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.
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: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...
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...
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv:2608. 13258v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self-referential prompting has been shown to reliably induce large language models to produce first-person reports resembling subjective experience, but no prior work measures how consistent these reports are across repeated, independent trials, or how that consistency compares to the model's behavior on other kinds of open-ended questions.
arXiv:2605.25831v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) define a distribution over text, which can be viewed as a probabilistic representation of uncertainty: sampling...
arXiv:2607. 22554v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong accuracy on benchmarks, yet it remains unclear how reliably they apply this knowledge when the same question is phrased in different but equivalent ways.
The paper introduces Evidence Sufficiency Boundary Training, a framework that teaches models to abstain from answering until the supplied evidence is fully sufficient, and to remain stable when additional redundant evidence is added. By constructing ordered evidence chains from datasets such as HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue, the method applies level supervision, a boundary flip margin, post‑boundary stability, and answer recall protection. Experiments with Qwen2.5‑3B‑Instruct and LoRA adaptation show improved boundary localization (flip accuracy 0.807 vs 0.781) and a lower unsupported‑answer rate (0.095 vs 0.101) while maintaining competitive raw QA F1.
ConfRAG introduces a confidence-guided approach to reduce hallucinations in large language models and selectively trigger Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) only when the model is uncertain. The ConfQA fine‑tuning strategy trains the model to answer correctly or respond with "I am unsure," achieving a drop in hallucination rates from 20‑40% to below 5% across factuality benchmarks. Building on ConfQA, ConfRAG limits external retrievals by more than 30% while maintaining over 95% accuracy in ideal scenarios.