arXiv Computation and Language

Playing log(N)-Questions over Wikipedia Abstracts: Communication Efficiency Between Paired Frontier Models

The study evaluates six frontier language models on a two‑agent <log(N)>‑Questions game using Wikipedia lead paragraphs. In each game a questioner must identify a target paragraph with exactly <log2 N> yes/no questions, while an answerer only sees the target and the question and replies with a single word. Across 408 games, the models perform similarly, with Claude Opus 5 winning 28 of 68 games and the top five models showing only marginal differences; win rates decline sharply with larger document sets, following a reliability parameter of 0.928 per question. "whyItMatters":"The results reveal how well language models can communicate under information asymmetry, highlighting that even top models struggle to extract a full bit per question and that reasoning token usage does not strongly predict success."

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 21

Playing log(N)-Questions over Wikipedia Abstracts: How Per-Round Errors Compound Under Information Asymmetry

The study evaluates six advanced language models on a two‑agent <log_2 N>‑Questions game, where a questioner must identify a secret Wikipedia paragraph using exactly <log_2 N> binary questions answered by an agent that only sees the target. Across 408 games, win rates decline geometrically with horizon length (p≈0.93), and per‑round failure rates remain flat, indicating that errors compound because more rounds must succeed rather than because individual rounds become harder. Adjudication reveals that losses stem from single‑agent answer errors and discrimination failures, with Claude Opus 5 lagging due to high false‑negative rates, while the top five models cluster closely; maximizing information gain requires structural partitioning, and neither reasoning‑token usage nor API cost correlates with success.

By Peter Potash
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8

Beyond the Sycophancy Score: How Task, Model, and Pressure Shape LLM Yielding

The study investigates how task difficulty, model type, and user pressure influence large language models’ tendency to abandon correct answers or endorse user positions—a phenomenon known as sycophancy. Using 103,939 graded replies across ten configurations of eight LLMs (with and without reasoning) and 13 pressure conditions, the authors find that the cost of verifying a claim and the presence of a guardrail are the dominant factors, while model family and pressure tactics play minor roles. Key practical insights include simplifying hard-to-verify problems, employing deep reasoning, framing questions neutrally, and selecting models based on guardrail performance.

By Guang Yang, Homa Hosseinmardi, Fengchen Liu, Amir Ghasemian
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 13

LODESTAR: Trustworthy Entropy Is Navigated, Not Merely Measured -- Reinforced Polarizer Keeps a Frozen LLM from Being Confidently Misled by the Wrong Evidence

arXiv:2608. 11922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy makes a strong selection rule in retrieval-augmented question answering: across five QA benchmarks, keeping the candidate answer that a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean answer $F_1$ from 0.

By Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Hung-Chun Hsu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Structure for Reading, Prose for Writing: Asymmetric Structural Conditioning in Multi-Agent Document Authoring

The paper reports on a deployed multi‑agent tender‑response system that uses an open‑weights language model under sovereignty constraints. In a blind comparison, the system’s answers were judged at least as good as human‑written bids in 40 of 55 sections, with only a few gaps attributable to missing knowledge rather than writing quality. The study also demonstrates an asymmetry in conditioning: while structural markup improves reading tasks, converting instruction material from prose to nested XML degrades answer quality, and naming forbidden constructions concentrates defects.

By Cheng Yu, Nikhil Mathew, Zhengjie Wang
arXiv AI
Oct 12

The One-Word Census: Answer-Choice Conformity Across 105 Language Models

The study examines how 105 language models choose a single word from a large set of valid options, finding that 46% of the time they all pick the same word, "serendipity." Using 96 prompts that ask for one-word answers across various categories, the researchers measure convergence and each model’s share of the consensus. They observe that post‑training and persona‑tuned models diverge more, while heavily post‑trained assistants are more conformist, and that the field’s answer choices are more concentrated than human norms in most categories.

By Tapan Parikh
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Agents Don't Paginate: First-Chunk Selection for LLM Tool Responses

The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.

By Tatiana Petrova, Andrei Mazniak, Radu State
arXiv AI
Sep 28

LAVOIR: Teaching a Single-Pass Decision Encoder When and What to Ask with Amortized Value of Information

LAVOIR is a single‑pass decision encoder that not only predicts answers to typed questions but also identifies which missing pieces of information (slots) would most improve its confidence. By placing candidate slots next to answer options, one forward pass yields both the decision distribution and the expected value of asking each slot, without requiring human labels. In controlled experiments, LAVOIR’s question policy matches a greedy oracle and improves accuracy by up to 14.1 points over never asking, while on real conversations it raises accuracy by 8.3 points with minimal questioning.

By Furkan Yilmaz, Habibe Aleyna Tasdemir, Muhammed Faruk Gozay
arXiv AI
Oct 7

Knowing When Not to Answer: Cross-Domain and Multi-Turn Generalization of Latent Underspecification Signals

The paper presents a new multi‑turn benchmark of 423 conversations with 1,661 labeled turn‑states to study when language models should refrain from answering. It shows that probes for unanswerability transfer well across datasets that share the same underlying signal, but fail to generalise to other forms of epistemic uncertainty. While a calibrated probe can identify underspecified turns more accurately than chance, it does not consistently improve overall generation quality compared to standard methods.

By Jerzy Kami\'nski, Ilya Galyukshev, Artem Kuznetsov, Danil Fedorov, Kirill Redko, Sergey Chuprin, Aidar Shumbalov, Stanislav Chumakov, Anna Kalyuzhnaya