arXiv:2609.17516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can produce fluent answers when their factual support is weak. This paper introduces Chain-of-Self-Questioning (CoSQ), a prompt...
arXiv:2604. 03904v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident but incorrect answers, in part because standard evaluation incentives reward guessing over expressing uncertainty.
The paper introduces a new evaluation setting called penalty‑framed no‑valid‑option MCQA, where multiple‑choice questions may contain no correct answer. By removing the correct option from the MMLU‑Pro mathematics subset and allowing models to either pick an option or abstain, the authors penalize forced‑choice responses that are invalid. Experiments reveal that even models with high standard MCQA accuracy can still produce invalid forced‑choice answers, indicating that traditional accuracy metrics miss an important aspect of model reliability.
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.
arXiv:2607.14109v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central...
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:2606.16011v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Standard accuracy benchmarks evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) reach correct answers. However, they do not test whether models maintain...
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.
arXiv:2609.24799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training quantization (PTQ) enables efficient deployment of large language models, and PTQ methods are usually optimized and evaluated with generi...
The paper investigates whether language models’ self-reported confidence is meaningful without additional training. By evaluating three training‑free signals—direct verbalization, post‑hoc probability estimates, and agreement across multiple generations—on 100 TriviaQA questions, the authors find that direct verbalization alone achieves high AUROC scores (0.956 and 0.937) for correctness prediction, while agreement-based methods perform noticeably worse. Re‑eliciting confidence for the same answers shows modest score shifts and occasional decision flips, and an audit of biography claims reveals only a small confidence gap between supported and contradicted statements.
arXiv:2608.21721v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Correcting health misinformation in dialogue requires more than producing a factual rebuttal: users differ in what they know, what they believe, and wh...
The paper compares two common ways of evaluating large language models (LLMs): prompting them to answer questions directly and scoring candidate answers using likelihood-based metrics. The authors introduce a new protocol that ranks declarative statements derived from question–answer pairs, and test it across 95 decoder-only models (0.1B–104B parameters) on 10 multiple-choice QA datasets. They find that while prompted answering accuracy improves sharply with model scale and instruction tuning, statement‑likelihood ranking accuracy stays relatively stable, indicating that the two evaluation methods probe different aspects of model behavior.