Daily Papers

Fine-tuning a large language model (LLM) on harmful data in a narrow domain, such as bad medical advice, can make it broadly misaligned. How realistic this risk is remains unclear, since models are very rarely fine-tuned on explicitly harmful data in practice. In this work, we show that fine-tuning on data the model believes to be false but that has no harmful content, can also induce broad misalignment. Across mathematics, trivia, cooking and sports, the more strongly the model disbelieves the answers it is trained on, the more misaligned it becomes. In mathematics, misaligned answers rise from 4% to over 60% as the training answers become more wrong, with little loss of general capability. After fine-tuning, the model states the wrong answers but its multiple-choice probabilities still prefer the true ones, which suggests that misalignment comes from this internal inconsistency. We then study a more realistic setting, where a single fact is updated, as in knowledge editing or continual learning. The same relationship holds and the more the model still believes the true fact after training on the false one, the more misaligned it becomes. When we frame the same false fact as part of a coherent story, the model comes to believe it more deeply and becomes less misaligned than when we instruct it to assert the false fact. Content filters and persona vectors cannot tell these two framings apart, even though they lead to different levels of misalignment. These results suggest a risk for model updates, where training a model that does not adopt the new fact as true can induce misalignment even when the data looks harmless.

State-of-the-art summarization systems can generate highly fluent summaries. These summaries, however, may contain factual inconsistencies and/or information not present in the source. Hence, an important component of assessing the quality of summaries is to determine whether there is information consistency between the source and the summary. Existing approaches are typically based on lexical matching or representation-based methods. In this work, we introduce an alternative scheme based on standard information-theoretic measures in which the information present in the source and summary is directly compared. We propose a Multiple-choice Question Answering and Generation framework, MQAG, which approximates the information consistency by computing the expected KL-divergence between summary and source answer distributions over automatically generated multiple-choice questions. This approach exploits multiple-choice answer probabilities, as predicted answer distributions can be easily compared. We conduct experiments on four summary evaluation datasets: QAG-CNNDM/XSum, XSum-Faithfulness, Podcast Assessment, and SummEval. Experiments show that MQAG (using models trained on RACE) outperforms existing evaluation methods on the majority of tasks.

One of the most widely used methods to evaluate LLMs are Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) tests. MCQ benchmarks enable the testing of LLM knowledge on almost any topic at scale as the results can be processed automatically. To help the LLM answer, a few examples called few shots can be included in the prompt. Moreover, the LLM can be asked to answer the question directly with the selected option or to first provide the reasoning and then the selected answer, which is known as chain of thought. In addition to checking whether the selected answer is correct, the evaluation can look at the LLM-estimated probability of its response as an indication of the confidence of the LLM in the response. In this paper, we study how the LLM confidence in its answer depends on whether the model has been asked to answer directly or to provide the reasoning before answering. The results of the evaluation of questions on a wide range of topics in seven different models show that LLMs are more confident in their answers when they provide reasoning before the answer. This occurs regardless of whether the selected answer is correct. Our hypothesis is that this behavior is due to the reasoning that modifies the probability of the selected answer, as the LLM predicts the answer based on the input question and the reasoning that supports the selection made. Therefore, LLM estimated probabilities seem to have intrinsic limitations that should be understood in order to use them in evaluation procedures. Interestingly, the same behavior has been observed in humans, for whom explaining an answer increases confidence in its correctness.

Multiple choice questions (MCQs) are commonly used to evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). One common way to evaluate the model response is to rank the candidate answers based on the log probability of the first token prediction. An alternative way is to examine the text output. Prior work has shown that first token probabilities lack robustness to changes in MCQ phrasing, and that first token probabilities do not match text answers for instruction-tuned models. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate the robustness of text answers. We show that the text answers are more robust to question perturbations than the first token probabilities, when the first token answers mismatch the text answers. The difference in robustness increases as the mismatch rate becomes greater. As the mismatch reaches over 50\%, the text answer is more robust to option order changes than the debiased first token probabilities using state-of-the-art debiasing methods such as PriDe. Our findings provide further evidence for the benefits of text answer evaluation over first token probability evaluation.

When evaluating large language models (LLMs) with multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), it is common to end the prompt with the string "Answer:" to facilitate automated answer extraction via next-token probabilities. However, there is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice. In this paper, we uncover accuracy differences of up to 11% due to this (seemingly irrelevant) tokenization variation as well as reshuffled model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM comparisons in prior work. Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter -- as we observe consistent and statistically significant performance improvements. Additionally, it improves model calibration, enhancing the reliability of the model's confidence estimates. Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols to ensure reliable and comparable results.

The open-ended nature of language generation makes the evaluation of autoregressive large language models (LLMs) challenging. One common evaluation approach uses multiple-choice questions (MCQ) to limit the response space. The model is then evaluated by ranking the candidate answers by the log probability of the first token prediction. However, first-tokens may not consistently reflect the final response output, due to model's diverse response styles such as starting with "Sure" or refusing to answer. Consequently, MCQ evaluation is not indicative of model behaviour when interacting with users. But by how much? We evaluate how aligned first-token evaluation is with the text output along several dimensions, namely final option choice, refusal rate, choice distribution and robustness under prompt perturbation. Our results show that the two approaches are severely misaligned on all dimensions, reaching mismatch rates over 60%. Models heavily fine-tuned on conversational or safety data are especially impacted. Crucially, models remain misaligned even when we increasingly constrain prompts, i.e., force them to start with an option letter or example template. Our findings i) underscore the importance of inspecting the text output as well and ii) caution against relying solely on first-token evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various applications, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of natural language processing (NLP) research. However, recent evaluation frameworks often rely on the output probabilities of LLMs for predictions, primarily due to computational constraints, diverging from real-world LLM usage scenarios. While widely employed, the efficacy of these probability-based evaluation strategies remains an open research question. This study aims to scrutinize the validity of such probability-based evaluation methods within the context of using LLMs for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), highlighting their inherent limitations. Our empirical investigation reveals that the prevalent probability-based evaluation method inadequately aligns with generation-based prediction. Furthermore, current evaluation frameworks typically assess LLMs through predictive tasks based on output probabilities rather than directly generating responses, owing to computational limitations. We illustrate that these probability-based approaches do not effectively correspond with generative predictions. The outcomes of our study can enhance the understanding of LLM evaluation methodologies and provide insights for future research in this domain.

Typed-decision models such as TypeSafe's Jev answer a declared yes/no or multiple-choice question about a state with a probability instead of text, and their evaluations report accuracy and calibration. Neither requires that the probabilities a model gives to logically related questions fit together item by item, which is what a system that acts on those probabilities needs. We test this property, coherence, with a battery of logically linked questions that needs no labels. For 160 items from ChaosNLI and PubMedQA, each with three mutually exclusive labels, we ask whether the label is X, whether it is not X, whether it is one of the other two labels, and which label applies. On 480 negation pairs, Jev's probabilities for "the label is X" and "the label is not X" miss summing to one by 0.064 on average (95% CI 0.055 to 0.072). Qwen3.8-27B, run from its official BF16 weights, misses by 0.293 with first-token probabilities and by 0.122 with verbalized probabilities. The gap to the first-token readout persists on pairs where both systems give similar probabilities, without double-negation labels, and after averaging Jev's repeated calls. Jev is not coherent either: its violations are about five times its repeat noise, and it over-endorses statements about single labels, so that its three single-label probabilities sum to 1.14 on average. The two systems also fail differently. Qwen3.8-27B's first-token readout under-endorses the complement of a label whether or not the question contains "not", rejecting both a statement and its negation in 196 of 480 pairs, and it does not become more coherent where it is more confident, whereas Jev's violations concentrate where its answer is uncertain. Because the checks need no labels, they expose biases that appear only when question forms are compared, and inconsistencies within items.

The handling of probabilities in the form of uncertainty or partial information is an essential task for LLMs in many settings and applications. A common approach to evaluate an LLM's probabilistic reasoning capabilities is to assess its ability to answer questions pertaining to probability through the use of multiple-choice questions (MCQs). However, this paradigm, which we refer to as explicit probabilistic reasoning, has been shown in the literature to yield significant limitations (e.g., sensitivity to answer ordering). In this work, we introduce an alternative approach, named implicit probabilistic reasoning, which evaluates the models' ability to integrate probabilistic reasoning into their text generation process. To achieve this, we rephrase MCQs as text-completion scenarios with a determined set of outcomes and compare the model's next-token probability assignments to the true likelihood of the outcomes. In line with previous work, we find that models exhibit solid performance in their explicit probabilistic reasoning (i.e., answers to MCQs). However, during text completion (i.e., implicit probabilistic reasoning), where the same information must be taken into account to generate text, the models' predictions often significantly diverge from the known ground truth. For instance, our evaluation method reveals that implicit probabilistic reasoning is improperly influenced by many factors, such as independent prior events, partial observations about a result, or statistical background information. All of these issues can cause erroneous results to be produced in text generation, which are not detected by conventional MCQ-based evaluation.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning has largely focused on elementary problems, competition-style questions, or formal theorem proving, leaving graduate-level and computational mathematics relatively underexplored. We introduce CompMath-MCQ, a new benchmark dataset for assessing LLMs on advanced mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice setting. The dataset consists of 1{,}500 originally authored questions by professors of graduate-level courses, covering topics including Linear Algebra, Numerical Optimization, Vector Calculus, Probability, and Python-based scientific computing. Three option choices are provided for each question, with exactly one of them being correct. To ensure the absence of data leakage, all questions are newly created and not sourced from existing materials. The validity of questions is verified through a procedure based on cross-LLM disagreement, followed by manual expert review. By adopting a multiple-choice format, our dataset enables objective, reproducible, and bias-free evaluation through lm_eval library. Baseline results with state-of-the-art LLMs indicate that advanced computational mathematical reasoning remains a significant challenge. We release CompMath-MCQ at the following link: https://github.com/biancaraimondi/CompMath-MCQ.git

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is often used to evaluate large language models (LLMs). To see if MCQA assesses LLMs as intended, we probe if LLMs can perform MCQA with choices-only prompts, where models must select the correct answer only from the choices. In three MCQA datasets and four LLMs, this prompt bests a majority baseline in 11/12 cases, with up to 0.33 accuracy gain. To help explain this behavior, we conduct an in-depth, black-box analysis on memorization, choice dynamics, and question inference. Our key findings are threefold. First, we find no evidence that the choices-only accuracy stems from memorization alone. Second, priors over individual choices do not fully explain choices-only accuracy, hinting that LLMs use the group dynamics of choices. Third, LLMs have some ability to infer a relevant question from choices, and surprisingly can sometimes even match the original question. We hope to motivate the use of stronger baselines in MCQA benchmarks, the design of robust MCQA datasets, and further efforts to explain LLM decision-making.

Given a question, a language model (LM) implicitly encodes a distribution over possible answers. In practice, post-training procedures for LMs often collapse this distribution onto a single dominant mode. While this is generally not a problem for benchmark-style evaluations that assume one correct answer, many real-world tasks inherently involve multiple valid answers or irreducible uncertainty. Examples include medical diagnosis, ambiguous question answering, and settings with incomplete information. In these cases, we would like LMs to generate multiple plausible hypotheses, ideally with confidence estimates for each one, and without computationally intensive repeated sampling to generate non-modal answers. This paper describes a multi-answer reinforcement learning approach for training LMs to perform distributional reasoning over multiple answers during inference. We modify the RL objective to enable models to explicitly generate multiple candidate answers in a single forward pass, internalizing aspects of inference-time search into the model's generative process. Across question-answering, medical diagnostic, and coding benchmarks, we observe improved diversity, coverage, and set-level calibration scores compared to single answer trained baselines. Models trained with our approach require fewer tokens to generate multiple answers than competing approaches. On coding tasks, they are also substantially more accurate. These results position multi-answer RL as a principled and compute-efficient alternative to inference-time scaling procedures such as best-of-k. Code and more information can be found at https://multi-answer-rl.github.io/.

State of the art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on a variety of benchmark tasks and are increasingly used as components in larger applications, where LLM-based predictions serve as proxies for human judgements or decision. This raises questions about the human-likeness of LLM-derived information, alignment with human intuition, and whether LLMs could possibly be considered (parts of) explanatory models of (aspects of) human cognition or language use. To shed more light on these issues, we here investigate the human-likeness of LLMs' predictions for multiple-choice decision tasks from the perspective of Bayesian statistical modeling. Using human data from a forced-choice experiment on pragmatic language use, we find that LLMs do not capture the variance in the human data at the item-level. We suggest different ways of deriving full distributional predictions from LLMs for aggregate, condition-level data, and find that some, but not all ways of obtaining condition-level predictions yield adequate fits to human data. These results suggests that assessment of LLM performance depends strongly on seemingly subtle choices in methodology, and that LLMs are at best predictors of human behavior at the aggregate, condition-level, for which they are, however, not designed to, or usually used to, make predictions in the first place.

