Daily Papers

Detecting hallucination risk before generation enables abstention, retrieval augmentation, and routing decisions without incurring the cost of decoding. While prior work has shown that such risk can be estimated from a model's internal representations, existing approaches treat this as binary classification over a single decoded output. We instead formulate it as a risk-estimation problem. Under this formulation, we introduce soft-target supervision based on the empirical answer error rate over stochastically sampled outputs - an estimator we prove to be the unique unbiased minimum-variance estimator of the model's per-prompt error probability under its sampling distribution. We further adapt attention probing to the pre-generation setting, enabling the detector to selectively aggregate hallucination-relevant prompt representations. Across three question-answering benchmarks and five models, attention probing outperforms linear probing on short-answer tasks. Replacing binary labels with soft-target supervision further and consistently improves detection quality.

AI answer engines increasingly mediate access to domain knowledge by generating responses and citing web sources. We introduce GEO-16, a 16 pillar auditing framework that converts on page quality signals into banded pillar scores and a normalized GEO score G that ranges from 0 to 1. Using 70 product intent prompts, we collected 1,702 citations across three engines (Brave Summary, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity) and audited 1,100 unique URLs. In our corpus, the engines differed in the GEO quality of the pages they cited, and pillars related to Metadata and Freshness, Semantic HTML, and Structured Data showed the strongest associations with citation. Logistic models with domain clustered standard errors indicate that overall page quality is a strong predictor of citation, and simple operating points (for example, G at least 0.70 combined with at least 12 pillar hits) align with substantially higher citation rates in our data. We report per engine contrasts, vertical effects, threshold analysis, and diagnostics, then translate findings into a practical playbook for publishers. The study is observational and focuses on English language B2B SaaS pages; we discuss limitations, threats to validity, and reproducibility considerations.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

Temporal question answering is an established method for evaluating temporal reasoning in large language models. Expected answers are often numeric (e.g., dates or durations), yet model responses are evaluated like regular text with exact match (EM), unable to distinguish small from large errors. In this investigative work, we frame temporal question answering as a numerical estimation task to assess the shortcomings of EM. We introduce TempAnswerQA, a benchmark distilled from Test of Time and TempTabQA, where all questions require a numerical, temporal answer, allowing us to evaluate models beyond EM. We use the forecasting metrics symmetric mean absolute percentage error (sMAPE) and mean absolute scaled error (MASE). With sMAPE, we find that error size and EM are decoupled. Models with low EM still have low sMAPE (both ~20%), and some models have high sMAPE despite high EM. Scaling errors by the deviation of the ground truth data with MASE reshuffles model rankings compared to EM, revealing gaps in models' understanding of temporal domain knowledge, especially when trained with synthetic data. Lastly, the models' most frequent error is to deviate by only pm1 from the ground truth. sMAPE and MASE, unlike EM, adequately weight these errors. Our findings underscore the need for specialised metrics for temporal QA tasks. Code and data are available on https://github.com/aauss/temporal-answer-qa.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

With Large Language Models (LLMs) being widely used across various tasks, detecting errors in their responses is increasingly crucial. However, little research has been conducted on error detection of LLM responses. Collecting error annotations on LLM responses is challenging due to the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, and thus previous research focuses on tasks of little practical value (e.g., word sorting) or limited error types (e.g., faithfulness in summarization). This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. ReaLMistake contains three challenging and meaningful tasks that introduce objectively assessable errors in four categories (reasoning correctness, instruction-following, context-faithfulness, and parameterized knowledge), eliciting naturally observed and diverse errors in responses of GPT-4 and Llama 2 70B annotated by experts. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 LLMs. Our findings show: 1) Top LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 3 detect errors made by LLMs at very low recall, and all LLM-based error detectors perform much worse than humans. 2) Explanations by LLM-based error detectors lack reliability. 3) LLMs-based error detection is sensitive to small changes in prompts but remains challenging to improve. 4) Popular approaches to improving LLMs, including self-consistency and majority vote, do not improve the error detection performance. Our benchmark and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/ReaLMistake.

TACRED (Zhang et al., 2017) is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE). But, even with recent advances in unsupervised pre-training and knowledge enhanced neural RE, models still show a high error rate. In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? And how do crowd annotations, dataset, and models contribute to this error rate? To answer these questions, we first validate the most challenging 5K examples in the development and test sets using trained annotators. We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled. On the relabeled test set the average F1 score of a large baseline model set improves from 62.1 to 70.1. After validation, we analyze misclassifications on the challenging instances, categorize them into linguistically motivated error groups, and verify the resulting error hypotheses on three state-of-the-art RE models. We show that two groups of ambiguous relations are responsible for most of the remaining errors and that models may adopt shallow heuristics on the dataset when entities are not masked.

