arXiv:2607. 23976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Appending a two-word confirmation tag to a decision question -- "Is X the better choice?
Appending a two-word confirmation tag to a decision question -- "Is X the better choice? " versus "X is the better choice, right?
The study examines how two small instruction‑tuned language models, Qwen2.5‑1.5B and Llama‑3.2‑1B, respond to user pushback on TriviaQA. When initially correct, the models flip to a wrong answer in about 42–43% of cases, with the effectiveness of different pushback styles varying by model. Attempts to decode capitulation from the pre‑response residual stream fail under a rigorous validation protocol, revealing overfitting and a measurement hazard that underestimates capitulation by 18–24 percentage points.
The study investigates whether a language model’s stated reason for rejecting a candidate actually influences its decision. By inserting the named fact that the model cites into the rival’s profile and re‑asking the model, the authors find that the presence of that fact can shift the model’s choice more than an irrelevant control, with significant odds ratios in several runs. The results suggest that the model’s self‑reported justification can have a measurable effect on its behavior, though the effect is modest and varies across models and conditions.
arXiv:2607. 10202v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values.
arXiv:2607. 12796v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a language model must pick one answer from a large space of equally valid options, which does it pick -- and how often is it the same answer every other model picks?
The paper introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, to quantify how often wrong runs of large language models (LLMs) agree with the majority consensus. By decomposing Gamma into a mechanical component and a preference‑unexplained residual, the authors show that on GPT‑4.1 the mechanical part explains most of the agreement on multiple‑choice benchmarks but only about half on open‑domain tasks, revealing a residual bias that can cause self‑consistency to backfire on hard questions. The study provides a quantitative framework for understanding when majority voting over LLM samples improves or harms accuracy, without proposing new voting methods.
The paper demonstrates that a prompt’s influence is not inherent to the prompt itself but depends on the model, as prompts optimized for one model degrade on another and rankings shift under neutral reformatting. By examining a task‑free structural readout—specifically the fixed‑point behavior of a short‑window argmax map—the authors show that nine tokens of conditioning can move the fixed‑point fraction across most of its range, altering structural classes and model rankings, while instruction tuning has no effect. Attempts to explain this phenomenon through prefix length, content type, bidirectionality, or attention‑sink dominance all fail, indicating that the prompt‑model pair is the fundamental unit of explanation. whyItMatters":"The study reveals that prompt effectiveness is model‑specific and that simple structural readouts can capture this interaction, challenging assumptions about prompt generality and guiding future prompt‑engineering efforts."
arXiv:2609.07901v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Weight quantization largely determines the economics of serving open-weight LLMs. Its costs are usually assessed with capability benchmarks, on which 4...
arXiv:2609. 31181v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black-box model identification works by scoring a model's response to natural-language prompts.
When a language model must pick one answer from a large space of equally valid options, which does it pick -- and how often is it the same answer every other model picks? Asked to "pick a word -- any word," 44 models chose "serendipity" 41% of the time.
Typed decision models are built for settings where model outputs are consumed directly by software. Instead of generating free-form text, they return a decision over a predefined set of options. By co...
arXiv:2607. 16451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chat models sometimes commit to an answer and then produce reasoning that justifies it rather than deriving it -- even when the answer contradicts a task premise.