Candidate-scoring decision models return a probability distribution over a presented set of answers. Public documentation of one such system, Jev, and of an open counterpart, JevAny, describes three training ingredients that determine what these probabilities estimate: soft targets from larger models, a frozen pretrained backbone and temperature calibration. We analyze each ingredient in Gaussian surrogates where the finite-sample risk can be computed exactly. A student trained on teacher targets inherits the teacher's bias, which more student data does not remove and agreement with the teacher does not reveal. A fixed representation lowers the risk only below an explicit sample-size threshold. In a probit model the exact recalibration map is a temperature scaling, which removes all excess risk only when the teacher's coefficient has the correct direction and otherwise leaves a residual that calibration diagnostics do not detect. Under Luce's choice axiom, candidate scores are coherent across refinements of an event if and only if they aggregate by log-sum-exp. On 231,521 credit card complaints from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the decision is whether a complaint ends in monetary relief, a student trained on a logistic teacher's probabilities ends at the teacher's decision cost while a student trained on outcomes goes 8% below it, a 30B model read zero-shot remains worse than the teacher after recalibration, and that model departs from the coherence condition by 17.5 decibans. Pretrained representations reduce the labeled data required and calibration corrects the scale of the probabilities, but neither corrects a biased teacher, so the probabilities have to be checked against realized outcomes.

Words of estimative probability (WEP) are expressions of a statement's plausibility (probably, maybe, likely, doubt, likely, unlikely, impossible...). Multiple surveys demonstrate the agreement of human evaluators when assigning numerical probability levels to WEP. For example, highly likely corresponds to a median chance of 0.90+-0.08 in Fagen-Ulmschneider (2015)'s survey. In this work, we measure the ability of neural language processing models to capture the consensual probability level associated to each WEP. Firstly, we use the UNLI dataset (Chen et al., 2020) which associates premises and hypotheses with their perceived joint probability p, to construct prompts, e.g. "[PREMISE]. [WEP], [HYPOTHESIS]." and assess whether language models can predict whether the WEP consensual probability level is close to p. Secondly, we construct a dataset of WEP-based probabilistic reasoning, to test whether language models can reason with WEP compositions. When prompted "[EVENTA] is likely. [EVENTB] is impossible.", a causal language model should not express that [EVENTA&B] is likely. We show that both tasks are unsolved by off-the-shelf English language models, but that fine-tuning leads to transferable improvement.

Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various educational tasks, yet their alignment with human learning patterns, particularly in predicting which incorrect options students are most likely to select in multiple-choice questions (MCQs), remains underexplored. Our work investigates the relationship between LLM generation likelihood and student response distributions in MCQs with a specific focus on distractor selections. We collect a comprehensive dataset of MCQs with real-world student response distributions to explore two fundamental research questions: (1). RQ1 - Do the distractors that students more frequently select correspond to those that LLMs assign higher generation likelihood to? (2). RQ2 - When an LLM selects a incorrect choice, does it choose the same distractor that most students pick? Our experiments reveals moderate correlations between LLM-assigned probabilities and student selection patterns for distractors in MCQs. Additionally, when LLMs make mistakes, they are more likley to select the same incorrect answers that commonly mislead students, which is a pattern consistent across both small and large language models. Our work provides empirical evidence that despite LLMs' strong performance on generating educational content, there remains a gap between LLM's underlying reasoning process and human cognitive processes in identifying confusing distractors. Our findings also have significant implications for educational assessment development. The smaller language models could be efficiently utilized for automated distractor generation as they demonstrate similar patterns in identifying confusing answer choices as larger language models. This observed alignment between LLMs and student misconception patterns opens new opportunities for generating high-quality distractors that complement traditional human-designed distractors.

This paper presents a case study on the design, administration, post-processing, and evaluation of surveys on large language models (LLMs). It comprises two components: (1) A statistical method for eliciting beliefs encoded in LLMs. We introduce statistical measures and evaluation metrics that quantify the probability of an LLM "making a choice", the associated uncertainty, and the consistency of that choice. (2) We apply this method to study what moral beliefs are encoded in different LLMs, especially in ambiguous cases where the right choice is not obvious. We design a large-scale survey comprising 680 high-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I tell a white lie?") and 687 low-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I stop for a pedestrian on the road?"). Each scenario includes a description, two possible actions, and auxiliary labels indicating violated rules (e.g., "do not kill"). We administer the survey to 28 open- and closed-source LLMs. We find that (a) in unambiguous scenarios, most models "choose" actions that align with commonsense. In ambiguous cases, most models express uncertainty. (b) Some models are uncertain about choosing the commonsense action because their responses are sensitive to the question-wording. (c) Some models reflect clear preferences in ambiguous scenarios. Specifically, closed-source models tend to agree with each other.

Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) are frequently used to assess large language models (LLMs). Typically, an LLM is given a question and selects the answer deemed most probable after adjustments for factors like length. Unfortunately, LLMs may inherently favor certain answer choice IDs, such as A/B/C/D, due to inherent biases of priori unbalanced probabilities, influencing the prediction of answers based on these IDs. Previous research has introduced methods to reduce this ''selection bias'' by simply permutating options on a few test samples and applying to new ones. Another problem of MCQ is the lottery ticket choice by ''random guessing''. The LLM does not learn particular knowledge, but the option is guessed correctly. This situation is especially serious for those small-scale LLMs. To address them, a more thorough approach involves shifting from MCQ to open-style questions, which can fundamentally eliminate selection bias and random guessing issues. However, transitioning causes its own set of challenges in (1) identifying suitable open-style questions and (2) validating the correctness of LLM open-style responses against human-annotated ground-truths. This work aims to tackle these significant difficulties, and establish a new LLM evaluation benchmark through entirely open-style questions. Consequently, we introduce the Open-LLM-Leaderboard to track various LLMs' performance and reflect true capability of them, such as GPT-4o/4/3.5, Claude 3, Gemini, etc. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/Open-LLM-Leaderboard.

Language models (LM) are capable of remarkably complex linguistic tasks; however, numerical reasoning is an area in which they frequently struggle. An important but rarely evaluated form of reasoning is understanding probability distributions. In this paper, we focus on evaluating the probabilistic reasoning capabilities of LMs using idealized and real-world statistical distributions. We perform a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LMs on three tasks: estimating percentiles, drawing samples, and calculating probabilities. We evaluate three ways to provide context to LMs 1) anchoring examples from within a distribution or family of distributions, 2) real-world context, 3) summary statistics on which to base a Normal approximation. Models can make inferences about distributions, and can be further aided by the incorporation of real-world context, example shots and simplified assumptions, even if these assumptions are incorrect or misspecified. To conduct this work, we developed a comprehensive benchmark distribution dataset with associated question-answer pairs that we will release publicly.

Despite the renewed interest in zero-shot visual classification due to the rise of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), the problem of evaluating free-form responses of auto-regressive models remains a persistent challenge. Most existing works focus on language-only tasks or don't consider Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) beyond 5-way options, both of which are critical capabilities to solve tasks in Fine-Grained Visual Classification (FGVC) where choice counts are in the hundreds to thousands and the choices are highly related. Furthermore, in this highly multi-way MCQ setting it is not clear how to extend LLM choice extraction to retrieval-based problems, where computing probabilities over the choice set is computationally costly. In this work we investigate nlg2choice, a simple two-stage method which first asks the MLLM an open-ended question for the task with minimal constraints, then uses text-only constrained decoding to predict the most likely choice. In retrieval settings, we compute the probability of the constrained response taking that choice with an early stopping method to significantly improve throughput. Our results show improvement over a suite of seven fine-grained visual datasets when evaluating in terms of classification and retrieval, and show that this performance holds over the various ways that users of LLMs can implement tasks in natural language.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing information retrieval, with chatbots becoming an important source for answering user queries. As by their design, LLMs prioritize generating correct answers, the value of highly plausible yet incorrect answers (candidate answers) tends to be overlooked. However, such answers can still prove useful, for example, they can play a crucial role in tasks like Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and QA Robustness Assessment (QARA). Existing QA datasets primarily focus on correct answers without explicit consideration of the plausibility of other candidate answers, limiting opportunity for more nuanced evaluations of models. To address this gap, we introduce PlausibleQA, a large-scale dataset comprising 10,000 questions and 100,000 candidate answers, each annotated with plausibility scores and justifications for their selection. Additionally, the dataset includes 900,000 justifications for pairwise comparisons between candidate answers, further refining plausibility assessments. We evaluate PlausibleQA through human assessments and empirical experiments, demonstrating its utility in MCQA and QARA analysis. Our findings show that plausibility-aware approaches are effective for MCQA distractor generation and QARA. We release PlausibleQA as a resource for advancing QA research and enhancing LLM performance in distinguishing plausible distractors from correct answers.

Estimating the difficulty of multiple-choice questions would be great help for educators who must spend substantial time creating and piloting stimuli for their tests, and for learners who want to practice. Supervised approaches to difficulty estimation have yielded to date mixed results. In this contribution we leverage an aspect of generative large models which might be seen as a weakness when answering questions, namely their uncertainty, and exploit it towards exploring correlations between two different metrics of uncertainty, and the actual student response distribution. While we observe some present but weak correlations, we also discover that the models' behaviour is different in the case of correct vs wrong answers, and that correlations differ substantially according to the different question types which are included in our fine-grained, previously unused dataset of 451 questions from a Biopsychology course. In discussing our findings, we also suggest potential avenues to further leverage model uncertainty as an additional proxy for item difficulty.

We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answers, and then to evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct. We find encouraging performance, calibration, and scaling for P(True) on a diverse array of tasks. Performance at self-evaluation further improves when we allow models to consider many of their own samples before predicting the validity of one specific possibility. Next, we investigate whether models can be trained to predict "P(IK)", the probability that "I know" the answer to a question, without reference to any particular proposed answer. Models perform well at predicting P(IK) and partially generalize across tasks, though they struggle with calibration of P(IK) on new tasks. The predicted P(IK) probabilities also increase appropriately in the presence of relevant source materials in the context, and in the presence of hints towards the solution of mathematical word problems. We hope these observations lay the groundwork for training more honest models, and for investigating how honesty generalizes to cases where models are trained on objectives other than the imitation of human writing.

We present GSM-MC, a multiple-choice (MC) dataset constructed by collecting answers and incorrect predictions on GSM8K from 60 open-source models. Through extensive experiments, we show that LLMs' performance on the MC version of this popular benchmark is strongly correlated with their performance on the original version and is quite robust to distractor choices and option orders, while the evaluation time is reduced by a factor of up to 30. Following similar procedures, we introduce MATH-MC, constructed from MATH, and PythonIO, a new program reasoning MC dataset constructed from HumanEval and MBPP. Experimental results indicate that LLMs' performance on these MC benchmarks leaves much room for improvement. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/Geralt-Targaryen/MC-Evaluation.

We present a state-of-the-art model for fine-grained probability estimation of propositions conditioned on context. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities, particularly on well-defined tasks with complete information. However, LLMs continue to struggle with making accurate and well-calibrated probabilistic predictions under uncertainty or partial information. While incorporating uncertainty into model predictions often boosts performance, obtaining reliable estimates of that uncertainty remains understudied. In particular, LLM probability estimates tend to be coarse and biased towards more frequent numbers. Through a combination of human and synthetic data creation and assessment, scaling to larger models, and better supervision, we propose a set of strong and precise probability estimation models. We conduct systematic evaluations across tasks that rely on conditional probability estimation and show that our approach consistently outperforms existing fine-tuned and prompting-based methods by a large margin.

The surprisingly likely criterion in the seminal work of Prelec (the Bayesian Truth Serum) guarantees truthfulness in a game-theoretic multi-agent setting, by rewarding rational agents to maximise the expected information gain with their answers w.r.t. their probabilistic beliefs. We investigate the relevance of a similar criterion for responses of LLMs. We hypothesize that if the surprisingly likely criterion works in LLMs, under certain conditions, the responses that maximize the reward under this criterion should be more accurate than the responses that only maximize the posterior probability. Using benchmarks including the TruthfulQA benchmark and using openly available LLMs: GPT-2 and LLaMA-2, we show that the method indeed improves the accuracy significantly (for example, upto 24 percentage points aggregate improvement on TruthfulQA and upto 70 percentage points improvement on individual categories of questions).

Reliable probability estimation is of crucial importance in many real-world applications where there is inherent (aleatoric) uncertainty. Probability-estimation models are trained on observed outcomes (e.g. whether it has rained or not, or whether a patient has died or not), because the ground-truth probabilities of the events of interest are typically unknown. The problem is therefore analogous to binary classification, with the difference that the objective is to estimate probabilities rather than predicting the specific outcome. This work investigates probability estimation from high-dimensional data using deep neural networks. There exist several methods to improve the probabilities generated by these models but they mostly focus on model (epistemic) uncertainty. For problems with inherent uncertainty, it is challenging to evaluate performance without access to ground-truth probabilities. To address this, we build a synthetic dataset to study and compare different computable metrics. We evaluate existing methods on the synthetic data as well as on three real-world probability estimation tasks, all of which involve inherent uncertainty: precipitation forecasting from radar images, predicting cancer patient survival from histopathology images, and predicting car crashes from dashcam videos. We also give a theoretical analysis of a model for high-dimensional probability estimation which reproduces several of the phenomena evinced in our experiments. Finally, we propose a new method for probability estimation using neural networks, which modifies the training process to promote output probabilities that are consistent with empirical probabilities computed from the data. The method outperforms existing approaches on most metrics on the simulated as well as real-world data.