Multi-model LLM systems such as routing, voting, cascades, fusion, and mixture-of-agents are used to beat single-model accuracy. We show that their gain is capped by a quantity the field rarely reports. For any policy whose output is one member model answer, accuracy cannot exceed one minus beta, where beta is the rate at which every model is wrong on the same query. In contrast, the usual diagnostic, average pairwise error correlation rho, cannot identify beta: error laws with identical marginals and pairwise correlations can have different all-wrong rates. A Clopper-Pearson bound on beta gives a finite-sample certificate on the largest gain any router, vote, or cascade could deliver before training a router. Across 67 models from 21 providers, a tetrachoric-calibrated single-factor model still underprices the all-wrong tail: on open-ended mathematics, observed beta is 0.052 versus 0.023 under the full 67-model Gaussian copula, about 2.5 times underpricing, with 90 percent CI 1.7 to 3.4 and k equals 17. The effect recurs on execution-graded code, where beta is 0.079. Re-asking the same GPQA-Diamond questions in free-response rather than multiple-choice form reopens the tail, with beta 0.127 and a five-judge panel with kappa 0.73 to 0.92, locating co-failure in answer format rather than subject. At matched quality, low-rho heterogeneous ensembles beat high-rho Self-MoA, but on checkable tasks in our pool, combining models rarely beats the single best model without a strong query-level routing signal. Gains come from models failing on different questions, not from adding more models.

While large language models (LLMs) perform well on table tasks, they still make data referencing errors (DREs), i.e., incorrectly citing or omitting table values, despite understanding the table structure. Beyond final-answer accuracy, DREs directly compromise the correctness and reliability of intermediate reasoning steps. Yet prior studies have only offered limited, small-scale analyses. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of tabular data referencing errors across different models and tasks. Our results show that DREs occur across all tested models (1.7B to 20B parameters). Furthermore, we demonstrate that incorporating data referencing as a critic significantly improves answer accuracy up to 12.0%, through critic-based filtering and rejection sampling. Finally, we trained a lightweight 4B-parameter critic model that achieves an average F1 score of 78.2% in detecting both in-distribution and out-of-distribution DREs, and effectively assists inference for larger models.

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

Comprehensive evaluations of language models (LM) during both development and deployment phases are necessary because these models possess numerous capabilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning, legal support, or medical diagnostic) as well as safety risks (e.g., racial bias, toxicity, or misinformation). The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of these LMs in practice. Currently, holistic evaluations are costly due to the large volume of benchmark questions, making frequent evaluations impractical. A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark. This approach, unfortunately, often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset. Item response theory (IRT) was designed to address this challenge, providing a reliable measurement by careful controlling for question difficulty. Unfortunately, question difficulty is expensive to estimate. Facing this challenge, we train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost. In addition, we leverage this difficulty predictor to further improve the evaluation efficiency through training a question generator given a difficulty level. This question generator is essential in adaptive testing, where, instead of using a random subset of the benchmark questions, informative questions are adaptively chosen based on the current estimation of LLM performance. Experiments on 22 common natural language benchmarks and 172 LMs show that this approach is more reliable and efficient compared to current common practice.

Standard accuracy benchmarks are designed to test how closely large language models (LLMs) approach correct answers, but are not suitable for testing whether LLMs stick with a correct answer when that answer is challenged by a plausible counter-argument. We introduce a controlled protocol for evaluating answer stability: after a model answers a multiple-choice question correctly, we challenge the model's answer with a coherent argument for an incorrect option and measure whether the model flips. The setup a) isolates argumentative content from overt social pressure and b) varies argument length, self-attribution, and cross-model source. Across seven frontier models and 57 MMLU subjects, flip rates range from 17.5% to 97.3%, revealing large differences in stability that are not captured by accuracy metrics alone. We find that self-attribution consistently increases flip rates (mean +7.1pp, up to +18.7pp). Also, pooling wrong-answer arguments across models and selecting the most effective one per question yields stronger adversarial challenges than relying on any single source model. We further construct MaxFlip, a curated challenge set that amplifies flips by up to +23.6pp over standard self-generated challenges. We release the protocol, challenge records, and MaxFlip to support stability evaluation alongside standard accuracy benchmarks. Materials are available at https://github.com/nafisenik/WhoFlips and https://hf.co/datasets/nafisehNik/WhoFlips.

