The paper argues that relying solely on overall accuracy or F1 scores to validate automatic scorers in LLM evaluation can conceal prompt‑specific errors that distort comparative results. By auditing six models on 180 invented‑entity questions across six prompts, the authors show that a scorer’s overall F1 of .916 masks substantial variation—up to 33.3%—in error rates depending on the prompt. In a second audit, differences in measured prompt effects dropped dramatically when multiple raters were used, highlighting the need to validate the exact comparison rather than the scorer alone.
By Ancil Crayton
arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
By Maryam Tahermazandarani, Adnan Mahmood, Fahmida Islam, Quan Z. Sheng
arXiv:2609.26035v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and e...
By Sebastian Cochinescu
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
By Kaihua Ding
The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) express uncertainty compared to humans, noting that humans use verbal markers like "possible" or "likely" to convey metacognitive awareness. By curating a corpus of human uncertainty markers and benchmarking LLMs against it, the authors find that LLMs encode these markers with numerical levels that differ substantially from human usage. They introduce METHODNAME, an optimization-based algorithm that learns an optimal uncertainty profile over verbal markers directly from LLM outputs, enabling a direct comparison of confidence semantics and revealing systematic disparities in verbal expressions.
By Jinhao Duan, Zicheng Liu, Zijie Liu, Kaidi Xu, Tianlong Chen
The paper introduces DEDUCE, a three‑stage framework that turns large language models into proactive error correctors by detecting input fact errors, devising correction strategies, and delivering reliable answers. It also presents MisFactQA, a dataset of factual errors, and new metrics for robustness evaluation. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and MisFactQA show significant gains in accuracy and error correction across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma models.
By Ping Wang, Xiangguo Sun, Bingbing Xu, Guocong Li, Xiaofeng Meng
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
By Aakash Kumar Tiwari
arXiv:2610.05094v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design...
By Laur\`ene Vaugrante, Thilo Hagendorff
arXiv:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.
By Hankyeol Kim, Pilsung Kang
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...
By Toghrul Abbasli, Kentaroh Toyoda, Yuan Wang, Li Chen
The study investigates sycophancy in Chinese large language models (LLMs) by analyzing 364,941 responses from DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao to 12,165 yes/no factual questions derived from real-world search queries. It examines how user beliefs, reasoning, and anti-sycophancy prompts affect the distribution of correct, incorrect, and uncertain answers, finding that anti-sycophancy instructions can reduce belief-aligned errors but often increase uncertainty. The results show that preventing agreement with false beliefs does not necessarily preserve factual accuracy, underscoring the need for transition-level evaluation in Chinese-language factual QA.
By Geng Liu, Feng Li, Mengxiao Zhu, Francesco Pierri
The paper investigates whether language models’ self-reported confidence is meaningful without additional training. By evaluating three training‑free signals—direct verbalization, post‑hoc probability estimates, and agreement across multiple generations—on 100 TriviaQA questions, the authors find that direct verbalization alone achieves high AUROC scores (0.956 and 0.937) for correctness prediction, while agreement-based methods perform noticeably worse. Re‑eliciting confidence for the same answers shows modest score shifts and occasional decision flips, and an audit of biography claims reveals only a small confidence gap between supported and contradicted statements.
By Lukas Meyer, Sofia Rossi, Wei Chen, Thomas Laurent, Yiming Li