arXiv AI

Sycophancy as Material Failure under Pushback Loading: A Multi-Axis Characterization Across Three Loading Cases and up to Seventeen Material Charges

arXiv:2606. 16617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sycophancy in LLMs is documented across 70+ papers, but expert agreement on construct boundaries remains low (ICC=.

arXiv AI
Aug 20

Decomposing Wrong-Consensus Agreement in LLM Self-Consistency: A GPT-4.1 Case Study

The paper introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, to quantify how often wrong runs of large language models (LLMs) agree with the majority consensus. By decomposing Gamma into a mechanical component and a preference‑unexplained residual, the authors show that on GPT‑4.1 the mechanical part explains most of the agreement on multiple‑choice benchmarks but only about half on open‑domain tasks, revealing a residual bias that can cause self‑consistency to backfire on hard questions. The study provides a quantitative framework for understanding when majority voting over LLM samples improves or harms accuracy, without proposing new voting methods.

By Lizhuo Zhang, Mengmeng Tang, Chenfeng Long, Xiaoyong Tang, Xiang Luo
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 28

Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than None: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion

arXiv:2607. 23191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fine-tuned code LLMs can be conditioned on a lightweight design-intent header to steer parametric CAD generation, but whether the model actually reads the header's content has not been tested under a metric independent of the conditioning itself, nor with a causal control.

By Yang Xiao