We propose a benchmark to measure whether a language model is truthful in generating answers to questions. The benchmark comprises 817 questions that span 38 categories, including health, law, finance and politics. We crafted questions that some humans would answer falsely due to a false belief or misconception. To perform well, models must avoid generating false answers learned from imitating human texts. We tested GPT-3, GPT-Neo/J, GPT-2 and a T5-based model. The best model was truthful on 58% of questions, while human performance was 94%. Models generated many false answers that mimic popular misconceptions and have the potential to deceive humans. The largest models were generally the least truthful. This contrasts with other NLP tasks, where performance improves with model size. However, this result is expected if false answers are learned from the training distribution. We suggest that scaling up models alone is less promising for improving truthfulness than fine-tuning using training objectives other than imitation of text from the web.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have improved performance in multi-modal learning, raising the question of whether these models truly understand the content they process. Crucially, can VLMs detect when a reasoning process is wrong and identify its error type? To answer this, we present MMErroR, a multi-modal benchmark of 2,013 samples, each embedding a single coherent reasoning error. These samples span 24 subdomains across six top-level domains, ensuring broad coverage and taxonomic richness. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on answer correctness, MMErroR targets a process-level, error-centric evaluation that requires models to detect incorrect reasoning and classify the error type within both visual and linguistic contexts. We evaluate 20 advanced VLMs, even the best model (Gemini-3.0-Pro) classifies the error in only 66.47\% of cases, underscoring the challenge of identifying erroneous reasoning. Furthermore, the ability to accurately identify errors offers valuable insights into the capabilities of multi-modal reasoning models. Project Page: https://mmerror-benchmark.github.io

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.

Long-form question answering (LFQA) aims to provide thorough and in-depth answers to complex questions, enhancing comprehension. However, such detailed responses are prone to hallucinations and factual inconsistencies, challenging their faithful evaluation. This work introduces HaluQuestQA, the first hallucination dataset with localized error annotations for human-written and model-generated LFQA answers. HaluQuestQA comprises 698 QA pairs with 4.7k span-level error annotations for five different error types by expert annotators, along with preference judgments. Using our collected data, we thoroughly analyze the shortcomings of long-form answers and find that they lack comprehensiveness and provide unhelpful references. We train an automatic feedback model on this dataset that predicts error spans with incomplete information and provides associated explanations. Finally, we propose a prompt-based approach, Error-informed refinement, that uses signals from the learned feedback model to refine generated answers, which we show reduces hallucination and improves answer quality. Furthermore, humans find answers generated by our approach comprehensive and highly prefer them (84%) over the baseline answers.

Answering questions asked from instructional corpora such as E-manuals, recipe books, etc., has been far less studied than open-domain factoid context-based question answering. This can be primarily attributed to the absence of standard benchmark datasets. In this paper we meticulously create a large amount of data connected with E-manuals and develop suitable algorithm to exploit it. We collect E-Manual Corpus, a huge corpus of 307,957 E-manuals and pretrain RoBERTa on this large corpus. We create various benchmark QA datasets which include question answer pairs curated by experts based upon two E-manuals, real user questions from Community Question Answering Forum pertaining to E-manuals etc. We introduce EMQAP (E-Manual Question Answering Pipeline) that answers questions pertaining to electronics devices. Built upon the pretrained RoBERTa, it harbors a supervised multi-task learning framework which efficiently performs the dual tasks of identifying the section in the E-manual where the answer can be found and the exact answer span within that section. For E-Manual annotated question-answer pairs, we show an improvement of about 40% in ROUGE-L F1 scores over the most competitive baseline. We perform a detailed ablation study and establish the versatility of EMQAP across different circumstances. The code and datasets are shared at https://github.com/abhi1nandy2/EMNLP-2021-Findings, and the corresponding project website is https://sites.google.com/view/emanualqa/home.

Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited. Our first contribution is to present a systematic human inspection of the validation split of FOLIO and a subset of MALLS test instances, finding that approximately 39% and 36% of entries, respectively, contain incorrect FOL formalizations (i.e., ground truth labels), with additional rates of ambiguous NL sentences (16.4% and 48%) and incorrect NLI labels in FOLIO (8.4%). Our second contribution is to develop and release corrected ground truths for such datasets, showing that annotation errors distort model evaluation on a reference benchmark task: testing three state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma~4 31B-it, Qwen3-30B-A3B, and GPT-4o-mini) with the corrected ground truths yields accuracy gains from +9 to +22 percentage points. Motivated by these findings, we propose an LLM-based framework to support humans in manual reviewing NL-to-FOL datasets. By directing reviewers toward the most error-prone instances, we empirically show that it is possible to achieve 90% dataset accuracy after reviewing fewer than 24% of instances, compared to over 70% required by unguided review. We release all human-verified annotations and the code for our framework.

When unsure about an answer, humans often respond with more words than necessary, hoping that part of the response will be correct. We observe a similar behavior in large language models (LLMs), which we term "Verbosity Compensation" (VC). VC is harmful because it confuses the user understanding, leading to low efficiency, and influences the LLM services by increasing the latency and cost of generating useless tokens. In this paper, we present the first work that defines and analyzes Verbosity Compensation, explores its causes, and proposes a simple mitigating approach. We define Verbosity Compensation as the behavior of generating responses that can be compressed without information loss when prompted to write concisely. Our experiments, conducted on five datasets of knowledge and reasoning-based QA tasks with 14 newly developed LLMs, reveal three conclusions. 1) We reveal a pervasive presence of verbosity compensation across all models and all datasets. Notably, GPT-4 exhibits a VC frequency of 50.40%. 2) We reveal the large performance gap between verbose and concise responses, with a notable difference of 27.61% on the Qasper dataset. We also demonstrate that this difference does not naturally diminish as LLM capability increases. Both 1) and 2) highlight the urgent need to mitigate the frequency of VC behavior and disentangle verbosity with veracity. We propose a simple yet effective cascade algorithm that replaces the verbose responses with the other model-generated responses. The results show that our approach effectively alleviates the VC of the Mistral model from 63.81% to 16.16% on the Qasper dataset. 3) We also find that verbose responses exhibit higher uncertainty across all five datasets, suggesting a strong connection between verbosity and model uncertainty. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/VerbosityLLM.

Automatic Question Generation (QG) often produces outputs with critical defects, such as factual hallucinations and answer mismatches. However, existing evaluation methods, including LLM-based evaluators, mainly adopt a black-box and holistic paradigm without explicit error modeling, leading to the neglect of such defects and overestimation of question quality. To address this issue, we propose ErrEval, a flexible and Error-aware Evaluation framework that enhances QG evaluation through explicit error diagnostics. Specifically, ErrEval reformulates evaluation as a two-stage process of error diagnosis followed by informed scoring. At the first stage, a lightweight plug-and-play Error Identifier detects and categorizes common errors across structural, linguistic, and content-related aspects. These diagnostic signals are then incorporated as explicit evidence to guide LLM evaluators toward more fine-grained and grounded judgments. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of ErrEval, showing that incorporating explicit diagnostics improves alignment with human judgments. Further analyses confirm that ErrEval effectively mitigates the overestimation of low-quality questions.

Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires data that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present QASPER, a dataset of 5,049 questions over 1,585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.

Mathematical capabilities were previously believed to emerge in common language models only at a very large scale or require extensive math-related pre-training. This paper shows that the LLaMA-2 7B model with common pre-training already exhibits strong mathematical abilities, as evidenced by its impressive accuracy of 97.7% and 72.0% on the GSM8K and MATH benchmarks, respectively, when selecting the best response from 256 random generations. The primary issue with the current base model is the difficulty in consistently eliciting its inherent mathematical capabilities. Notably, the accuracy for the first answer drops to 49.5% and 7.9% on the GSM8K and MATH benchmarks, respectively. We find that simply scaling up the SFT data can significantly enhance the reliability of generating correct answers. However, the potential for extensive scaling is constrained by the scarcity of publicly available math questions. To overcome this limitation, we employ synthetic data, which proves to be nearly as effective as real data and shows no clear saturation when scaled up to approximately one million samples. This straightforward approach achieves an accuracy of 82.6% on GSM8K and 40.6% on MATH using LLaMA-2 7B models, surpassing previous models by 14.2% and 20.8%, respectively. We also provide insights into scaling behaviors across different reasoning complexities and error types.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic answers, yet factual errors remain difficult to detect, localize, explain, and verify. Existing hallucination benchmarks often provide response-level labels, with limited support for identifying the exact erroneous content, explaining why it is incorrect, or selecting the correct factual answer. We introduce HalluTruthQA, a fine-grained benchmark for hallucination evaluation in Arabic question answering. The benchmark contains 2,400 expert-curated examples across four knowledge-intensive domains: Islamic knowledge, history, science, and geography. Each example pairs an Arabic question and a model-generated answer with a verified reference answer, a binary hallucination label, six candidate answers for factual verification, and, for hallucinated answers, character-level erroneous spans, human-written explanations, and macro and micro hallucination types. We evaluate four open-source LLMs, Allam, Falcon-H1, Qwen32, and Silma, in a zero-shot setting across hallucination detection, span-level localization, factual verification, and explanation evaluation. Results show that these tasks capture different abilities: no single model achieves the strongest performance across all tasks, with best scores of 0.880 Macro-F1 for detection, 0.516 F1-Sp for localization, 0.852 LO-Score for factual verification, and 0.644 final score for explanation evaluation. Our taxonomy shows that hallucination evaluation should move beyond detection toward localizing, verifying, and explaining factual errors. The code, dataset, prompts, and evaluation scripts are available at https://gitlab.com/nlpresearcher/HalluTruthQA.