We explore uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs), with the goal to identify when uncertainty in responses given a query is large. We simultaneously consider both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, where the former comes from the lack of knowledge about the ground truth (such as about facts or the language), and the latter comes from irreducible randomness (such as multiple possible answers). In particular, we derive an information-theoretic metric that allows to reliably detect when only epistemic uncertainty is large, in which case the output of the model is unreliable. This condition can be computed based solely on the output of the model obtained simply by some special iterative prompting based on the previous responses. Such quantification, for instance, allows to detect hallucinations (cases when epistemic uncertainty is high) in both single- and multi-answer responses. This is in contrast to many standard uncertainty quantification strategies (such as thresholding the log-likelihood of a response) where hallucinations in the multi-answer case cannot be detected. We conduct a series of experiments which demonstrate the advantage of our formulation. Further, our investigations shed some light on how the probabilities assigned to a given output by an LLM can be amplified by iterative prompting, which might be of independent interest.

Multi-choice questions (MCQs) serve as a common yet important task format in the research of large language models (LLMs). Our work shows that LLMs exhibit an inherent "selection bias" in MCQs, which refers to LLMs' preferences to select options located at specific positions (like "Option C"). This bias is prevalent across various LLMs, making their performance vulnerable to option position changes in MCQs. We identify that one primary cause resulting in selection bias is option numbering, i.e., the ID symbols A/B/C/D associated with the options. To mitigate selection bias, we propose a new method called PriDe. PriDe first decomposes the observed model prediction distribution into an intrinsic prediction over option contents and a prior distribution over option IDs. It then estimates the prior by permutating option contents on a small number of test samples, which is used to debias the subsequent test samples. We demonstrate that, as a label-free, inference-time method, PriDe achieves a more effective and computation-efficient debiasing than strong baselines. We further show that the priors estimated by PriDe generalize well across different domains, highlighting its practical potential in broader scenarios.

In LLM-agent opinion simulations, each agent reports the probability that a claim is true after seeing its own previous probability and the probabilities reported by its neighbors, and that number becomes its state in the next round. If the number describes the agent's position rather than the sentence it was shown, then rewriting the claim as its complement and replacing every probability p with 1 - p should return the complementary answer, so the two reports should sum to one. We test this with three small open models: Qwen3-4B, Llama-3.2-3B and Gemma-3-4B. On 2,304 agent states taken from a running network simulation, Qwen's paired reports sum to 1.18 on average, and on 48 real fact-checking claims from AVeriTeC they again exceed one. A controlled benchmark of 24 worlds, each with exactly two possible outcomes, shows the same failure in all three models. The discrepancy is two to ten times larger than the change produced by a same-meaning paraphrase, and it persists under repeated sampling and across peer group sizes and report strengths. When the reports are fed back into two populations that start from complementary states, the populations do not remain mirror images: their divergence is positive after five rounds for every model. Averaging each answer with the complement of its paired answer restores consistency by construction and lowers Brier loss averaged over the two wordings, but at the final round it beats the better of the two original wordings for only one of the three models. A schedule-by-targeting experiment on the same model gives a small, stable interaction because such sweeps keep the claim wording fixed. Consistency under rewording therefore needs its own test before simulated probabilities are read as beliefs

Many automated decisions in education involve choosing from a fixed set of options: assigning a rubric score, checking whether an answer meets a marking criterion, or identifying the first wrong step in a solution. Generative language models are increasingly used to make these decisions, but their responses require parsing, longer outputs increase inference costs, and confidence expressed in words does not necessarily reflect the probability of being correct. We present EDU-Jev, a family of single-pass ("System One") decision models at 0.8B, 2B and 4B parameters. Given an assessment context and a question with predefined answer options, the model returns a probability distribution over those options without generating text. A pointer head scores a marker for each option, ensuring the predictions are restricted to the allowed choices. Training uses a single supervised stage with soft cross-entropy against the available target label distributions; calibration is assessed empirically. Across twelve education benchmarks, EDU-Jev 4B achieves an average accuracy of 67.6%, exceeding the strongest of five commercial decision APIs by 9.4 percentage points and the best open 4B decision model by 18.7 points. On four cross-domain education sets, it matches the strongest API, which remains ahead on general decision-making and reasoning tasks. The 2B model processes about 150 decisions per second on a single H100 GPU.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various NLP tasks. However, previous works have shown these models are sensitive towards prompt wording, and few-shot demonstrations and their order, posing challenges to fair assessment of these models. As these models become more powerful, it becomes imperative to understand and address these limitations. In this paper, we focus on LLMs robustness on the task of multiple-choice questions -- commonly adopted task to study reasoning and fact-retrieving capability of LLMs. Investigating the sensitivity of LLMs towards the order of options in multiple-choice questions, we demonstrate a considerable performance gap of approximately 13% to 75% in LLMs on different benchmarks, when answer options are reordered, even when using demonstrations in a few-shot setting. Through a detailed analysis, we conjecture that this sensitivity arises when LLMs are uncertain about the prediction between the top-2/3 choices, and specific options placements may favor certain prediction between those top choices depending on the question caused by positional bias. We also identify patterns in top-2 choices that amplify or mitigate the model's bias toward option placement. We found that for amplifying bias, the optimal strategy involves positioning the top two choices as the first and last options. Conversely, to mitigate bias, we recommend placing these choices among the adjacent options. To validate our conjecture, we conduct various experiments and adopt two approaches to calibrate LLMs' predictions, leading to up to 8 percentage points improvement across different models and benchmarks.

Large Reasoning Models have demonstrated remarkable performance with the advancement of test-time scaling techniques, which enhances prediction accuracy by generating multiple candidate responses and selecting the most reliable answer. While prior work has analyzed that internal model signals like confidence scores can partly indicate response correctness and exhibit a distributional correlation with accuracy, such distributional information has not been fully utilized to guide answer selection. Motivated by this, we propose DistriVoting, which incorporates distributional priors as another signal alongside confidence during voting. Specifically, our method (1) first decomposes the mixed confidence distribution into positive and negative components using Gaussian Mixture Models, (2) then applies a reject filter based on positive/negative samples from them to mitigate overlap between the two distributions. Besides, to further alleviate the overlap from the perspective of distribution itself, we propose SelfStepConf, which uses step-level confidence to dynamically adjust inference process, increasing the separation between the two distributions to improve the reliability of confidences in voting. Experiments across 16 models and 5 benchmarks demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as probabilistic generators for simulation, synthetic data generation, and decision support in settings where real-world data are unavailable. Yet, the structure and reliability of the distributions they produce remain understudied. Here, we systematically analyze LLM-generated distributions of preferences for air travel, restaurants, and consumer products. Encouragingly, all models considered in our analysis exhibit self-coherence, with the most probable outcomes stabilizing rapidly under repeated sampling. At the same time, we observe substantial discordance across both model families and scales, with little consensus even among their most probable outcomes. These patterns hold across nine open-weight models, three choice domains, and show robustness under temperature changes, greedy decoding, and perturbations of prompt and ordering. Our findings indicate that outcomes are influenced more by the choice of model than by the wording of the prompt, challenging the common assumption that sufficiently capable LLMs produce similar preference distributions when used as stand-ins for survey respondents.

Reasoning quality in large language models depends not only on producing correct answers but also on generating valid intermediate steps. We study this through multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which provides a controlled setting with fixed answer options. Our analysis shows that when questions are effectively unsolvable for a model, spurious chains of thought (CoTs) are more likely to appear, leading to false positives. By estimating the solvability of each question, we uncover an intermediate regime where learning is most effective. Building on this insight, we adapt outcome-supervised reward models and reinforcement learning with group-relative advantage to incorporate solvability into their objectives. Across experiments on math and multimodal datasets, these modifications consistently yield higher rates of process-correct reasoning and, in reinforcement learning, improved answer accuracy as well. Our results highlight solvability as a key factor for reducing hallucinations and increasing reliability in CoT reasoning.

Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning. Existing methods assess reliability primarily through output dispersion -- measuring how much sampled answers differ -- but this discards a complementary signal: whether the model can consistently rank competing reasoning candidates. We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings over sampled reasoning solutions. Given a query, we generate multiple candidate solutions and ask the model to judge pairwise preferences among its own outputs. We aggregate self-preferences into ranking distributions via Bradley-Terry modeling with PageRank, and decompose the signal into two entropy-based components: across-trial ranking instability and within-trial candidate ambiguity. Across five LLMs and eight benchmarks, structural signals provide information complementary to answer dispersion: on logical and mathematical reasoning tasks, the combination improves identification of unreliable instances, while on factual retrieval the structural signal collapses toward uniformity, diagnosing a regime boundary where reasoning-level consistency evaluation is uninformative. The two components relate differently to accuracy: within-trial ambiguity correlates positively with correctness -- consistent with settings where multiple plausible solution paths remain competitive -- while across-trial instability correlates negatively, signaling unreliable reasoning. Structural uncertainty is best understood not as a universal confidence estimator, but as a regime-sensitive evaluator of logical reasoning consistency.

Recent work has highlighted the culturally-contingent nature of commonsense knowledge. We introduce AMAMMER{epsilon}, a test set of 525 multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate the commonsense knowledge of English LLMs, relative to the cultural contexts of Ghana and the United States. To create AMAMMER{epsilon}, we select a set of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from existing commonsense datasets and rewrite them in a multi-stage process involving surveys of Ghanaian and U.S. participants. In three rounds of surveys, participants from both pools are solicited to (1) write correct and incorrect answer choices, (2) rate individual answer choices on a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) select the best answer choice from the newly-constructed MCQ items, in a final validation step. By engaging participants at multiple stages, our procedure ensures that participant perspectives are incorporated both in the creation and validation of test items, resulting in high levels of agreement within each pool. We evaluate several off-the-shelf English LLMs on AMAMMER{epsilon}. Uniformly, models prefer answers choices that align with the preferences of U.S. annotators over Ghanaian annotators. Additionally, when test items specify a cultural context (Ghana or the U.S.), models exhibit some ability to adapt, but performance is consistently better in U.S. contexts than Ghanaian. As large resources are devoted to the advancement of English LLMs, our findings underscore the need for culturally adaptable models and evaluations to meet the needs of diverse English-speaking populations around the world.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (It-LLMs) have been exhibiting outstanding abilities to reason around cognitive states, intentions, and reactions of all people involved, letting humans guide and comprehend day-to-day social interactions effectively. In fact, several multiple-choice questions (MCQ) benchmarks have been proposed to construct solid assessments of the models' abilities. However, earlier works are demonstrating the presence of inherent "order bias" in It-LLMs, posing challenges to the appropriate evaluation. In this paper, we investigate It-LLMs' resilience abilities towards a series of probing tests using four MCQ benchmarks. Introducing adversarial examples, we show a significant performance gap, mainly when varying the order of the choices, which reveals a selection bias and brings into discussion reasoning abilities. Following a correlation between first positions and model choices due to positional bias, we hypothesized the presence of structural heuristics in the decision-making process of the It-LLMs, strengthened by including significant examples in few-shot scenarios. Finally, by using the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique, we elicit the model to reason and mitigate the bias by obtaining more robust models.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

Generating a correct answer does not mean that a language model will select it. We separate factual recall into three steps: generating a correct candidate, ranking the available candidates, and selecting the final answer. Pre-generation readouts predict factual recall and which questions sampling will cover across three model families, but say little about whether an available correct answer will ultimately be selected. Explicit verification with P(True) improves within-question ranking over mean log-likelihood in Gemma, Qwen3, and Llama, with AUROC gains of 0.08--0.12. In a prospectively defined Gemma cohort, verification raises plurality accuracy by about 5 points, and still gains about 2 points over chat-template likelihood, a stronger generative baseline. The advantage is strongest for relations with common-answer priors and depends on access to the entity; masking the entity removes the ranking advantage in larger Qwen models. Finally, the measured benefit depends on how correctness is defined: recall-oriented reference matching can credit option lists favored by likelihood and substantially understate the improvement seen under human semantic judgments. Prior work shows that models can carry latent factual knowledge and judge candidate answers; we show that these capabilities do not collapse into a single notion of ``knowing,'' and trace where information is gained, lost, or mismeasured between availability, ranking, and final choice.

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) makes it important to recognize their strengths and limitations. We argue that in order to develop a holistic understanding of these systems we need to consider the problem that they were trained to solve: next-word prediction over Internet text. By recognizing the pressures that this task exerts we can make predictions about the strategies that LLMs will adopt, allowing us to reason about when they will succeed or fail. This approach - which we call the teleological approach - leads us to identify three factors that we hypothesize will influence LLM accuracy: the probability of the task to be performed, the probability of the target output, and the probability of the provided input. We predict that LLMs will achieve higher accuracy when these probabilities are high than when they are low - even in deterministic settings where probability should not matter. To test our predictions, we evaluate two LLMs (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) on eleven tasks, and we find robust evidence that LLMs are influenced by probability in the ways that we have hypothesized. In many cases, the experiments reveal surprising failure modes. For instance, GPT-4's accuracy at decoding a simple cipher is 51% when the output is a high-probability word sequence but only 13% when it is low-probability. These results show that AI practitioners should be careful about using LLMs in low-probability situations. More broadly, we conclude that we should not evaluate LLMs as if they are humans but should instead treat them as a distinct type of system - one that has been shaped by its own particular set of pressures.

Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1\% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5\% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.

Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a standard format for evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet the popularity of answer options can confound evaluation. Modern LLMs systematically prefer popular but incorrect options over less popular correct ones, a vulnerability we call popularity bias. This pattern aligns with confidence miscalibration: model confidence remains high even as accuracy collapses for popular options. To systematically isolate this phenomenon, we introduce PopMCQ, a benchmark with six controlled strategies that vary option popularity while keeping the correct answer fixed. In our most adversarial setting, where all distractors are more popular than the correct option, models choose popular but wrong answers 66\% of the time. To mitigate this bias, we propose PopDebias, a lightweight inference-time correction that estimates and removes a popularity prior from model predictions. It requires no fine-tuning, is label-free at test time (using only a small calibration split for parameter fitting), and adds negligible computational cost. Experiments on 22 open-source LLMs (0.5B to 32B parameters) show consistent improvements, with accuracy gains up to 54.1 percentage points under strong popularity pressure. The code and data are available https://github.com/DataScienceUIBK/PopMCQ

We present a new probing dataset named PROST: Physical Reasoning about Objects Through Space and Time. This dataset contains 18,736 multiple-choice questions made from 14 manually curated templates, covering 10 physical reasoning concepts. All questions are designed to probe both causal and masked language models in a zero-shot setting. We conduct an extensive analysis which demonstrates that state-of-the-art pretrained models are inadequate at physical reasoning: they are influenced by the order in which answer options are presented to them, they struggle when the superlative in a question is inverted (e.g., most <-> least), and increasing the amount of pretraining data and parameters only yields minimal improvements. These results provide support for the hypothesis that current pretrained models' ability to reason about physical interactions is inherently limited by a lack of real world experience. By highlighting these limitations, we hope to motivate the development of models with a human-like understanding of the physical world.

Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge. In this paper, we test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance. We evaluate two different strategies for mitigating bias. The first uses a generation-then-matching approach, and the second scores options in isolation, which is positionally unbiased by construction. Neither reliably improves accuracy. A complete decomposition shows that the bottleneck is withholding options, not the matching step. The only configuration that consistently matches the baseline is the one that shows the model all options paired with an LLM matcher. However, eliminating positional influence entirely still does not reliably yield accuracy gains, while cyclic permutation often improves them. For two-stage prompting, an aggregate measure of recall imbalance and a direct per-question measure of order sensitivity both fail to show reliable debiasing.

Crowdsourcing has emerged as an effective platform for labeling large amounts of data in a cost- and time-efficient manner. Most previous work has focused on designing an efficient algorithm to recover only the ground-truth labels of the data. In this paper, we consider multi-choice crowdsourcing tasks with the goal of recovering not only the ground truth, but also the most confusing answer and the confusion probability. The most confusing answer provides useful information about the task by revealing the most plausible answer other than the ground truth and how plausible it is. To theoretically analyze such scenarios, we propose a model in which there are the top two plausible answers for each task, distinguished from the rest of the choices. Task difficulty is quantified by the probability of confusion between the top two, and worker reliability is quantified by the probability of giving an answer among the top two. Under this model, we propose a two-stage inference algorithm to infer both the top two answers and the confusion probability. We show that our algorithm achieves the minimax optimal convergence rate. We conduct both synthetic and real data experiments and demonstrate that our algorithm outperforms other recent algorithms. We also show the applicability of our algorithms in inferring the difficulty of tasks and in training neural networks with top-two soft labels.

The game show Lucky 13 differs from other television game shows in that contestants are required to place a bet on their own knowledge of trivia by selecting a range that contains the number of questions that they answered correctly. We present a model for this game show using binomial random variables and generate tables outlining the optimal range the player should select based on maximization of two different utility functions. After analyzing the decisions made by some actual contestants on this show, we present a numerical simulation for how many questions an average player is expected to answer correctly based on question categories observed for two sample contestants.

The appearance of Jev marked the era of System One Models, foundation models that return structured decisions with probability distributions rather than text. Aside from low cost and great speed, Jev's central promise is that these probabilities are calibrated: such claim is not backed by any public test and available external benchmarks evaluate confidence calibration, not whether every returned option probability has the right numerical meaning. To tackle this issue, we introduce Sys1Cal-v1, a dataset of True/False questions about a proposition A for which the exact probability P(A) is known by construction. Each item is queried through the three Jev primitives - Noul, Choice and Score - and evaluated by total variation distance from the ground-truth distribution, which can be used to estimate a soft accuracy of System One Models. We showcase the utility of Sys1Cal-v1 as a benchmark dataset by evaluating Jev and SemIf, an open-source Choice-style baseline. In this work, however, we focus even more deeply on Jev, by studying the calibration of its Score and Choice answers. In particular, we discover a peculiar behaviour that can be explained by assuming that Jev suppresses a third truth value, going beyond True and False. In other words, in Choice answers, P(A) and P(neg A) are presented as if P(A)+P(neg A)=1, while a term P(U)neq0 is missing in the sum. Recovering P(U) leads to an improvement of median soft accuracy in Choice answers from 0.771 to 0.978, suggesting that, even in binary decisions, Jev wants to answer with a third option:``I don't know''.

Predictive models often need to work with incomplete information in real-world tasks. Consequently, they must provide reliable probability or confidence estimation, especially in large-scale decision-making and planning tasks. Current large language models (LLMs) are insufficient for accurate estimations, but they can generate relevant factors that may affect the probabilities, produce coarse-grained probabilities when the information is more complete, and help determine which factors are relevant to specific downstream contexts. In this paper, we make use of these capabilities of LLMs to provide a significantly more accurate probabilistic estimation. We propose BIRD, a novel probabilistic inference framework that aligns a Bayesian network with LLM abductions and then estimates more accurate probabilities in a deduction step. We show BIRD provides reliable probability estimations that are 30% better than those provided directly by LLM baselines. These estimates further contribute to better and more trustworthy decision making.

In recent years, corpus-driven AI methods, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), have seen widespread use in education. While on the surface their abilities look promising for tasks ranging from generating assessment materials to simulating student performance, we should be aware of the subtle nuances of their frequentist nature that might be affecting their behaviour. In this work, we focus on the aspect of corpus frequency in the context of creating high-quality Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), specifically asking: What if corpus prevalence were enough to identify the correct answer to an MCQ? We propose a computational method of assessing corpus prevalence of MCQ options in large text corpora leveraging textual embeddings using both expert- and machine-generated MCQ sets. The key finding, across three large question sets, is that correct answers, independently of the question stem, are significantly more available than incorrect options. Specifically, using Wikipedia as the retrieval corpus, we find that always selecting the most prevalent option leads to scores up to 9.0% above the random-guess baseline. We also find that MCQ distractors generated by LLMs often show similar patterns of prevalence compared to expert-created options, despite the LLMs' frequentist nature and their training on large collections of textual data. Moreover, we find that corpus prevalence does not necessarily correlate with how recognisable terms are to humans. This highlights the need to better understand how corpora are used in AI-driven methods for education, whether applied directly or indirectly via LLMs.

When large language models (LMs) are applied in zero- or few-shot settings to discriminative tasks such as multiple-choice questions, their attentiveness (i.e., probability mass) is spread across many vocabulary tokens that are not valid choices. Such a spread across multiple surface forms with identical meaning is thought to cause an underestimation of a model's true performance, referred to as the "surface form competition" (SFC) hypothesis. This has motivated the introduction of various probability normalization methods. However, many core questions remain unanswered. How do we measure SFC or attentiveness? Are there direct ways of increasing attentiveness on valid choices? Does increasing attentiveness always improve task accuracy? We propose a mathematical formalism for studying this phenomenon, provide a metric for quantifying attentiveness, and identify a simple method for increasing it -- namely, in-context learning with even just one example containing answer choices. The formalism allows us to quantify SFC and bound its impact. Our experiments on three diverse datasets and six LMs reveal several surprising findings. For example, encouraging models to generate a valid answer choice can, in fact, be detrimental to task performance for some LMs, and prior probability normalization methods are less effective (sometimes even detrimental) to instruction-tuned LMs. We conclude with practical insights for effectively using prompted LMs for multiple-choice tasks.

In an educational setting, an estimate of the difficulty of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a commonly used strategy to assess learning progress, constitutes very useful information for both teachers and students. Since human assessment is costly from multiple points of view, automatic approaches to MCQ item difficulty estimation are investigated, yielding however mixed success until now. Our approach to this problem takes a different angle from previous work: asking various Large Language Models to tackle the questions included in two different MCQ datasets, we leverage model uncertainty to estimate item difficulty. By using both model uncertainty features as well as textual features in a Random Forest regressor, we show that uncertainty features contribute substantially to difficulty prediction, where difficulty is inversely proportional to the number of students who can correctly answer a question. In addition to showing the value of our approach, we also observe that our model achieves state-of-the-art results on the BEA publicly available dataset.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous decision agents in settings with asymmetric error costs: hiring (missed talent vs wasted interviews), medical triage (missed emergencies vs unnecessary escalation), and fraud detection (approved fraud vs declined legitimate payments). The dominant design queries a single LLM for a posterior over states, thresholds "confidence," and acts; we prove this is inadequate for sequential decisions with costs. We propose a Bayesian, cost-aware multi-LLM orchestration framework that treats LLMs as approximate likelihood models rather than classifiers. For each candidate state, we elicit likelihoods via contrastive prompting, aggregate across diverse models with robust statistics, and update beliefs with Bayes rule under explicit priors as new evidence arrives. This enables coherent belief updating, expected-cost action selection, principled information gathering via value of information, and fairness gains via ensemble bias mitigation. In resume screening with costs of 40000 USD per missed hire, 2500 USD per interview, and 150 USD per phone screen, experiments on 1000 resumes using five LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini Pro, Grok, DeepSeek) reduce total cost by 294000 USD (34 percent) versus the best single-LLM baseline and improve demographic parity by 45 percent (max group gap 22 to 5 percentage points). Ablations attribute 51 percent of savings to multi-LLM aggregation, 43 percent to sequential updating, and 20 percent to disagreement-triggered information gathering, consistent with the theoretical benefits of correct probabilistic foundations.

Prompt engineering and calibration make large language models excel at reasoning tasks, including multiple choice commonsense reasoning. From a practical perspective, we investigate and evaluate these strategies on smaller language models. Through experiments on five commonsense reasoning benchmarks, we find that each strategy favors certain models, but their joint effects are mostly negative.

The present study aims to explore the capabilities of Language Models (LMs) in tackling high-stakes multiple-choice tests, represented here by the Exame Nacional do Ensino M\'edio (ENEM), a multidisciplinary entrance examination widely adopted by Brazilian universities. This exam poses challenging tasks for LMs, since its questions may span into multiple fields of knowledge, requiring understanding of information from diverse domains. For instance, a question may require comprehension of both statistics and biology to be solved. This work analyzed responses generated by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models for questions presented in the 2009-2017 exams, as well as for questions of the 2022 exam, which were made public after the training of the models was completed. Furthermore, different prompt strategies were tested, including the use of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts to generate explanations for answers. On the 2022 edition, the best-performing model, GPT-4 with CoT, achieved an accuracy of 87%, largely surpassing GPT-3.5 by 11 points. The code and data used on experiments are available at https://github.com/piresramon/gpt-4-enem.

Eleven Large Language Models (LLMs) were assessed using a custom-made battery of false-belief tasks, considered a gold standard in testing Theory of Mind (ToM) in humans. The battery included 640 prompts spread across 40 diverse tasks, each one including a false-belief scenario, three closely matched true-belief control scenarios, and the reversed versions of all four. To solve a single task, a model needed to correctly answer 16 prompts across all eight scenarios. Smaller and older models solved no tasks; GPT-3-davinci-003 (from November 2022) and ChatGPT-3.5-turbo (from March 2023) solved 20% of the tasks; ChatGPT-4 (from June 2023) solved 75% of the tasks, matching the performance of six-year-old children observed in past studies. We explore the potential interpretation of these findings, including the intriguing possibility that ToM, previously considered exclusive to humans, may have spontaneously emerged as a byproduct of LLMs' improving language skills.

Language models are increasingly used to create synthetic survey samples, also called silicon samples. Decision models are a new class of language models that return a probability for each point of a rating scale instead of text. We ask whether these models, or the newest generative LLMs, can stand in for human respondents on a psychometric survey. We test fourteen decision models from eleven providers and 47 generative LLMs on an open Lithuanian organisational-psychology survey (n=263, 68 items), with 100 real respondent profiles, the Psychometric Similarity Score (PSS) and statistical baselines. The best generative model, MiniMax M3, reaches PSS 0.813. This is level with a Gaussian copula fit only on other respondents (0.824) and below a copula fit in sample (0.927). A second sample of 100 real people scores below the best models, so at this size PSS cannot rank them against real respondents. In 5 of 10 product lines the newest generative release scores below an earlier release of the same line beyond resampling noise, and none gains beyond it. With the default rounded readout, 13 of 14 decision models score below the generative reference gpt-5.4-mini. Of the 47 generative models, 33 reproduce the pattern of item correlations better than any decision model. Averaged over respondents, the probability vectors are much closer to the human item marginals than rounded answers. They also rank respondents about as well as a profile regression fit on 163 real people. As forecasts of each person's own answers, however, every decision model is worse than the answer frequencies of other respondents, mainly because its average vector differs from them. The profile regression improves on these frequencies by only 1.0%, so the profile fields say little about how a person answers. Synthetic respondents built on such profiles should therefore aim at sample-level fidelity.

