arXiv:2609.15849v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Can LLMs reason through new information like humans, or do they merely retrieve cached opinions? This is critical for silicon sampling, where LLM per...
By Ahmed Wali, Hassaan Tayyab
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
By Chen Qian
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.
By Saad Aamir, Muhammad Awais Bin Adil
arXiv:2608. 11415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists.
By Valentin Rodionov, Shamil Assylbekov
The paper challenges the assumption that large language models (LLMs) produce deterministic safety responses by examining how random seeds and temperature settings affect refusal decisions. Across four instruction‑tuned models and 876 harmful prompts, 18‑28% of prompts flipped between refusal and compliance depending on sampling configuration, with higher temperatures reducing decision stability. The authors introduce a Safety Stability Index (SSI) and recommend multi‑sample evaluation protocols that account for stochastic variation rather than relying on single‑shot tests.
By Erik Larsen
arXiv:2606. 05403v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models increasingly act as epistemic proxies, synthesizing evidence from multiple sources to inform decisions.
By Rohan N. Pradhan, Steve Goley