We investigate whether synthetic question-answer (QA) data generated by large language models (LLMs) can serve as an effective proxy for human-labeled benchmarks when such data is unavailable. We assess the reliability of synthetic benchmarks across two experiments: one varying retriever parameters while keeping the generator fixed, and another varying the generator with fixed retriever parameters. Across four datasets, of which two open-domain and two proprietary, we find that synthetic benchmarks reliably rank the RAGs varying in terms of retriever configuration, aligning well with human-labeled benchmark baselines. However, they fail to produce consistent RAG rankings when comparing generator architectures. The breakdown possibly arises from a combination of task mismatch between the synthetic and human benchmarks, and stylistic bias favoring certain generators.

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than 400 models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only 100 anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman ρgeq 0.9 for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

AI chatbots are rapidly shaping how people encounter the news, yet no prior study has systematically measured how accurately these systems, with their proprietary search integrations and retrieval-synthesis pipelines, handle emerging facts across languages and regions. We present a 14-day (February 9-22, 2026) evaluation of six AI chatbots (Gemini 3 Flash and Pro, Grok 4, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, GPT-5 and GPT-4o mini) on 2,100 factual questions derived from same-day BBC News reporting across six regional services (US & Canada, Arabic, Afrique, Hindi, Russian, Turkish). The best systems achieve over 90% multiple-choice accuracy on questions about events reported hours earlier. The same systems, however, lose 11-13% under free-response evaluation, and 16-17% across the cohort. We further characterize three failure patterns. First, every model achieves its lowest accuracy on Hindi (79% vs. 89-91% elsewhere) and citations indicate an Anglophone retrieval bias (e.g., models answering Hindi queries cite English Wikipedia more than any Hindi outlet). Second, retrieval, not reasoning, failures drive over 70% of all errors. When models retrieve a correct source, they often extract the correct answer; the problem is to land on the right source in the first place. Third, models achieving 88-96% accuracy on well-formed questions drop to 19-70% when questions contain subtle false premises, with the most vulnerable model accepting fabricated facts 64% of the time. We also identify a detection-accuracy paradox: the best false-premise detector ranks second in adversarial accuracy (abstention rate), while a weaker detector ranks first, showing that premise detection and answer recovery are partially independent capabilities. Overall, these suggest that high accuracy can mask systematic regional inequity, near-total dependence on retrieval infrastructure, and vulnerability to imperfect queries real users pose.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

Despite efforts to distinguish three different evaluation setups (Bekoulis et al., 2018), numerous end-to-end Relation Extraction (RE) articles present unreliable performance comparison to previous work. In this paper, we first identify several patterns of invalid comparisons in published papers and describe them to avoid their propagation. We then propose a small empirical study to quantify the impact of the most common mistake and evaluate it leads to overestimating the final RE performance by around 5% on ACE05. We also seize this opportunity to study the unexplored ablations of two recent developments: the use of language model pretraining (specifically BERT) and span-level NER. This meta-analysis emphasizes the need for rigor in the report of both the evaluation setting and the datasets statistics and we call for unifying the evaluation setting in end-to-end RE.