In current NLP research, large-scale language models and their abilities are widely being discussed. Some recent works have also found notable failures of these models. Often these failure examples involve complex reasoning abilities. This work focuses on a simple commonsense ability, reasoning about when an action (or its effect) is feasible. To this end, we introduce FeasibilityQA, a question-answering dataset involving binary classification (BCQ) and multi-choice multi-correct questions (MCQ) that test understanding of feasibility. We show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-3, GPT-2, and T5 struggle to answer the feasibility questions correctly. Specifically, on MCQ and BCQ questions, GPT-3 achieves an accuracy of just (19%, 62%) and (25%, 64%) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. We also evaluate models by providing relevant knowledge statements required to answer the question. We find that the additional knowledge leads to a 7% gain in performance, but the overall performance still remains low. These results make one wonder how much commonsense knowledge about action feasibility is encoded in state-of-the-art models and how well they can reason about it.

Some things are impossible, but some things may be even more impossible than impossible. Levitating a feather using one's mind is impossible in our world, but fits into our intuitive theories of possible worlds, whereas levitating a feather using the number five cannot be conceived in any possible world ("inconceivable"). While prior work has examined the distinction between improbable and impossible events, there has been little empirical research on inconceivability. Here, we investigate whether people maintain a distinction between impossibility and inconceivability, and how such distinctions might be made. We find that people can readily distinguish the impossible from the inconceivable, using categorization studies similar to those used to investigate the differences between impossible and improbable (Experiment 1). However, this distinction is not explained by people's subjective ratings of event likelihood, which are near zero and indistinguishable between impossible and inconceivable event descriptions (Experiment 2). Finally, we ask whether the probabilities assigned to event descriptions by statistical language models (LMs) can be used to separate modal categories, and whether these probabilities align with people's ratings (Experiment 3). We find high-level similarities between people and LMs: both distinguish among impossible and inconceivable event descriptions, and LM-derived string probabilities predict people's ratings of event likelihood across modal categories. Our findings suggest that fine-grained knowledge about exceedingly rare events (i.e., the impossible and inconceivable) may be learned via statistical learning over linguistic forms, yet leave open the question of whether people represent the distinction between impossible and inconceivable as a difference not of degree, but of kind.

Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

Large language models (LLMs) have a substantial capacity for high-level analogical reasoning: reproducing patterns in linear text that occur in their training data (zero-shot evaluation) or in the provided context (few-shot in-context learning). However, recent studies show that even the more advanced LLMs fail in scenarios that require reasoning over multiple objects or facts and making sequences of logical deductions. We propose a two-stage probabilistic inference paradigm, ThinkSum, which reasons over sets of objects or facts in a structured manner. In the first stage (Think - retrieval of associations), a LLM is queried in parallel over a set of phrases extracted from the prompt or an auxiliary model call. In the second stage (Sum - probabilistic inference or reasoning), the results of these queries are aggregated to make the final prediction. We demonstrate the possibilities and advantages of ThinkSum on the BIG-bench suite of LLM evaluation tasks, achieving improvements over the state of the art using GPT-family models on thirteen difficult tasks, often with far smaller model variants. We also compare and contrast ThinkSum with other proposed modifications to direct prompting of LLMs, such as variants of chain-of-thought prompting. Our results suggest that because the probabilistic inference in ThinkSum is performed outside of calls to the LLM, ThinkSum is less sensitive to prompt design, yields more interpretable predictions, and can be flexibly combined with latent variable models to extract structured knowledge from LLMs. Overall, our proposed paradigm represents a promising approach for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

There is a growing literature on reasoning by large language models (LLMs), but the discussion on the uncertainty in their responses is still lacking. Our aim is to assess the extent of confidence that LLMs have in their answers and how it correlates with accuracy. Confidence is measured (i) qualitatively in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider, and (ii) quantitatively in terms of self-reported confidence score. We investigate the performance of three LLMs -- GPT4o, GPT4-turbo and Mistral -- on two benchmark sets of questions on causal judgement and formal fallacies and a set of probability and statistical puzzles and paradoxes. Although the LLMs show significantly better performance than random guessing, there is a wide variability in their tendency to change their initial answers. There is a positive correlation between qualitative confidence and accuracy, but the overall accuracy for the second answer is often worse than for the first answer. There is a strong tendency to overstate the self-reported confidence score. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability. The material effects of prompting on qualitative confidence and the strong tendency for overconfidence indicate that current LLMs do not have any internally coherent sense of confidence.

Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is an important problem with numerous real-world applications, such as medicine, law, and education. The high cost of building MCQA datasets makes few-shot learning pivotal in this domain. While Large Language Models (LLMs) can enable few-shot learning, their direct application in real-world scenarios is often hindered by their high computational cost. To address this challenge, we propose a simple yet effective approach that uses LLMs for data generation and scoring. Our approach utilizes LLMs to create MCQA data which contains questions and choices, and to assign probability scores to the generated choices. We then use the generated data and LLM-assigned scores to finetune a smaller and more efficient encoder-only model, DeBERTa-v3-base by leveraging distillation loss. Extensive experiments on the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark demonstrate that our method improves accuracy from 28.9% to 39.3%, representing a gain of over 10% compared to a baseline finetuned directly on 5-shot examples. This shows the effectiveness of LLM-driven data generation and knowledge distillation for few-shot MCQA.

We propose LoRA-MCL, a training scheme that extends next-token prediction in language models with a method designed to decode diverse, plausible sentence continuations at inference time. Traditional language modeling is an intrinsically ill-posed problem: given a context, multiple futures may be equally plausible. Our approach leverages Multiple Choice Learning (MCL) and the Winner-Takes-All (WTA) loss to efficiently handle ambiguity through Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). We provide a theoretical interpretation of applying Multiple Choice Learning to Language Modeling, assuming the data is generated from a mixture of distributions. To illustrate the proposed approach, we use data sampled from mixtures of Markov chains. We then demonstrate with extensive experiments on real-world visual and audio captioning tasks that our method achieves high diversity and relevance in generated outputs.

Given questions regarding some prototypical situation such as Name something that people usually do before they leave the house for work? a human can easily answer them via acquired experiences. There can be multiple right answers for such questions, with some more common for a situation than others. This paper introduces a new question answering dataset for training and evaluating common sense reasoning capabilities of artificial intelligence systems in such prototypical situations. The training set is gathered from an existing set of questions played in a long-running international game show FAMILY- FEUD. The hidden evaluation set is created by gathering answers for each question from 100 crowd-workers. We also propose a generative evaluation task where a model has to output a ranked list of answers, ideally covering all prototypical answers for a question. After presenting multiple competitive baseline models, we find that human performance still exceeds model scores on all evaluation metrics with a meaningful gap, supporting the challenging nature of the task.

Language models are known to absorb biases from their training data, leading to predictions driven by statistical regularities rather than semantic relevance. We investigate the impact of these biases on answer choice preferences in the Massive Multi-Task Language Understanding (MMLU) task. Our findings reveal that differences in learned regularities across answer options are predictive of model preferences and mirror human test-taking strategies. To address this issue, we introduce two novel methods: Counterfactual Prompting with Chain of Thought (CoT) and Counterfactual Prompting with Agnostically Primed CoT (APriCoT). We demonstrate that while Counterfactual Prompting with CoT alone is insufficient to mitigate bias, our novel Primed Counterfactual Prompting with CoT approach effectively reduces the influence of base-rate probabilities while improving overall accuracy. Our results suggest that mitigating bias requires a "System-2" like process and that CoT reasoning is susceptible to confirmation bias under some prompting methodologies. Our contributions offer practical solutions for developing more robust and fair language models.

Recent experiments reveal that 6- to 12-month-old infants can learn probabilities and reason with them. In this work, we present a novel computational system called Neural Probability Learner and Sampler (NPLS) that learns and reasons with probabilities, providing a computationally sufficient mechanism to explain infant probabilistic learning and inference. In 24 computer simulations, NPLS simulations show how probability distributions can emerge naturally from neural-network learning of event sequences, providing a novel explanation of infant probabilistic learning and reasoning. Three mathematical proofs show how and why NPLS simulates the infant results so accurately. The results are situated in relation to seven other active research lines. This work provides an effective way to integrate Bayesian and neural-network approaches to cognition.

This paper introduces MedMCQA, a new large-scale, Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) dataset designed to address real-world medical entrance exam questions. More than 194k high-quality AIIMS \& NEET PG entrance exam MCQs covering 2.4k healthcare topics and 21 medical subjects are collected with an average token length of 12.77 and high topical diversity. Each sample contains a question, correct answer(s), and other options which requires a deeper language understanding as it tests the 10+ reasoning abilities of a model across a wide range of medical subjects \& topics. A detailed explanation of the solution, along with the above information, is provided in this study.

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

Although large language models (LLMs) are capable of performing various tasks, they still suffer from producing plausible but incorrect responses. To improve the reliability of LLMs, recent research has focused on uncertainty quantification to predict whether a response is correct or not. However, most uncertainty quantification methods have been evaluated on questions requiring a single clear answer, ignoring the existence of data uncertainty that arises from irreducible randomness. Instead, these methods only consider model uncertainty, which arises from a lack of knowledge. In this paper, we investigate previous uncertainty quantification methods under the presence of data uncertainty. Our contributions are two-fold: 1) proposing a new Multi-Answer Question Answering dataset, MAQA, consisting of world knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and commonsense reasoning tasks to evaluate uncertainty quantification regarding data uncertainty, and 2) assessing 5 uncertainty quantification methods of diverse white- and black-box LLMs. Our findings show that entropy and consistency-based methods estimate the model uncertainty well even under data uncertainty, while other methods for white- and black-box LLMs struggle depending on the tasks. Additionally, methods designed for white-box LLMs suffer from overconfidence in reasoning tasks compared to simple knowledge queries. We believe our observations will pave the way for future work on uncertainty quantification in realistic setting.

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks. Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth? Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty. In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products. A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks. We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks. We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated. Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores. In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty. This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned LLMs to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers. A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models. These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as "uncertain evidence." We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We consider a recently-proposed method "distributional evidence" as well as revisit two older methods: Jeffrey's rule and virtual evidence. We devise guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency. To showcase the impact of different interpretations of the same uncertain evidence, we carry out experiments in which one interpretation is defined as "correct." We then compare inference results from each different interpretation illustrating the importance of careful consideration of uncertain evidence.

We show that a GPT-3 model can learn to express uncertainty about its own answers in natural language -- without use of model logits. When given a question, the model generates both an answer and a level of confidence (e.g. "90% confidence" or "high confidence"). These levels map to probabilities that are well calibrated. The model also remains moderately calibrated under distribution shift, and is sensitive to uncertainty in its own answers, rather than imitating human examples. To our knowledge, this is the first time a model has been shown to express calibrated uncertainty about its own answers in natural language. For testing calibration, we introduce the CalibratedMath suite of tasks. We compare the calibration of uncertainty expressed in words ("verbalized probability") to uncertainty extracted from model logits. Both kinds of uncertainty are capable of generalizing calibration under distribution shift. We also provide evidence that GPT-3's ability to generalize calibration depends on pre-trained latent representations that correlate with epistemic uncertainty over its answers.

Given the challenge of automatically evaluating free-form outputs from large language models (LLMs), an increasingly common solution is to use LLMs themselves as the judging mechanism, without any gold-standard scores. Implicitly, this practice accounts for only sampling variability (aleatoric uncertainty) and ignores uncertainty about judge quality (epistemic uncertainty). While this is justified if judges are perfectly accurate, it is unclear when such an approach is theoretically valid and practically robust. We study these questions for the task of ranking LLM candidates from a novel geometric perspective: for M-level scoring systems, both LLM judges and candidates can be represented as points on an (M-1)-dimensional probability simplex, where geometric concepts (e.g., triangle areas) correspond to key ranking concepts. This perspective yields intuitive theoretical conditions and visual proofs for when rankings are identifiable; for instance, we provide a formal basis for the ``folk wisdom'' that LLM judges are more effective for two-level scoring (M=2) than multi-level scoring (M>2). Leveraging the simplex, we design geometric Bayesian priors that encode epistemic uncertainty about judge quality and vary the priors to conduct sensitivity analyses. Experiments on LLM benchmarks show that rankings based solely on LLM judges are robust in many but not all datasets, underscoring both their widespread success and the need for caution. Our Bayesian method achieves substantially higher coverage rates than existing procedures, highlighting the importance of modeling epistemic uncertainty.

Commonly used evaluation measures including Recall, Precision, F-Measure and Rand Accuracy are biased and should not be used without clear understanding of the biases, and corresponding identification of chance or base case levels of the statistic. Using these measures a system that performs worse in the objective sense of Informedness, can appear to perform better under any of these commonly used measures. We discuss several concepts and measures that reflect the probability that prediction is informed versus chance. Informedness and introduce Markedness as a dual measure for the probability that prediction is marked versus chance. Finally we demonstrate elegant connections between the concepts of Informedness, Markedness, Correlation and Significance as well as their intuitive relationships with Recall and Precision, and outline the extension from the dichotomous case to the general multi-class case.

