arXiv:2604. 22027v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed.
arXiv:2608. 16627v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL).
arXiv:2606. 04057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now generate substantial production code, often for tasks with multiple valid algorithmic solutions.
arXiv:2602. 24287v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In multi-turn conversations, large language models typically condition on the full conversation history: both past user prompts and assistant responses.
arXiv:2606. 26918v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models can serve as capable long-horizon agents, but their out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization remains weak.
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.
As large language models (LLMs) grow more capable, they are increasingly deployed in context-rich settings where task inputs are often accompanied by long, partially irrelevant context. In a controlled setting, we find that state-of-the-art models often appear robust to task-irrelevant context at the aggregate level: prepending it to benchmark questions causes little change in overall accuracy.
arXiv:2606. 05486v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prompt ambiguity is a common source of failure in large language models, but is difficult to localize because it is a latent property of the prompt, while existing attribution methods are designed to explain observable outputs such as logits or generated tokens.
arXiv:2608. 14681v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Words recur constantly in natural language use, yet it remains unclear whether language models reactivate prior representations or re-evaluate repeated words afresh, and whether post-training changes this default behavior.
arXiv:2606. 32038v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When does training language models (LMs) to generate explanations of their predictions yield faithful introspection, rather than superficial imitation?
Large language models can serve as capable long-horizon agents, but their out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization remains weak. We identify a key source of this failure as task insensitivity: when faced with similar but distinct tasks, models might apply patterns learned during training and fail to solve the task at hand.
arXiv:2607. 14109v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding.
The asymmetry between language production and perception has been well-documented in psycholinguistics. Whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a functionally analogous distinction remains an open question, particularly given that LLMs rely on the same underlying mechanism (next-token prediction) for both input and output processing.