposing single-prompt pattern on three QA-style benchmarks with 200 source examples each; multi-stage atomic pipelines and non-QA tasks remain untested. Among perturbations examined, reference-quality degradation produced the largest accuracy drops for both judge families.
