arXiv:2609.07309v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Robustness evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge, particularly in assessing their sensitivity to perturbations in i...
By Vamsi Krishna Kodavali, Rituraj Singh
arXiv:2604.08974v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Uncertainty quantification techniques measure confidence in language model outputs to support critical applications like hallucination detection an...
By Lorenzo Jaime Yu Flores, Cesare Spinoso di-Piano, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
The paper investigates how large language models balance instruction-following with pattern completion when the two objectives conflict. By creating dialogues where a user instruction to act in a target way T is opposed by assistant turns that demonstrate a competing pattern P, the authors measure instruction-following rates across 13 models and 16 instructions over up to 50 turns. Results show wide variability (1%–99%) in instruction adherence, with robustness influenced by instruction content, output format, and chain-of-thought reasoning, but overall instruction-following remains brittle under induction pressure.
By Carolina Camassa, Derek Shiller
arXiv:2608.28382v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Users often ask large language models (LLMs) to report how confident they are, but it is unclear whether such linguistic confidence tracks the model's...
By Hefan Zhang, Bingquan Zhang, Ming Cheng, Saeed Hassanpour, Weicheng Ma, Soroush Vosoughi
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
The paper introduces a framework for assessing how well language models (LMs) calibrate their confidence when answering relational knowledge questions. It evaluates three types of confidence—intrinsic, paraphrase consistency, and linguistic—across 21 causal and 8 masked LMs, finding that most models, especially masked ones, are overconfident. The study shows that confidence estimates that account for rephrasing inconsistencies and increasing answer options lead to better calibration.
By Christopher Kissling, Elena Merdjanovska, Alan Akbik