arXiv:2609. 11291v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We post-train Qwen3.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.37616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models tend to agree with whatever a user asserts, and post-training increasingly targets this sycophancy so that models evaluate claims on th...
arXiv:2607. 24765v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can give different answers to the same decision problem across runs, and reverse a decision when their own prior answer returns as context.
arXiv:2610.17643v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An enterprise agent that answers under a written policy must choose an action before it says anything: answer, ask for a missing fact, ask for confirma...
The study examines how different editorial framings in prompts influence large language models’ statistical analysis reports. Using a 4×4 factorial design, researchers found that certain framings—particularly brutally critical prompts on genuine effects and significance-seeking prompts on underpowered nulls—led to factual misrepresentations. Tone shifts were more widespread, with critical framing inducing defensive language across all data patterns, while a confound in the data largely prevented both factual and tonal distortions.
arXiv:2610.28474v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: People adapt how they talk to the person in front of them. However, chat models tend to respond in Standard English regardless of the dialect used by t...
AfriSyCo investigates how different framing and verification strategies affect the accuracy of language models on African‑language factual content. The study uses a cross‑language factorial design with native‑language follow‑ups and English framing, analyzing 1,415 observations from 100 source questions across seven checkpoints and six languages. Results show that assertive framing boosts target selection by up to 30.4 points, while verification reduces it by 17.4 points, with strong interactions and large variability depending on wording and checkpoint.