Machine learning models are often used to inform real world risk assessment tasks: predicting consumer default risk, predicting whether a person suffers from a serious illness, or predicting a person's risk to appear in court. Given multiple models that perform almost equally well for a prediction task, to what extent do predictions vary across these models? If predictions are relatively consistent for similar models, then the standard approach of choosing the model that optimizes a penalized loss suffices. But what if predictions vary significantly for similar models? In machine learning, this is referred to as predictive multiplicity i.e. the prevalence of conflicting predictions assigned by near-optimal competing models. In this paper, we present a framework for measuring predictive multiplicity in probabilistic classification (predicting the probability of a positive outcome). We introduce measures that capture the variation in risk estimates over the set of competing models, and develop optimization-based methods to compute these measures efficiently and reliably for convex empirical risk minimization problems. We demonstrate the incidence and prevalence of predictive multiplicity in real-world tasks. Further, we provide insight into how predictive multiplicity arises by analyzing the relationship between predictive multiplicity and data set characteristics (outliers, separability, and majority-minority structure). Our results emphasize the need to report predictive multiplicity more widely.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) are increasingly applied to scientific research, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably understand and reason over the multimodal complexity of papers. A central challenge lies in detecting and resolving inconsistencies across text, figures, tables, and equations, issues that are often subtle, domain-specific, and ultimately undermine clarity, reproducibility, and trust. Existing benchmarks overlook this issue, either isolating single modalities or relying on synthetic errors that fail to capture real-world complexity. We introduce PRISMM-Bench (Peer-Review-sourced Inconsistency Set for Multimodal Models), the first benchmark grounded in real reviewer-flagged inconsistencies in scientific papers. Through a multi-stage pipeline of review mining, LLM-assisted filtering and human verification, we curate 262 inconsistencies from 242 papers. Based on this set, we design three tasks, namely inconsistency identification, remedy and pair matching, which assess a model's capacity to detect, correct, and reason over inconsistencies across different modalities. Furthermore, to address the notorious problem of choice-only shortcuts in multiple-choice evaluation, where models exploit answer patterns without truly understanding the question, we further introduce structured JSON-based answer representations that minimize linguistic biases by reducing reliance on superficial stylistic cues. We benchmark 21 leading LMMs, including large open-weight models (GLM-4.5V 106B, InternVL3 78B) and proprietary models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5 with high reasoning). Results reveal strikingly low performance (26.1-54.2%), underscoring the challenge of multimodal scientific reasoning and motivating progress towards trustworthy scientific assistants.

Based on powerful Large Language Models (LLMs), recent generative Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have gained prominence as a pivotal research area, exhibiting remarkable capability for both comprehension and generation. In this work, we address the evaluation of generative comprehension in MLLMs as a preliminary step towards a comprehensive assessment of generative models, by introducing a benchmark named SEED-Bench. SEED-Bench consists of 19K multiple choice questions with accurate human annotations (x 6 larger than existing benchmarks), which spans 12 evaluation dimensions including the comprehension of both the image and video modality. We develop an advanced pipeline for generating multiple-choice questions that target specific evaluation dimensions, integrating both automatic filtering and manual verification processes. Multiple-choice questions with groundtruth options derived from human annotation enables an objective and efficient assessment of model performance, eliminating the need for human or GPT intervention during evaluation. We further evaluate the performance of 18 models across all 12 dimensions, covering both the spatial and temporal understanding. By revealing the limitations of existing MLLMs through evaluation results, we aim for SEED-Bench to provide insights for motivating future research. We will launch and consistently maintain a leaderboard to provide a platform for the community to assess and investigate model capability.

Decision APIs that return a probability for each option are routinely used as if those probabilities were properties of the options themselves. That reading is valid only if the model satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA): adding an option that is neither the right answer nor its strongest rival should leave the odds between those two unchanged. We test this in a pre-registered study of jev-1.13.0, a hosted decision model, using 299,463 calls on intent classification (BANKING77, CLINC150) and topic classification (AG News). Every added option moves the log-odds between the gold label and the strongest wrong label: the root-mean-square systematic shift is 0.20-0.52 nats, 1.2 to 3 times the run-to-run variation, even when the added option takes at most 0.1% of the probability mass. The shifts are directional. An option similar to the wrong answer draws probability from it (+0.10 nats toward the gold label). A paraphrase of the wrong answer produces an intermediate pattern: the gold label's probability is almost conserved, but the paraphrase receives only about a third of the wrong answer's share rather than the half that strict substitution implies. The distortion grows steadily with the logarithm of the number of options, reaching about 1 nat at 255 options, and off-domain padding pushes the odds against the gold label. In contrast, questions packed into one call do not interact (bias < 0.001). Scoring each option with an independent yes/no question removes the option-set dependence but picks the right answer 8.7 points less often. Jev sits between two local baselines, an option-independent scorer and a prompt readout. Its probabilities are best read as relative to the option list they were computed over.

Accurately quantifying a large language model's (LLM) predictive uncertainty is crucial for judging the reliability of its answers. While most existing research focuses on short, directly answerable questions with closed-form outputs (e.g., multiple-choice), involving intermediate reasoning steps in LLM responses is increasingly important. This added complexity complicates uncertainty quantification (UQ) because the probabilities assigned to answer tokens are conditioned on a vast space of preceding reasoning tokens. Direct marginalization is infeasible, and the dependency inflates probability estimates, causing overconfidence in UQ. To address this, we propose UQAC, an efficient method that narrows the reasoning space to a tractable size for marginalization. UQAC iteratively constructs an "attention chain" of tokens deemed "semantically crucial" to the final answer via a backtracking procedure. Starting from the answer tokens, it uses attention weights to identify the most influential predecessors, then iterates this process until reaching the input tokens. Similarity filtering and probability thresholding further refine the resulting chain, allowing us to approximate the marginal probabilities of the answer tokens, which serve as the LLM's confidence. We validate UQAC on multiple reasoning benchmarks with advanced open-source LLMs, demonstrating that it consistently delivers reliable UQ estimates with high computational efficiency.

A new generation of AI models generates step-by-step reasoning text before producing an answer. This text appears to offer a human-readable window into their computation process, and is increasingly relied upon for transparency and interpretability. However, it is unclear whether human understanding of this text matches the model's actual computational process. In this paper, we investigate a necessary condition for correspondence: the ability of humans to identify which steps in a reasoning text causally influence later steps. We evaluated humans on this ability by composing questions based on counterfactual measurements and found a significant discrepancy: participant accuracy was only 29.3%, barely above chance (25%), and remained low (42%) even when evaluating the majority vote on questions with high agreement. Our results reveal a fundamental gap between how humans interpret reasoning texts and how models use it, challenging its utility as a simple interpretability tool. We argue that reasoning texts should be treated as an artifact to be investigated, not taken at face value, and that understanding the non-human ways these models use language is a critical research direction.

We introduce a multi-stage prompting approach (MSP) for the generation of multiple choice questions (MCQs), harnessing the capabilities of GPT models such as text-davinci-003 and GPT-4, renowned for their excellence across various NLP tasks. Our approach incorporates the innovative concept of chain-of-thought prompting, a progressive technique in which the GPT model is provided with a series of interconnected cues to guide the MCQ generation process. Automated evaluations consistently demonstrate the superiority of our proposed MSP method over the traditional single-stage prompting (SSP) baseline, resulting in the production of high-quality distractors. Furthermore, the one-shot MSP technique enhances automatic evaluation results, contributing to improved distractor generation in multiple languages, including English, German, Bengali, and Hindi. In human evaluations, questions generated using our approach exhibit superior levels of grammaticality, answerability, and difficulty, highlighting its efficacy in various languages.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) tasks using *first-token probability* (FTP), which selects the answer option whose initial token has the highest likelihood. While efficient, FTP can be fragile: models may assign high probability to unrelated tokens (*misalignment*) or use a valid token merely as part of a generic preamble rather than as a clear answer choice (*misinterpretation*), undermining the reliability of symbolic evaluation. We propose a simple solution: the *prefilling attack*, a structured natural-language prefix (e.g., "*The correct option is:*") prepended to the model output. Originally explored in AI safety, we repurpose prefilling to steer the model to respond with a clean, valid option, without modifying its parameters. Empirically, the FTP with prefilling strategy substantially improves accuracy, calibration, and output consistency across a broad set of LLMs and MCQA benchmarks. It outperforms standard FTP and often matches the performance of open-ended generation approaches that require full decoding and external classifiers, while being significantly more efficient. Our findings suggest that prefilling is a simple, robust, and low-cost method to enhance the reliability of FTP-based evaluation in multiple-choice settings.

Multi-modal large language models(MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress and demonstrated powerful knowledge comprehension and reasoning abilities. However, the mastery of domain-specific knowledge, which is essential for evaluating the intelligence of MLLMs, continues to be a challenge. Current multi-modal benchmarks for domain-specific knowledge concentrate on multiple-choice questions and are predominantly available in English, which imposes limitations on the comprehensiveness of the evaluation. To this end, we introduce CMMU, a novel benchmark for multi-modal and multi-type question understanding and reasoning in Chinese. CMMU consists of 3,603 questions in 7 subjects, covering knowledge from primary to high school. The questions can be categorized into 3 types: multiple-choice, multiple-response, and fill-in-the-blank, bringing greater challenges to MLLMs. In addition, we propose a rigorous evaluation strategy called ShiftCheck for assessing multiple-choice questions. The strategy aims to reduce position bias, minimize the influence of randomness on correctness, and perform a quantitative analysis of position bias. We evaluate seven open-source MLLMs along with GPT4-V, Gemini-Pro, and Qwen-VL-Plus. The results demonstrate that CMMU poses a significant challenge to the recent MLLMs.

Suppose Alice trains an open-weight language model and Bob uses a blackbox derivative of Alice's model to produce text. Can Alice prove that Bob is using her model, either by querying Bob's derivative model (query setting) or from the text alone (observational setting)? We formulate this question as an independence testing problem--in which the null hypothesis is that Bob's model or text is independent of Alice's randomized training run--and investigate it through the lens of palimpsestic memorization in language models: models are more likely to memorize data seen later in training, so we can test whether Bob is using Alice's model using test statistics that capture correlation between Bob's model or text and the ordering of training examples in Alice's training run. If Alice has randomly shuffled her training data, then any significant correlation amounts to exactly quantifiable statistical evidence against the null hypothesis, regardless of the composition of Alice's training data. In the query setting, we directly estimate (via prompting) the likelihood Bob's model gives to Alice's training examples and order; we correlate the likelihoods of over 40 fine-tunes of various Pythia and OLMo base models ranging from 1B to 12B parameters with the base model's training data order, achieving a p-value on the order of at most 1e-8 in all but six cases. In the observational setting, we try two approaches based on estimating 1) the likelihood of Bob's text overlapping with spans of Alice's training examples and 2) the likelihood of Bob's text with respect to different versions of Alice's model we obtain by repeating the last phase (e.g., 1%) of her training run on reshuffled data. The second approach can reliably distinguish Bob's text from as little as a few hundred tokens; the first does not involve any retraining but requires many more tokens (several hundred thousand) to achieve high power.

Cloze testing is a common method for measuring the behavior of large language models on a number of benchmark tasks. Using the MMLU dataset, we show that the base-rate probability (BRP) differences across answer tokens are significant and affect task performance ie. guess A if uncertain. We find that counterfactual prompting does sufficiently mitigate the BRP effect. The BRP effect is found to have a similar effect to test taking strategies employed by humans leading to the conflation of task performance and test-taking ability. We propose the Nvr-X-MMLU task, a variation of MMLU, which helps to disambiguate test-taking ability from task performance and reports the latter.

Consistently checking the statistical significance of experimental results is one of the mandatory methodological steps to address the so-called "reproducibility crisis" in deep reinforcement learning. In this tutorial paper, we explain how the number of random seeds relates to the probabilities of statistical errors. For both the t-test and the bootstrap confidence interval test, we recall theoretical guidelines to determine the number of random seeds one should use to provide a statistically significant comparison of the performance of two algorithms. Finally, we discuss the influence of deviations from the assumptions usually made by statistical tests. We show that they can lead to inaccurate evaluations of statistical errors and provide guidelines to counter these negative effects. We make our code available to perform the tests.

We propose a new test to measure a text model's multitask accuracy. The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. To attain high accuracy on this test, models must possess extensive world knowledge and problem solving ability. We find that while most recent models have near random-chance accuracy, the very largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. However, on every one of the 57 tasks, the best models still need substantial improvements before they can reach expert-level accuracy. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong. Worse, they still have near-random accuracy on some socially important subjects such as morality and law. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of a model's academic and professional understanding, our test can be used to analyze models across many tasks and to identify important shortcomings.

