The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) rely on textual evidence or on their pre‑existing knowledge when annotating text. Using counterfactual prompts for 995 public figures, the authors find that LLMs often default to memory shortcuts—providing correct facts about a figure even when the text contains no supporting evidence. These shortcuts are amplified by evaluation design and incentives, but can be mitigated by name reminders or masking, though with trade‑offs in gender annotation.
arXiv:2610.28092v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Persuasive writing exploits cognitive biases, recruiting a reader's mental shortcuts to shape belief, often without the reader noticing. We call the...
The paper investigates which demographic attributes large language models (LLMs) default to when annotating text without explicit demographic cues. By comparing non‑demographic, placebo‑conditioned, and demographic‑conditioned prompts on politeness and offensiveness tasks in the POPQUORN dataset, the authors find that LLMs exhibit notable gender, race, and age influences in their annotations. This contrasts with earlier studies that reported no such effects, highlighting the importance of considering demographic bias in LLM‑based annotation workflows.
The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are more prone to errors when they doubt the plausibility of input data, a phenomenon termed context‑memory conflict. Using non‑English and low‑resource language datasets, the authors generate text from factual, counterfactual, and fictional RDF triples in English, Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian, and evaluate faithfulness with both human annotations and an LLM judge (Kimi K3). Contrary to expectations, the results show only a weak context‑memory conflict: counterfactual inputs receive slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones, and the choice of LLM judge can significantly affect perceived conflict strength.
arXiv:2603. 13891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated text annotation in tasks ranging from academic research to content moderation and hiring.
arXiv:2606. 02255v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled.
arXiv:2606. 00467v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot annotation and LLM-as-a-judge tasks, yet their reliability hinges on how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions.
The paper introduces a method for identifying the dominant knowledge source behind large language model (LLM) outputs, distinguishing between faithfulness violations (misuse of provided context) and factuality violations (errors in internal knowledge). A simple linear probe trained on hidden representations can reliably classify this source, and the authors present AttriWiki, a self‑supervised pipeline that generates labeled training data by prompting models to recall withheld entities or read them from context. Probes trained on AttriWiki achieve high Macro‑F1 scores across several models and datasets, generalize zero‑shot to a benchmark, and show that attribution mismatches can increase error rates by up to 70%. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that knowing the source of an LLM’s answer is crucial for effective mitigation of hallucinations, as attribution mismatches significantly raise error rates."
arXiv:2608.22887v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering decisions in triage and lending, where task-relevant inference must be distinguished from impermissible proxy...
The paper introduces a diagnostic tool for distinguishing the use of misogynistic slurs from their mention in counter‑speech within code‑mixed Hinglish. It identifies evaluation artifacts in existing corpora, releases a 416‑item minimal‑pair contrast set that decorrelates slur presence and gendered register from labels, and proposes a pair‑consistency metric to assess model performance. Experiments show that even strong baselines struggle to consistently label counter‑speech pairs, while a large language model achieves perfect scores, indicating the benchmark measures genuine capability rather than exploitation of artifacts.
arXiv:2607. 19355v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) from OpenAI and Anthropic exhibit probability bias when deciding whether to trust information from reporters of different racial descriptions. Using a two‑urn Bayesian game and 6,600 sessions, the authors find that models often refuse to assess a reporter’s credibility—especially for Black‑described reporters—yet when they do assess, Black reporters receive slightly higher trust. The bias is subtle, growing with reasoning effort, and is not detected by standard audits that compare average trust or only assessed cases.
The paper introduces the Controlled Attribution Benchmark (CATT), a synthetic evaluation framework that fine‑tunes language models on entirely fictitious knowledge to provide clear ground truth for data attribution. By systematically varying single dataset properties—such as document redundancy and lexical distractors—CATT reveals that these factors consistently degrade attribution performance. The study also explores two underexamined design choices: using negative log‑odds gradients instead of cross‑entropy gradients, and aggregating only the top token attribution scores, which together improve ground‑truth recall by 35–72 percentage points and enhance counterfactual retraining performance on FTRACE‑TREX by up to 4.9×.