arXiv:2605.28313v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tasks related to reasoning and judgment. However, assessing the quality o...
MABPD (Multi‑Agent Bias Probing & Detection) is a training‑free pipeline that uses three specialized large language model agents to analyze news articles from complementary perspectives and resolve disagreements via a Structured Argument Debate (SAD) protocol. SAD imposes an asymmetric burden of proof—biased claims lacking grounded textual evidence receive zero weight—along with role‑weighted voting and post‑consensus verification, replacing task‑specific supervised decision boundaries. Ablation studies show that the debate module alone accounts for up to a 10.6‑point F1 gain, and on the BABE benchmark MABPD attains 83.4% macro F1, within 0.7 percentage points of the supervised state‑of‑the‑art, while achieving 75.0% zero‑shot accuracy on the SemEval 2019 HyperPartisan corpus.
arXiv:2605. 22641v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Detecting Schwartz values in political text is difficult because implicit cues often depend on surrounding arguments and fine-grained distinctions between neighboring values.
arXiv:2606. 13591v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Confidence is used for reliability, oversight, and a range of downstream decision tasks in Natural Language Processing (NLP), yet no existing method produces or evaluates a confidence for the output of a multiagent system.
The paper introduces PromptNCE, a zero‑shot method that uses large language models to estimate pointwise mutual information (PMI) by framing conditional probability estimation as a contrastive task with an explicit OTHER category. The authors benchmark PromptNCE against four other prompting‑based estimators on three human‑annotated datasets, finding that PromptNCE achieves the best conditional probability estimates and Spearman correlations up to 0.78 for full PMI. A case study demonstrates the method’s utility for scoring student knowledge summaries in low‑data settings, and the authors release code and prompts for reproducibility.
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably assess scientific hypotheses by using a logit-based energy scoring method that leverages the model’s intrinsic confidence. Across 1,323 papers in 12 disciplines, this intrinsic scoring achieved a 33.0% Hit@1 rate, outperforming a prompted listwise ranking approach that scored 16.6%. The best result, a 1‑billion‑parameter model with logit-based energy scoring, reached 53.1% Hit@1, suggesting that confidence‑based evaluation could improve trustworthy AI‑enabled scientific discovery.
arXiv:2606.12186v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjec...
arXiv:2603. 23841v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity.
Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation.
The paper introduces LLM‑PeerReview, an unsupervised ensemble method that selects the best response from multiple LLM-generated candidates by scoring each answer with several LLMs, aggregating those scores via averaging or a graphical model, and choosing the highest-scoring response. The approach is peer‑review inspired, transparent, and interpretable, and it outperforms the Smoothie‑Global model by 6.9%–7.3% across factual recall QA, math reasoning, and instruction‑following tasks. The authors also provide a curated benchmark suite of 12 ensemble methods evaluated on four datasets and three task families to aid reproducibility.