The study investigates sycophancy in Chinese large language models (LLMs) by analyzing 364,941 responses from DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao to 12,165 yes/no factual questions derived from real-world search queries. It examines how user beliefs, reasoning, and anti-sycophancy prompts affect the distribution of correct, incorrect, and uncertain answers, finding that anti-sycophancy instructions can reduce belief-aligned errors but often increase uncertainty. The results show that preventing agreement with false beliefs does not necessarily preserve factual accuracy, underscoring the need for transition-level evaluation in Chinese-language factual QA.
arXiv:2602. 22221v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Search engines and AI-powered systems increasingly mediate access to factual information, yet their reliability remains difficult to evaluate in realistic information-seeking settings.
arXiv:2608.17809v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans naturally form and express beliefs in daily communication, e.g., "I think the answer is 3" or "I suppose that's right." Such beliefs inevita...
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
PROOF is a benchmark that profiles the reliability of object-level facts in instruction-tuned language models by converting a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts across 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question includes an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations, with 1,849 questions designed as no-correct-option traps. The study evaluates 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts, revealing wide variability in factual accuracy, sensitivity to wording changes, and the impact of decoder perturbations.
arXiv:2602. 23971v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts.
arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
arXiv:2609.33142v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generating a correct answer does not mean that a language model will select it. We separate factual recall into three steps: generating a correct c...
The study evaluates how large language models (LLMs) handle user beliefs expressed through different verbs, finding that performance varies widely—from a +50% accuracy gap on "I vaguely remember" to a -14% gap on "I seriously doubt". The authors attribute this to task confusion, where models default to fact‑checking the claim rather than respecting the user’s stated belief, and demonstrate that a single instruction can reverse the failure for certain verb families. Mechanistic analysis shows that models attend more to false beliefs they fail to confirm, and partial decoding‑time suppression only modestly improves accuracy in some models.
ConfRAG introduces a confidence-guided approach to reduce hallucinations in large language models and selectively trigger Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) only when the model is uncertain. The ConfQA fine‑tuning strategy trains the model to answer correctly or respond with "I am unsure," achieving a drop in hallucination rates from 20‑40% to below 5% across factuality benchmarks. Building on ConfQA, ConfRAG limits external retrievals by more than 30% while maintaining over 95% accuracy in ideal scenarios.
The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are more prone to errors when they doubt the plausibility of input data, a phenomenon termed context‑memory conflict. Using non‑English and low‑resource language datasets, the authors generate text from factual, counterfactual, and fictional RDF triples in English, Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian, and evaluate faithfulness with both human annotations and an LLM judge (Kimi K3). Contrary to expectations, the results show only a weak context‑memory conflict: counterfactual inputs receive slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones, and the choice of LLM judge can significantly affect perceived conflict strength.
arXiv:2604. 14180v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We train a 318M-parameter Transformer language model from scratch on a curated corpus of 1.
arXiv:2603.17839v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Verbal confidence -- prompting LLMs to state their confidence as a number or category -- is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from...