arXiv AI

IBBench-Light: A Paired Evaluation of Task-Conditioned Responses to External Directives

IBBench-Light is a paired evaluation framework that tests language models on both executing procedures and reading text from the same external record. The benchmark uses twelve semantic bases to generate 144 matched pairs per model, with four instruction‑quantized models producing 1,152 greedy responses. Metrics such as Paired Exact‑Contract Accuracy (PECA) reveal that models like Qwen achieve high success on individual prompts but only 97 complete pairs, highlighting the importance of paired evaluation.

arXiv AI
Jul 22

Prompt Design at Scale: How Format, Instruction Count, and Context Length Shape Instruction Adherence and Hallucination in Large Language Models

arXiv:2607. 19257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade.

By Netanel Eliav
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

Encoded but Not Decoded: Layer-Localized Evidence for a Three-Level Gap in LLM Syntax

The paper introduces a three-level evaluation framework—behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability—to distinguish whether a language model fails a syntactic test by not encoding structure or by failing to use it. Using a trilingual control-dependency benchmark, the authors find that probe recoverability consistently exceeds LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds behavioral deployment across seven models and three languages, with the largest gap observed in Qwen3-0.6B Instruct. Layer-localized activation patching shows that instruction tuning shifts the decoded layer later, suggesting decoding favors surface shortcuts and that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode while probing alone overstates what they deploy.

By Zhenyan Lu, He Wang, Xiaohui Huang
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 21

Prompt Design at Scale: How Format, Instruction Count, and Context Length Shape Instruction Adherence and Hallucination in Large Language Models

Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models.

arXiv AI
Aug 28

MemToC: Benchmarking Memory-Tool Conflict Resolution in Large Language Models

MemToC is a controlled benchmark that tests how large language models resolve conflicts between their internal memory and tool outputs. It contains 6,504 episodes built from 542 factual questions, each paired with a model‑generated closed‑book answer and a tool return whose correctness is known, creating four distinct source‑correctness scenarios. Across five 7‑9B open‑weight models, tool responses overwhelmingly dominate closed‑book answers, and only a minority of instruction‑tuned models correctly retain a verified answer when the tool is wrong, while most follow a correct tool or repeat a wrong tool.

By Arseniy Varlamov, Rishat Zinnatullin, Elisei Rykov, Alexander Panchenko, Ilseyar Alimova