Probabilistic mental simulation is thought to play a key role in human reasoning, planning, and prediction, yet the demands of simulation in complex environments exceed realistic human capacity limits. A theory with growing evidence is that people simulate using simplified representations of the environment that abstract away from irrelevant details, but it is unclear how people determine these simplifications efficiently. Here, we present a "Just-in-Time" framework for simulation-based reasoning that demonstrates how such representations can be constructed online with minimal added computation. The model uses a tight interleaving of simulation, visual search, and representation modification, with the current simulation guiding where to look and visual search flagging objects that should be encoded for subsequent simulation. Despite only ever encoding a small subset of objects, the model makes high-utility predictions. We find strong empirical support for this account over alternative models in a grid-world planning task and a physical reasoning task across a range of behavioral measures. Together, these results offer a concrete algorithmic account of how people construct reduced representations to support efficient mental simulation.

Multimodal rerankers are usually dedicated models: a vision-language model (VLM) is trained on retrieval data to score the candidates of a query. Scoring options is not specific to reranking. System One decision models such as Jev map a state and a typed question to one probability per option without generating text, and general models can make such decisions with little or no training. Reranking is one such decision, with the query and its candidates as the state and the candidates as the options. We therefore argue that a general VLM can serve as a multimodal reranker through System One decisions, and that decision tuning can improve its reranking. We ask a VLM one choice question over the top 16 candidates of a first-stage retriever and rank the candidates by the probabilities of their labels, read from one forward pass. On MMEB-V2 image retrieval, this choice scores 5.4 to 7.3 hit@1 above a yes/no question per candidate, and the yes/no question falls below the first stage. With the choice, zero-shot Qwen3.8-27B beats the supervised Qwen3-VL-Reranker-2B on all three benchmarks and comes within 1.6 points of Reranker-8B on each. It matches Reranker-8B on MMEB-V2 visual documents (84.79 vs. 84.78 nDCG@5), at 1.1 to 1.5 times its latency. JEV-27B-VL, the same backbone tuned on text decisions only, improves page reranking by 0.6 to 1.1 points, with gains on most tasks (sign test, p <= 0.017), and leaves natural images unchanged. The zero-shot model is larger than the supervised rerankers and of a newer generation, so these comparisons are confounded; we discuss this and other alternative views, and the experiments that would test the position.

Best-of-n sampling improves the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) by generating multiple candidate solutions and selecting the one with the highest reward. The key challenge for reasoning tasks is designing a scoring function that can identify correct reasoning chains without access to ground-truth answers. We propose Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking (PiCSAR): a simple, training-free method that scores each candidate generation using the joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer. The joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer naturally decomposes into reasoning confidence and answer confidence. PiCSAR achieves substantial gains across diverse benchmarks (+10.18 on MATH500, +9.81 on AIME2025), outperforming baselines with at least 2x fewer samples in 16 out of 20 comparisons. Our analysis reveals that correct reasoning chains exhibit significantly higher reasoning and answer confidence, justifying the effectiveness of PiCSAR.

With the advancement of large language models (LLMs), their performance on multiple-choice question (MCQ) tasks has improved significantly. However, existing approaches face key limitations: answer choices are typically presented to LLMs without contextual grounding or explanation. This absence of context can lead to incomplete exploration of all possible answers, ultimately degrading the models' reasoning capabilities. To address these challenges, we introduce BiasPrompting, a novel inference framework that guides LLMs to generate and critically evaluate reasoning across all plausible answer options before reaching a final prediction. It consists of two components: first, a reasoning generation stage, where the model is prompted to produce supportive reasonings for each answer option, and then, a reasoning-guided agreement stage, where the generated reasonings are synthesized to select the most plausible answer. Through comprehensive evaluations, BiasPrompting demonstrates significant improvements in five widely used multiple-choice question answering benchmarks. Our experiments showcase that BiasPrompting enhances the reasoning capabilities of LLMs and provides a strong foundation for tackling complex and challenging questions, particularly in settings where existing methods underperform.

We introduce Metric-Fair Prompting, a fairness-aware prompting framework that guides large language models (LLMs) to make decisions under metric-fairness constraints. In the application of multiple-choice medical question answering, each {(question, option)} pair is treated as a binary instance with label +1 (correct) or -1 (incorrect). To promote {individual fairness}~--~treating similar instances similarly~--~we compute question similarity using NLP embeddings and solve items in joint pairs of similar questions rather than in isolation. The prompt enforces a global decision protocol: extract decisive clinical features, map each \((question, option)\) to a score f(x) that acts as confidence, and impose a Lipschitz-style constraint so that similar inputs receive similar scores and, hence, consistent outputs. Evaluated on the {MedQA (US)} benchmark, Metric-Fair Prompting is shown to improve performance over standard single-item prompting, demonstrating that fairness-guided, confidence-oriented reasoning can enhance LLM accuracy on high-stakes clinical multiple-choice questions.

Counterfactual explanations are attracting significant attention due to the flourishing applications of machine learning models in consequential domains. A counterfactual plan consists of multiple possibilities to modify a given instance so that the model's prediction will be altered. As the predictive model can be updated subject to the future arrival of new data, a counterfactual plan may become ineffective or infeasible with respect to the future values of the model parameters. In this work, we study the counterfactual plans under model uncertainty, in which the distribution of the model parameters is partially prescribed using only the first- and second-moment information. First, we propose an uncertainty quantification tool to compute the lower and upper bounds of the probability of validity for any given counterfactual plan. We then provide corrective methods to adjust the counterfactual plan to improve the validity measure. The numerical experiments validate our bounds and demonstrate that our correction increases the robustness of the counterfactual plans in different real-world datasets.

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) has been a popular format for evaluating and reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) of modern multimodal language models. Its constrained output format allows for simplified, deterministic automatic verification. However, we find that the options may leak exploitable signals, which makes the accuracy metrics unreliable for indicating real capabilities and encourages explicit or implicit answer guessing behaviors during RFT. We propose ReVeL (Rewrite and Verify by LLM), a framework that rewrites multiple-choice questions into open-form questions while keeping answers verifiable whenever possible. The framework categorizes questions according to different answer types, apply different rewriting and verification schemes, respectively. When applied for RFT, we converted 20k MCQA examples and use GRPO to finetune Qwen2.5-VL models. Models trained on ReVeL-OpenQA match MCQA accuracy on multiple-choice benchmarks and improve OpenQA accuracy by about six percentage points, indicating better data efficiency and more robust reward signals than MCQA-based training. When used for evaluation, ReVeL also reveals up to 20 percentage points of score inflation in MCQA benchmarks (relative to OpenQA), improves judging accuracy, and reduces both cost and latency. We will release code and data publicly.

Multiple-choice exam questions with "None of the above" (NA) options have been extensively studied in educational testing, in which existing research suggests that they better assess true knowledge. However, their impact on Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluation remains underexplored. Through systematic experiments with 28 LLMs on the MMLU benchmark, we examine how NA options affect model performance and confidence calibration. Our analysis reveals that NA options, when used as the correct answer, lead to a consistent 30-50\% performance drop across models regardless of scale--suggesting that LLMs lack the meta-cognitive ability to systematically evaluate and reject all given options when none are correct. This degradation shows strong domain dependence, with minimal impact on mathematical reasoning (14.6\% drop) but severe effects on tasks requiring uncertainty handling like business ethics (48.1\% drop). Our results highlight important implications for benchmark design and raise questions about LLMs' ability to handle uncertainty in real-world applications.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

Modeling plausible student misconceptions is critical for AI in education. In this work, we examine how large language models (LLMs) reason about misconceptions when generating multiple-choice distractors, a task that requires modeling incorrect yet plausible answers by coordinating solution knowledge, simulating student misconceptions, and evaluating plausibility. We introduce a taxonomy for analyzing the strategies used by state-of-the-art LLMs, examining their reasoning procedures and comparing them to established best practices in the learning sciences. Our structured analysis reveals a surprising alignment between their processes and best practices: the models typically solve the problem correctly first, then articulate and simulate multiple potential misconceptions, and finally select a set of distractors. An analysis of failure modes reveals that errors arise primarily from failures in recovering the correct solution and selecting among response candidates, rather than simulating errors or structuring the process. Consistent with these results, we find that providing the correct solution in the prompt improves alignment with human-authored distractors by 8%, highlighting the critical role of anchoring to the correct solution when generating plausible incorrect student reasoning. Overall, our analysis offers a structured and interpretable lens into LLMs' ability to model incorrect student reasoning and produce high-quality distractors.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in solving high-school mathematics, their ability to evaluate the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealMath-Eval, a rigorously annotated benchmark of 224 real-world exam responses from high schools. Our initial evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art LLM judges struggle significantly on this task, exhibiting a high Mean Squared Error (sim2.96) against expert human grading. To probe a plausible explanation, we contrast this performance with a control setting where the same judges evaluate synthetic LLM-generated solutions. We identify a stark ``Evaluation Gap'': judges are considerably more accurate and consistent on synthetic text (MSE sim1.17) but struggle to generalize to authentic student reasoning. Through semantic embedding analysis, we find that synthetic errors suffer from a ``structural collapse'' into predictable, low-dimensional linear subspaces, whereas human errors form a more diverse error space. Furthermore, generative probability probes suggest that human reasoning involves significantly higher information-theoretic surprisal, indicating that student reasoning transitions are more out-of-distribution for current models. Finally, we find that surface-level style transfer fails to close this gap. Our findings suggest that current LLM evaluation pipelines relying heavily on synthetic data may not adequately capture the diversity of authentic student mathematical reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited an impressive capability to perform reasoning tasks, especially if they are encouraged to generate a sequence of intermediate steps. Reasoning performance can be improved by suitably combining multiple LLM responses, generated either in parallel in a single query, or via sequential interactions with LLMs throughout the reasoning process. Existing strategies for combination, such as self-consistency and progressive-hint-prompting, make inefficient usage of the LLM responses. We present Hint Marginalization, a novel and principled algorithmic framework to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Our approach can be viewed as an iterative sampling strategy for forming a Monte Carlo approximation of an underlying distribution of answers, with the goal of identifying the mode the most likely answer. Empirical evaluation on several benchmark datasets for arithmetic reasoning demonstrates the superiority of the proposed approach.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Demographic synthetic survey panels are often validated by matching aggregate answers to published surveys. We test what that certificate establishes across six multiselect batteries from four survey organisations in three countries. The headline analysis is restricted to three instruments whose synthetic cohort and human target share the stated population frame; three other batteries remain sensitivity analyses. The response contract dominates measured fidelity. In the aligned instruments, committed sets leave 66 of 128 model-battery option slots empty in panels of up to 500 respondents, versus 0 of 128 under per-option probability elicitation. Across eight uncapped model-instrument comparisons, probabilities reduce option-marginal MAE by 4.53 to 7.30 points. The capped instrument reverses on two models until the vectors are projected onto its stated maximum. These are measurement effects: human targets are realised check-all responses, whereas the vectors are latent inclusion propensities. Published marginal agreement also fails to discriminate respondent simulation from direct population estimation. On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons. Constraint-aware probability vectors average 5.34 and beat the query on four of nine, so the baseline challenges the validation criterion rather than proving direct estimation uniformly best. On three unpublished demographic cells, neither approach beats reciting the national distribution. Population-marginal agreement is therefore evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.

Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing-where LLMs construct and explain answers-better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA-robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations-showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations.

It is typically understood that the training of modern neural networks is a process of fitting the probability distribution of desired output. However, recent paradoxical observations in a number of language generation tasks let one wonder if this canonical probability-based explanation can really account for the empirical success of deep learning. To resolve this issue, we propose an alternative utility-based explanation to the standard supervised learning procedure in deep learning. The basic idea is to interpret the learned neural network not as a probability model but as an ordinal utility function that encodes the preference revealed in training data. In this perspective, training of the neural network corresponds to a utility learning process. Specifically, we show that for all neural networks with softmax outputs, the SGD learning dynamic of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) can be seen as an iteration process that optimizes the neural network toward an optimal utility function. This utility-based interpretation can explain several otherwise-paradoxical observations about the neural networks thus trained. Moreover, our utility-based theory also entails an equation that can transform the learned utility values back to a new kind of probability estimation with which probability-compatible decision rules enjoy dramatic (double-digits) performance improvements. These evidences collectively reveal a phenomenon of utility-probability duality in terms of what modern neural networks are (truly) modeling: We thought they are one thing (probabilities), until the unexplainable showed up; changing mindset and treating them as another thing (utility values) largely reconcile the theory, despite remaining subtleties regarding its original (probabilistic) identity.

Rigorous statistical evaluations of large language models (LLMs), including valid error bars and significance testing, are essential for meaningful and reliable performance assessment. Currently, when such statistical measures are reported, they typically rely on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In this position paper, we argue that while CLT-based methods for uncertainty quantification are appropriate when benchmarks consist of thousands of examples, they fail to provide adequate uncertainty estimates for LLM evaluations that rely on smaller, highly specialized benchmarks. In these small-data settings, we demonstrate that CLT-based methods perform very poorly, usually dramatically underestimating uncertainty (i.e. producing error bars that are too small). We give recommendations for alternative frequentist and Bayesian methods that are both easy to implement and more appropriate in these increasingly common scenarios. We provide a simple Python library for these Bayesian methods at https://github.com/sambowyer/bayes_evals .

