arXiv AI
Correct Choices, Failed Sequences: Choice2Seq Benchmarks Correctness Retention Across Output Interfaces
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24
Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models
The paper shows that chain‑of‑thought (CoT) instructions can distort multiple‑choice vision‑language model evaluation when a scorer appends a reasoning cue but reads answer‑label logits before the model generates any rationale. This CoT‑prefix scoring causes significant drops in accuracy (e.g., Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B falls from 80.76% to 45.48% on ScienceQA) and leads most predictions to choose the first option. Analysis reveals that while answer information remains linearly accessible in late layers, the immediate readout is misled by probability mass shifting toward continuation tokens, and the issue varies across datasets and models.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 26
When are likely answers right? On Sequence Probability and Correctness in LLMs
arXiv:2606. 27359v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many decoding methods for large language models can be understood as shifting probability mass toward outputs that are more likely under the model, either locally at the token level or globally at the sequence level.
arXiv AI
Sep 25
Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models
The paper shows that chain‑of‑thought (CoT) instructions can distort evaluation of vision‑language models (VLMs) when a scorer reads answer‑label logits before the model generates a rationale. On ScienceQA, Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B’s accuracy falls from 80.76% to 45.48% under this CoT‑prefix scoring, and most predictions incorrectly pick the first option. Linear probes and free generation recover most of the lost accuracy, indicating that the answer information remains in the hidden states but is missed by the early readout. The authors explain the mismatch with vocabulary and layer diagnostics, noting that probability mass shifts toward continuation tokens while answer information stays linearly accessible in later layers. The effect varies across datasets and models, but the study demonstrates that CoT‑prefix scoring can misrepresent model knowledge unless the requested and scored outputs are aligned.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 19
When Retrieval Partially Conflicts with Skills: Understanding Procedural Hallucination in Language Models
Language models increasingly use skills that provide reusable instructions and procedures for task execution. After a relevant skill has been selected, the model may need to apply its governing proced...
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 23
Mixing Matters: Evidence Position Bias Across Sequence Mixers in Long-Context Question Answering
The study investigates how the position of evidence documents relative to a prompt affects long‑context question answering across different sequence mixers—Transformer, state‑space, and hybrid Mamba models. Results show that Transformers exhibit a beginning‑position advantage that state‑space models lack, while both families tend to favor evidence near the end. Additional experiments reveal that prompt design, corpus choice, and model capability influence performance, and that position bias remains decodable across architectures even when response curves differ.
arXiv AI
Jun 30
A Systems-Level Analysis of Sensitivity, Robustness, and Stability in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
arXiv:2606. 28337v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are often evaluated using final answer accuracy, even though their failures can originate from preprocessing, retrieval, context packing, or generation.