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.
By Kazem Faghih, Yize Cheng, Shoumik Saha, Mobina Pournemat, Armin Gerami, Soheil Feizi
arXiv:2607. 20558v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI Assistants are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings, such as healthcare or government services.
By Emma Kondrup, Zachary Yang, Anne Imouza, Reihaneh Rabbany
arXiv:2602. 14307v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly saturate new benchmarks shortly after they are published, benchmarking itself is at a juncture: if frontier models keep improving, it will become increasingly hard for humans to generate discriminative tasks, provide accurate ground-truth answers, or evaluate complex solutions.
By Samuele Marro, Jialin Yu, Emanuele La Malfa, Oishi Deb, Jiawei Li, Yibo Yang, Ebey Abraham, Sunando Sengupta, Eric Sommerlade, Michael Wooldridge, Philip Torr
arXiv:2608.29257v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a standard format for evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet the popularity of answer options can confound e...
By Abdelrahman Abdallah, Mohammed Ali, Bhawna Piryani, Mahmoud Abdalla, Adam Jatowt
arXiv:2606. 12935v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead.
By Wenbo Chen, Puheng Li, Mengyang Liu, Weijie Su, Tianpei Xie
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.
By Inder Preet, Shuxin Lin, Dhaval Patel
arXiv:2607. 05545v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response.
By Yibo Hu, Jiaming Qu
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.
By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead. We observe that probing partial traces at intermediate checkpoints can extract current answers without disrupting generation, revealing an evolving aggregate vote.
arXiv:2602.22787v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language model (LLM) hallucinations, meaning fluent but factually incorrect generations, fall into two types: faithfulness violations, where...
By Ivo Brink, Alexander Boer, Dennis Ulmer
arXiv:2608. 05643v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM reasoning by using additional inference compute, but wider sampling alone can suffer from diminishing returns: new rollouts often repeat existing answer patterns instead of adding useful reasoning diversity.
By Ahsan Bilal, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Muhammad Umer, Lena Trigg, Ali Subhan, Muhammad Ali, Dean F. Hougen
arXiv:2607. 14099v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deploying Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in real-world settings requires not only strong visual reasoning but also stability under sustained conversational pressure.
By Shayda Moezzi, Bishoy Galoaa, Lorena Genua, Taskin Padir, Sarah Ostadabbas