As large language models (LLM) evolve in their capabilities, various recent studies have tried to quantify their behavior using psychological tools created to study human behavior. One such example is the measurement of "personality" of LLMs using self-assessment personality tests developed to measure human personality. Yet almost none of these works verify the applicability of these tests on LLMs. In this paper, we analyze the reliability of LLM personality scores obtained from self-assessment personality tests using two simple experiments. We first introduce the property of prompt sensitivity, where three semantically equivalent prompts representing three intuitive ways of administering self-assessment tests on LLMs are used to measure the personality of the same LLM. We find that all three prompts lead to very different personality scores, a difference that is statistically significant for all traits in a large majority of scenarios. We then introduce the property of option-order symmetry for personality measurement of LLMs. Since most of the self-assessment tests exist in the form of multiple choice question (MCQ) questions, we argue that the scores should also be robust to not just the prompt template but also the order in which the options are presented. This test unsurprisingly reveals that the self-assessment test scores are not robust to the order of the options. These simple tests, done on ChatGPT and three Llama2 models of different sizes, show that self-assessment personality tests created for humans are unreliable measures of personality in LLMs.

We consider the problem of Recognizing Textual Entailment within an Information Retrieval context, where we must simultaneously determine the relevancy as well as degree of entailment for individual pieces of evidence to determine a yes/no answer to a binary natural language question. We compare several variants of neural networks for sentence embeddings in a setting of decision-making based on evidence of varying relevance. We propose a basic model to integrate evidence for entailment, show that joint training of the sentence embeddings to model relevance and entailment is feasible even with no explicit per-evidence supervision, and show the importance of evaluating strong baselines. We also demonstrate the benefit of carrying over text comprehension model trained on an unrelated task for our small datasets. Our research is motivated primarily by a new open dataset we introduce, consisting of binary questions and news-based evidence snippets. We also apply the proposed relevance-entailment model on a similar task of ranking multiple-choice test answers, evaluating it on a preliminary dataset of school test questions as well as the standard MCTest dataset, where we improve the neural model state-of-art.

Probabilistic models of language understanding are valuable tools for investigating human language use. However, they need to be hand-designed for a particular domain. In contrast, large language models (LLMs) are trained on text that spans a wide array of domains, but they lack the structure and interpretability of probabilistic models. In this paper, we use chain-of-thought prompts to introduce structures from probabilistic models into LLMs. We explore this approach in the case of metaphor understanding. Our chain-of-thought prompts lead language models to infer latent variables and reason about their relationships in order to choose appropriate paraphrases for metaphors. The latent variables and relationships chosen are informed by theories of metaphor understanding from cognitive psychology. We apply these prompts to the two largest versions of GPT-3 and show that they can improve performance in a paraphrase selection task.

Uncertainty estimation is crucial for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in high-stakes domains where incorrect answers result in significant consequences. Numerous approaches consider this problem, while focusing on a specific type of uncertainty, ignoring others. We investigate what estimates, specifically token-wise entropy and model-as-judge (MASJ), would work for multiple-choice question-answering tasks for different question topics. Our experiments consider three LLMs: Phi-4, Mistral, and Qwen of different sizes from 1.5B to 72B and 14 topics. While MASJ performs similarly to a random error predictor, the response entropy predicts model error in knowledge-dependent domains and serves as an effective indicator of question difficulty: for biology ROC AUC is 0.73. This correlation vanishes for the reasoning-dependent domain: for math questions ROC-AUC is 0.55. More principally, we found out that the entropy measure required a reasoning amount. Thus, data-uncertainty related entropy should be integrated within uncertainty estimates frameworks, while MASJ requires refinement. Moreover, existing MMLU-Pro samples are biased, and should balance required amount of reasoning for different subdomains to provide a more fair assessment of LLMs performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention for their impressive general-purpose capabilities. For applications requiring intricate domain knowledge, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has shown a distinct advantage in incorporating domain-specific information into LLMs. However, existing RAG research has not fully addressed the challenges of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) in telecommunications, particularly in terms of retrieval quality and mitigating hallucinations. To tackle these challenges, we propose a novel first token probability guided RAG framework. This framework leverages confidence scores to optimize key hyperparameters, such as chunk number and chunk window size, while dynamically adjusting the context. Our method starts by retrieving the most relevant chunks and generates a single token as the potential answer. The probabilities of all options are then normalized to serve as confidence scores, which guide the dynamic adjustment of the context. By iteratively optimizing the hyperparameters based on these confidence scores, we can continuously improve RAG performance. We conducted experiments to validate the effectiveness of our framework, demonstrating its potential to enhance accuracy in domain-specific MCQA tasks.

Despite their sophisticated capabilities, large language models (LLMs) encounter a major hurdle in effective assessment. This paper first revisits the prevalent evaluation method-multiple choice question answering (MCQA), which allows for straightforward accuracy measurement. Through a comprehensive evaluation of 24 models across 11 benchmarks, we highlight several potential drawbacks of MCQA, for instance, the inconsistency between the MCQA evaluation and the generation of open-ended responses in practical scenarios. In response, we introduce an RWQ-Elo rating system, engaging 24 LLMs such as GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Google-Gemini-Pro and LLaMA-1/-2, in a two-player competitive format, with GPT-4 serving as the judge. Each LLM receives an Elo rating thereafter. This system is designed to mirror real-world usage, and for this purpose, we have compiled a new benchmark called ``Real-world questions'' (RWQ), comprising 20,772 authentic user inquiries. Additionally, we thoroughly analyze the characteristics of our system and compare it with prior leaderboards like AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Our analysis reveals the stability of our RWQ-Elo system, the feasibility of registering new models, and its potential to reshape LLM leaderboards.

Combining the answers a large language model (LLM) samples for a question into one decision is a test-time information fusion problem, usually solved by majority voting. Voting is unreliable on difficult questions, where the sampled answers share correlated errors, so the wrong answer can win and drawing more samples makes the decision worse. Selecting a candidate by reading a correctness signal from the model's hidden states is a promising alternative, but its accuracy varies across models and tasks, and no measure indicates when it can be trusted. In this paper, we propose CASE (Correctness-Axis SElection), a dynamic selection combiner that trains a linear gate on the answer-token hidden state and selects the highest-scoring candidate. Its main contribution is decodability, a leakage-free measure of how well the gate ranks a question's correct candidates above its incorrect ones, which predicts whether hidden-state selection will outperform voting. A conventional probe appears accurate only because of question-identity leakage, which vanishes under question-grouped evaluation. On held-out data, decodability predicts the accuracy gain of selection over voting with a Pearson correlation r=0.75 and a decision threshold near AUC=0.60. Across general and medical LLMs, CASE improves over voting by up to 19 points on medium-difficulty questions and 16.8 points on hard questions. Decodability depends on the aligned knowledge a model must recall, not on its scale, and its prediction transfers to an unseen scientific domain within 3.8 points. It thus provides a practical criterion, measurable in advance for a given model and task, for choosing between learned selection and majority voting.

Common evaluation paradigms for language models focus on scoring single responses through accuracy metrics or proper scoring rules, failing to capture the full richness of a model's belief state. Recent work illustrates that language models hallucinate in-part because they are optimised to be good test-takers under binary scoring schemes that reward any answer over abstention. While this insight naturally leads to penalty-based approaches, they ignore crucial distinctions in how models distribute uncertainty, for example between hedging toward incorrect answers versus hedging toward "I don't know" responses. A novel evaluation metric, the Distributional Correctness Score (DCS), is introduced to solve this problem, i.e., of not considering a model's entire probability distribution over answer choices. DCS naturally distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range. Through theoretical analysis and illustrative examples, DCS is demonstrated to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing. Adapting 12 existing evaluation benchmarks to DCS's variants and measuring performance on six language models reveals that for half of the tested benchmarks scores are negative across all tested models, indicating significant tendencies towards hallucination.

Cognitive textual and visual reasoning tasks, such as puzzles, series, and analogies, demand the ability to quickly reason, decipher, and evaluate patterns both textually and spatially. While LLMs and VLMs, through extensive training on large amounts of human-curated data, have attained a high level of pseudo-human intelligence in some common sense reasoning tasks, they still struggle with more complex reasoning tasks that require cognitive understanding. In this work, we introduce a new dataset, NTSEBench, designed to evaluate the cognitive multi-modal reasoning and problem-solving skills of large models. The dataset comprises 2,728 multiple-choice questions comprising of a total of 4,642 images across 26 categories sampled from the NTSE examination conducted nationwide in India, featuring both visual and textual general aptitude questions that do not rely on rote learning. We establish baselines on the dataset using state-of-the-art LLMs and VLMs. To facilitate a comparison between open source and propriety models, we propose four distinct modeling strategies to handle different modalities (text and images) in the dataset instances.

Pass@k is widely used to report the reasoning performance of LLMs, but it often produces unstable and potentially misleading rankings, especially when the number of trials (samples) is limited and computational resources are constrained. We present a principled Bayesian evaluation framework that replaces Pass@k and average accuracy over N trials (avg@N) with posterior estimates of a model's underlying success probability and credible intervals, yielding stable rankings and a transparent decision rule for differences. Evaluation outcomes are modeled as categorical (not just 0/1) with a Dirichlet prior, giving closed-form expressions for the posterior mean and uncertainty of any weighted rubric and enabling the use of prior evidence when appropriate. Theoretically, under a uniform prior, the Bayesian posterior mean is order-equivalent to average accuracy (Pass@1), explaining its empirical robustness while adding principled uncertainty. Empirically, in simulations with known ground-truth success rates and on AIME'24/'25, HMMT'25, and BrUMO'25, the posterior-based procedure achieves faster convergence and greater rank stability than Pass@k and recent variants, enabling reliable comparisons at far smaller sample counts. The framework clarifies when observed gaps are statistically meaningful (non-overlapping credible intervals) versus noise, and it naturally extends to graded, rubric-based evaluations. Together, these results recommend replacing Pass@k for LLM evaluation and ranking with a posterior-based, compute-efficient protocol that unifies binary and non-binary evaluation while making uncertainty explicit. Source code is available at https://github.com/mohsenhariri/scorio

In the field of natural language processing (NLP), Large Language Models (LLMs) have precipitated a paradigm shift, markedly enhancing performance in natural language generation tasks. Despite these advancements, the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs remains an inevitable challenge for the community. Recently, the utilization of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for LLMs has gained considerable traction. This study first investigates the limitations of MCQA as an evaluation method for LLMs and then analyzes the fundamental reason for the limitations of MCQA, that while LLMs may select the correct answers, it is possible that they also recognize other wrong options as correct. Finally, we propose a dataset augmenting method for Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs), MCQA+, that can more accurately reflect the performance of the model, which underscores the need for more robust evaluation mechanisms in assessing the performance of LLMs.

We provide here a dataset for tasks related to natural language understanding and natural language inference. The dataset contains logical puzzles in natural language from three domains: comparing puzzles, knighs and knaves, and zebra puzzles. Each puzzle is associated with the entire set of atomic questions that can be generated based on the relations and individuals occurring in the text. For each question we provide the correct answer: entailment, contradiction or ambiguity. The answer's correctness is verified against theorem provers. Good puzzles have two properties: (i) each piece of information is necessary and (ii) no unnecessary information is provided. These properties make puzzles interesting candidates for machine comprehension tasks.

We introduce UnpredictaBench, an evaluation that tests the ability of large language models (LLMs) to capture true underlying distributions. As LLMs are increasingly used as substitutes for other entities (e.g., for humans in economic simulations), the tendency of many models to collapse towards a single plausible answer means a failure to capture the unpredictability of real systems. Recent work on improving output diversity is insufficient for this setting: simulation requires samples that are calibrated to a target distribution, not merely varied outputs. UnpredictaBench isolates a simplified but fundamental version of this problem: sampling outcomes from individual target distributions, including canonical statistical distributions, distributions induced by stochastic programs, and natural-language scenarios that describe random processes. We introduce 448 such problems together with KS@N, a general-purpose evaluation metric that quantifies how well a model outputs approximate black-box target distributions via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test. This is the rate at which we fail to reject model samples of size N against ground-truth samples, with larger N indicating greater difficulty. Tested across open and proprietary models, we find a large spread in distributional capabilities. For instance, when models generate samples of size 100 (KS@100, our standard metric), scores range from near 0 to over 20%. No model is able to achieve over 40% at KS@100, showing significant headroom in distributional sampling as a capability. Although adding reasoning can somewhat increase scores, we find no immediate solution for this issue. UnpredictaBench shows that even simple distributional simulation remains challenging, making it a necessary first step toward using LLMs as stand-ins for complex systems.

Evaluating model uncertainty on real-world data is challenging because each instance provides only a single observed label, leaving true conditional class probabilities unknown. To address this, we introduce ProbabilityBench, a benchmark that provides exact, instance-level class probabilities across three simulated text-based domains: peer review, covert information transfer, and credit risk. By explicitly defining the full data-generating process for each environment, we analytically compute both exact class probabilities and Bayes error. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical guarantee that rendering these cases into natural-language memos strictly preserves their underlying generative probabilities. This exactness enables direct measurement of reported probability quality via KL divergence. Across 16 evaluated models, most models on the observed cost-quality Pareto frontiers are decision models, including Jev and Perplexity Decider. Finally, ProbabilityBench serves as a meta-evaluation framework, leveraging known ground-truth values to benchmark the accuracy of standard calibration metrics and Bayes-error estimators themselves.