← Back to all news
arXiv Computation and Language By Brianne Lee

Which Answer Did the Seventeen-Year-Old Write? A Behavioral Case Study of Author-Age Misattribution, Miscalibrated Confidence, and Non-Corrective Self-Explanation in Six Frontier Language Models

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper reports a structured case study in which six frontier language models were asked to match handwritten exam answers to the ages of the writers. Three of the models performed at chance on the matching task while still reporting high confidence, and the youngest writer’s answer was misattributed to an adult in up to 90% of trials. Removing the multiple‑choice scaffold and changing institutional framing further degraded accuracy, while a single audience‑awareness instruction improved performance for one model but had no effect on the weakest models.

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 Computation and Language.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Sep 7

When Do Internal Probes Beat Reading the Answer? Miscalibrated Readouts and Behavior-Concealed Knowledge in Language Models

A 0.6B language model consistently answers YES to 1,200 logical tests, yet its behavior shows no discrimination. Linear probes reveal the correct verdict with high AUC (0.96) and transfer to unseen structures, but a single scalar readout fails due to a saturated decision threshold offset by +4.6 σ. Adjusting this threshold restores behavior accuracy from 50 % to 81 % and improves higher‑scale models, demonstrating that miscalibrated readouts, not hidden knowledge loss, drive performance gaps.

By Gnaneswar Villuri, Hashmath Shaik, Alex Doboli
llms
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 18

How Far Can Sub-3B Open Language Models Go in Zero-Shot Essay Scoring on an 8 GB Consumer GPU?

The study evaluates zero‑shot essay scoring using sub‑3B open language models that run locally on a single 8 GB consumer GPU. Four instruction‑tuned models (Qwen2.5‑0.5B, 1.5B, 3B and SmolLM2‑1.7B) were tested on all eight ASAP‑AES prompts, comparing rubric‑decomposed versus holistic prompting, different aggregation methods, and trait‑mapping strategies. Results show rubric‑decomposed prompting consistently outperforms holistic prompting, trait‑mapping is sensitive to calibration, and longer essays reduce error, yet the best local configuration (macro QWK 0.388) still falls short of human agreement and a length‑only baseline, suggesting these models are best suited for formative, human‑supervised feedback.

By Nguyen Dung Son, Dang Quang Minh, Nguyen Huu Loi, Truong Viet Vu, Nguyen Thai Anh
llmssafety
More like this →