Factual questions typically can be answered correctly at different levels of granularity. For example, both ``August 4, 1961'' and ``1961'' are correct answers to the question ``When was Barack Obama born?''. Standard question answering (QA) evaluation protocols, however, do not explicitly take this into account and compare a predicted answer against answers of a single granularity level. In this work, we propose GRANOLA QA, a novel evaluation setting where a predicted answer is evaluated in terms of accuracy and informativeness against a set of multi-granularity answers. We present a simple methodology for enriching existing datasets with multi-granularity answers, and create GRANOLA-EQ, a multi-granularity version of the EntityQuestions dataset. We evaluate a range of decoding methods on GRANOLA-EQ, including a new algorithm, called Decoding with Response Aggregation (DRAG), that is geared towards aligning the response granularity with the model's uncertainty. Our experiments show that large language models with standard decoding tend to generate specific answers, which are often incorrect. In contrast, when evaluated on multi-granularity answers, DRAG yields a nearly 20 point increase in accuracy on average, which further increases for rare entities. Overall, this reveals that standard evaluation and decoding schemes may significantly underestimate the knowledge encapsulated in LMs.

Researchers have proposed numerous text-to-SQL techniques to streamline data analytics and accelerate the development of data-driven applications. To compare these techniques and select the best one for deployment, the community depends on public benchmarks and their leaderboards. Since these benchmarks heavily rely on human annotations during question construction and answer evaluation, the validity of the annotations is crucial. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study that (i) benchmarks annotation error rates for two widely used text-to-SQL benchmarks, BIRD and Spider 2.0-Snow, and (ii) corrects a subset of the BIRD development (Dev) set to measure the impact of annotation errors on text-to-SQL agent performance and leaderboard rankings. Through expert analysis, we show that BIRD Mini-Dev and Spider 2.0-Snow have error rates of 52.8% and 62.8%, respectively. We re-evaluate all 16 open-source agents from the BIRD leaderboard on both the original and the corrected BIRD Dev subsets. We show that performance changes range from -7% to 31% (in relative terms) and rank changes range from -9 to +9 positions. We further assess whether these impacts generalize to the full BIRD Dev set. We find that the rankings of agents on the uncorrected subset correlate strongly with those on the full Dev set (Spearman's r_s=0.85, p=3.26e-5), whereas they correlate weakly with those on the corrected subset (Spearman's r_s=0.32, p=0.23). These findings show that annotation errors can significantly distort reported performance and rankings, potentially misguiding research directions or deployment choices. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/uiuc-kang-lab/text_to_sql_benchmarks.

A key limitation in current datasets for multi-hop reasoning is that the required steps for answering the question are mentioned in it explicitly. In this work, we introduce StrategyQA, a question answering (QA) benchmark where the required reasoning steps are implicit in the question, and should be inferred using a strategy. A fundamental challenge in this setup is how to elicit such creative questions from crowdsourcing workers, while covering a broad range of potential strategies. We propose a data collection procedure that combines term-based priming to inspire annotators, careful control over the annotator population, and adversarial filtering for eliminating reasoning shortcuts. Moreover, we annotate each question with (1) a decomposition into reasoning steps for answering it, and (2) Wikipedia paragraphs that contain the answers to each step. Overall, StrategyQA includes 2,780 examples, each consisting of a strategy question, its decomposition, and evidence paragraphs. Analysis shows that questions in StrategyQA are short, topic-diverse, and cover a wide range of strategies. Empirically, we show that humans perform well (87%) on this task, while our best baseline reaches an accuracy of sim66%.

We present the ARC-DA dataset, a direct-answer ("open response", "freeform") version of the ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) multiple-choice dataset. While ARC has been influential in the community, its multiple-choice format is unrepresentative of real-world questions, and multiple choice formats can be particularly susceptible to artifacts. The ARC-DA dataset addresses these concerns by converting questions to direct-answer format using a combination of crowdsourcing and expert review. The resulting dataset contains 2985 questions with a total of 8436 valid answers (questions typically have more than one valid answer). ARC-DA is one of the first DA datasets of natural questions that often require reasoning, and where appropriate question decompositions are not evident from the questions themselves. We describe the conversion approach taken, appropriate evaluation metrics, and several strong models. Although high, the best scores (81% GENIE, 61.4% F1, 63.2% ROUGE-L) still leave considerable room for improvement. In addition, the dataset provides a natural setting for new research on explanation, as many questions require reasoning to construct answers. We hope the dataset spurs further advances in complex question-answering by the community. ARC-DA is available at https://allenai.org/data/arc-da

