arXiv AI
Jun 9
The AI Epistemic Deference Index: A Continuous Measure of Sycophancy
arXiv:2606. 07897v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.
Pander Score: A Continuous Measure of Sycophancy as Epistemic Deference
arXiv:2606. 07897v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 7
Measuring and Detecting Harmful AI Sycophancy
arXiv:2608. 05624v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sycophantic responses are becoming pervasive in large language models (LLMs), and prior work has pointed out that some of them could be harmful.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 2
SenseJudge: Human-Centric Preference-Driven Judgment Framework
Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.
arXiv AI
Jul 31
Ask don't tell: Reducing sycophancy in large language models
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 AI
2d ago
The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 5
CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction
arXiv:2606. 05799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's {\em behavioral robustness} to irrelevant or misleading information.
arXiv AI
Jun 30
ORCA: Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment for Audio Question Answering
arXiv:2512. 09066v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art.
arXiv AI
Jun 9
Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
arXiv AI
Jun 26
Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 15
From Uncertain Judgments to Calibrated Rankings: Conformal Elo Estimation for LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv AI
Jul 7
The Rise of Verbal Tics in Large Language Models: A Systematic Analysis Across Frontier Models
arXiv:2604. 19139v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve through alignment techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI, a growing and increasingly conspicuous phenomenon has emerged: the proliferation of verbal tics--repetitive, formulaic linguistic patterns that pervade model outputs.
arXiv AI
2d ago
Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation
arXiv:2608. 14509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt.