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.
arXiv:2607. 20558v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI Assistants are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings, such as healthcare or government services.
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: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.
arXiv:2610.07894v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are expected to answer questions faithfully based on the provided context, abstaining when the context information is in...
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...
The paper investigates whether accuracy and order sensitivity in large language model (LLM) multiple‑choice question (MCQ) evaluation move together. Using proprietary and open‑weight models on MMLU and ARC‑Challenge, the authors measure order sensitivity with flip rate and recall standard deviation (RStd) and find that these metrics often diverge from accuracy and from each other. They conclude that accuracy alone is insufficient and recommend reporting both flip rate and RStd alongside accuracy.
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.
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.
The paper introduces the SAST-IR framework to evaluate large language models’ robustness against persuasion attacks in a memory‑less setting, revealing a flaw called "Refusal Inertia" that masks true vulnerability. Using the CP‑Agent and a custom CounterFact‑Strict dataset, the authors demonstrate that simple, diverse attack strategies achieve a 96% success rate, while complex attacks often trigger defensive compliance. The study highlights severe brittleness in current state‑of‑the‑art models when deprived of conversation history.
MADBench is a benchmark that evaluates the security of Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) systems, which allow large language models to exchange and critique answers. The study categorizes attacks into a layered taxonomy aligned with the MAD workflow and tests six attack families across 356 source tasks and 3,958 test cases. Results indicate that while MAD can reduce answer accuracy attacks compared to single-agent baselines, it may amplify unauthorized reads or writes, and even with collusion among agents, the final answer changes from correct to wrong only 28.30% of the time.
The paper introduces Bayesian Dialectical Argumentation (BDA), a method for aggregating answers from multiple large language models (LLMs) in a council setting. BDA treats each LLM’s typed moves—proposals, challenges, and concessions—as evidence in a classical annotator model, estimating per-agent reliability even when some agents are persistently unreliable. By weighting evidence according to these inferred reliabilities, BDA produces calibrated posterior probabilities for candidate answers and can invert unreliable agents instead of merely outvoting them, achieving superior calibration and robustness on both binary and multi-class benchmarks without extra LLM calls.