We present GPQA, a challenging dataset of 448 multiple-choice questions written by domain experts in biology, physics, and chemistry. We ensure that the questions are high-quality and extremely difficult: experts who have or are pursuing PhDs in the corresponding domains reach 65% accuracy (74% when discounting clear mistakes the experts identified in retrospect), while highly skilled non-expert validators only reach 34% accuracy, despite spending on average over 30 minutes with unrestricted access to the web (i.e., the questions are "Google-proof"). The questions are also difficult for state-of-the-art AI systems, with our strongest GPT-4 based baseline achieving 39% accuracy. If we are to use future AI systems to help us answer very hard questions, for example, when developing new scientific knowledge, we need to develop scalable oversight methods that enable humans to supervise their outputs, which may be difficult even if the supervisors are themselves skilled and knowledgeable. The difficulty of GPQA both for skilled non-experts and frontier AI systems should enable realistic scalable oversight experiments, which we hope can help devise ways for human experts to reliably get truthful information from AI systems that surpass human capabilities.

This study presents PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth), a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy that occurs under social pressure exerted on users through authority and persuasion in large language models (LLMs) the phenomenon of sycophancy (excessive conformity). PARROT (i) isolates causal effects by comparing the neutral version of the same question with an authoritatively false version using a double-blind evaluation, (ii) quantifies confidence shifts toward the correct and imposed false responses using log-likelihood-based calibration tracking, and (iii) systematically classifies failure modes (e.g., robust correct, sycophantic agreement, reinforced error, stubborn error, self-correction, etc.) using an eight-state behavioral taxonomy. We evaluated 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates. Findings show marked heterogeneity: advanced models (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5) exhibit low "follow rates" (leq 11%, GPT-5: 4\%) and minimal accuracy loss, while older/smaller models show severe epistemic collapse (GPT-4: 80\%, Qwen 2.5-1.5B: 94\%). The danger is not limited to response changes; weak models reduce confidence in the correct response while increasing confidence in the imposed incorrect response. While international law and global knowledge at the domain level exhibit high fragility, elementary mathematics is relatively resilient. Consequently, we argue that the goal of "resistance to overfitting pressure" should be addressed as a primary objective alongside accuracy, harm avoidance, and privacy for safe deployment in the real world.

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 new dataset for Question Rewriting in Conversational Context (QReCC), which contains 14K conversations with 80K question-answer pairs. The task in QReCC is to find answers to conversational questions within a collection of 10M web pages (split into 54M passages). Answers to questions in the same conversation may be distributed across several web pages. QReCC provides annotations that allow us to train and evaluate individual subtasks of question rewriting, passage retrieval and reading comprehension required for the end-to-end conversational question answering (QA) task. We report the effectiveness of a strong baseline approach that combines the state-of-the-art model for question rewriting, and competitive models for open-domain QA. Our results set the first baseline for the QReCC dataset with F1 of 19.10, compared to the human upper bound of 75.45, indicating the difficulty of the setup and a large room for improvement.

Maybe not. We identify and analyse errors in the popular Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark. Even though MMLU is widely adopted, our analysis demonstrates numerous ground truth errors that obscure the true capabilities of LLMs. For example, we find that 57% of the analysed questions in the Virology subset contain errors. To address this issue, we introduce a comprehensive framework for identifying dataset errors using a novel error taxonomy. Then, we create MMLU-Redux, which is a subset of 3,000 manually re-annotated questions across 30 MMLU subjects. Using MMLU-Redux, we demonstrate significant discrepancies with the model performance metrics that were originally reported. Our results strongly advocate for revising MMLU's error-ridden questions to enhance its future utility and reliability as a benchmark. Therefore, we open up MMLU-Redux for additional annotation https://huggingface.co/datasets/edinburgh-dawg/mmlu-redux.

Recent advancements in language models have led to significant improvements in mathematical reasoning across various benchmarks. However, most of these benchmarks rely on automatic evaluation methods that only compare final answers using heuristics, without verifying the underlying reasoning steps. This limitation results in false positive solutions, where models may produce correct final answers but with flawed deduction paths. In this paper, we systematically examine the prevalence of false positive solutions in mathematical problem solving for language models. We analyze the characteristics and extent of this issue across different open-source models, datasets of varying difficulty levels, and decoding strategies. Specifically, we explore how false positives influence the inference time scaling behavior of language models. Our experimental results reveal that: (1) false positive solutions persist across different models, datasets, and decoding methods, (2) sampling-based inference time scaling methods do not alleviate the problem, and (3) the pass@N evaluation metric is more susceptible to false positives, suggesting a significantly lower scaling ceiling than what automatic evaluations indicate. Additionally, we analyze specific instances of false positives and discuss potential limitations in self-improvement techniques and synthetic data generation under such conditions. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/Wloner0809/False-Positives-in-Math.

