arXiv:2610.15634v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sycophancy in large language models risks amplifying unsupported claims or beliefs across the knowledge ecosystem as these systems increasingly contrib...
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.
arXiv:2607. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference.
arXiv:2608. 08514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models).
The paper introduces SEAV, a verification‑centric framework for evaluating jailbreak attempts against large language models. SEAV decomposes responses into ordered steps and checks both validity and correctness using LLM‑as‑a‑judge and retrieval‑grounded verification. The method reduces false positives by 14.9 percentage points on a strategic‑dishonesty diagnostic and reclassifies 22.1–51.0% of previously successful jailbreaks as invalid across multiple benchmarks.
PROOF is a benchmark that profiles the reliability of object-level facts in instruction-tuned language models by converting a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts across 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question includes an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations, with 1,849 questions designed as no-correct-option traps. The study evaluates 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts, revealing wide variability in factual accuracy, sensitivity to wording changes, and the impact of decoder perturbations.
arXiv:2607. 09999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We show that post-training quantization can silently alter how large language models reason even when task accuracy is preserved.
arXiv:2610.28187v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Testing LLM-based software is expensive: each input needs several sampled responses, each judged by a costly oracle. Further, every prompt or model c...
The paper proposes a competence‑based evaluation (CBE) framework for assessing logical reasoning in large language models. CBE tests whether models consistently apply the same reasoning competence across a family of problems, using a parameterized generator to vary complexity while preserving the underlying rule. Experiments on GPT and Qwen models show that even strong models often fail to meet the competence condition across the tested family, indicating limitations in generalization.
arXiv:2606. 26101v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliable evaluation of large language models should separate supported answering from unsupported guessing without conflating either with data contamination, prompt idiosyncrasy, or generic refusal behavior.
The paper audits the reliability of large language models used as judges in NLP evaluation. It stresses that verdicts can vary across identical replications, change with presentation order, and that even the most deterministic model only agrees with ground truth 51% of the time. The authors introduce the trustworthy verdict rate (T) to quantify reproducibility, order‑invariance, and accuracy, and show that holistic rubric scoring improves trustworthiness more than any single prompting strategy.
arXiv:2606. 00437v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) are widely used in language-model training with dense step-level supervision.