arXiv Computation and Language

Load-Bearing Context: The Question Damage Score for Evaluating Context Reliance in Linguistic Reasoning

The paper introduces the Question Damage Score, a diagnostic framework that evaluates how much large language models rely on specific context examples in linguistic reasoning tasks. By systematically deleting either random or strategically chosen context examples from 53 UK Linguistics Olympiad puzzles, the authors classify puzzles as fragile or robust and assess model performance under instructions to abstain when information is insufficient. The study finds that current frontier LLMs rarely abstain and often still answer correctly even after load‑bearing context is removed, highlighting a need to better understand context‑based reasoning, prior knowledge, and memorization in these models.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 16

Beyond Context Length: Characterising the Difficulty of Long-Context Reasoning

The paper introduces LURCH, a benchmark of 6,550 question‑answering instances that quantifies long‑context reasoning difficulty using three properties: evidence scope, evidence dispersion, and reasoning depth. Experiments with both proprietary and open‑weight models show that these properties are strongly negatively correlated with performance, that performance drops sharply for dispersed evidence as context length grows, and that difficulty increases when multiple properties are high simultaneously. The study demonstrates that context length alone is insufficient to explain model failures, and that the new metrics provide a more nuanced understanding of long‑context challenges.

By Shiwen Qin, Cameron Barker, Henry Gouk, Elliot J. Crowley, Shay B. Cohen, Mirella Lapata, Miao Li
arXiv AI
Oct 2

What Makes Something Hard(er)? Explaining Question Difficulty in Natural Language

The paper introduces a data-driven method to generate natural-language explanations for why some questions are harder than others. It estimates question difficulty using Item Response Theory on large language model responses, then prompts an LLM to propose hypotheses that are validated on held-out data. Experiments on mathematical, logical, and commonsense datasets show that these hypotheses are interpretable, predictive, and can be used to adjust question difficulty causally.

By Peng Cui, Qiaoyuan Zheng, Rudolf Debelak, Mrinmaya Sachan
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 9

Understanding Axes of Difficulty For Long Context Tasks Via PredicateLongBench

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapidly improving long-context capabilities, prompting a wave of benchmarks designed to evaluate them. However, existing long-context evaluations - from Needle-in-a-Haystack (NIAH) tests to more recent multi-hop reasoning and summarization tasks - predominantly measure average-case performance, and many are either saturated or lack robustness.

arXiv AI
Aug 17

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.

By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
arXiv AI
Sep 28

Do LLMs Understand Context? A Knowledge Graph-Based Evaluation Framework

The paper introduces a knowledge‑graph‑based evaluation framework, S3KG, to assess whether large language models truly understand context in question answering tasks. S3KG combines structural and semantic signals into a single similarity score and is paired with a diagnostic analysis that pinpoints reasoning errors at the triplet level. Across nine benchmarks, the method outperforms existing baselines, achieving up to +7.6 F1 points and an AUROC of 0.973.

By Subavarshana Arumugam, Mamta Nallaretnam, Kithuni Wickramasinghe, Chamath Gunapala, Pragatheeswaran Vipulanandan, Kamal Premaratne, Uthayasanker Thayasivam
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.

By Magda Dubois, Cozmin Ududec, Christopher Summerfield, Lennart Luettgau