When deploying large language models (LLMs), it is important to ensure that these models are not only capable, but also reliable. Many benchmarks have been created to track LLMs' growing capabilities, however there has been no similar focus on measuring their reliability. To understand the potential ramifications of this gap, we investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability. We find that pervasive label errors can compromise these evaluations, obscuring lingering model failures and hiding unreliable behavior. Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we then propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks, i.e., benchmarks carefully curated to minimize label errors and ambiguity. As a first attempt at constructing such benchmarks, we revise examples from fifteen existing popular benchmarks. We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks such as elementary-level math word problems. Analyzing these failures further reveals previously unidentified patterns of problems on which frontier models consistently struggle. We provide code at https://github.com/MadryLab/platinum-benchmarks

Common methods for aligning large language models (LLMs) with desired behaviour heavily rely on human-labelled data. However, as models grow increasingly sophisticated, they will surpass human expertise, and the role of human evaluation will evolve into non-experts overseeing experts. In anticipation of this, we ask: can weaker models assess the correctness of stronger models? We investigate this question in an analogous setting, where stronger models (experts) possess the necessary information to answer questions and weaker models (non-experts) lack this information. The method we evaluate is debate, where two LLM experts each argue for a different answer, and a non-expert selects the answer. We find that debate consistently helps both non-expert models and humans answer questions, achieving 76% and 88% accuracy respectively (naive baselines obtain 48% and 60%). Furthermore, optimising expert debaters for persuasiveness in an unsupervised manner improves non-expert ability to identify the truth in debates. Our results provide encouraging empirical evidence for the viability of aligning models with debate in the absence of ground truth.

As language models are adapted by a more sophisticated and diverse set of users, the importance of guaranteeing that they provide factually correct information supported by verifiable sources is critical across fields of study & professions. This is especially the case for high-stakes fields, such as medicine and law, where the risk of propagating false information is high and can lead to undesirable societal consequences. Previous work studying factuality and attribution has not focused on analyzing these characteristics of language model outputs in domain-specific scenarios. In this work, we present an evaluation study analyzing various axes of factuality and attribution provided in responses from a few systems, by bringing domain experts in the loop. Specifically, we first collect expert-curated questions from 484 participants across 32 fields of study, and then ask the same experts to evaluate generated responses to their own questions. We also ask experts to revise answers produced by language models, which leads to ExpertQA, a high-quality long-form QA dataset with 2177 questions spanning 32 fields, along with verified answers and attributions for claims in the answers.

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.

The training data for many Large Language Models (LLMs) is contaminated with test data. This means that public benchmarks used to assess LLMs are compromised, suggesting a performance gap between benchmark scores and actual capabilities. Ideally, a private holdout set could be used to accurately verify scores. Unfortunately, such datasets do not exist for most benchmarks, and post-hoc construction of sufficiently similar datasets is non-trivial. To address these issues, we introduce a systematic methodology for (i) retrospectively constructing a holdout dataset for a target dataset, (ii) demonstrating the statistical indistinguishability of this retro-holdout dataset, and (iii) comparing LLMs on the two datasets to quantify the performance gap due to the dataset's public availability. Applying these methods to TruthfulQA, we construct and release Retro-Misconceptions, on which we evaluate twenty LLMs and find that some have inflated scores by as much as 16 percentage points. Our results demonstrate that public benchmark scores do not always accurately assess model properties, and underscore the importance of improved data practices in the field.

Hallucinations in large language models pose a critical challenge for applications requiring factual reliability, particularly in high-stakes domains such as finance. This work presents an effective approach for detecting and editing factually incorrect content in model-generated responses based on the provided context. Given a user-defined domain-specific error taxonomy, we construct a synthetic dataset by inserting tagged errors into financial question-answering corpora and then fine-tune four language models, Phi-4, Phi-4-mini, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3-14B, to detect and edit these factual inaccuracies. Our best-performing model, fine-tuned Phi-4, achieves an 8% improvement in binary F1 score and a 30% gain in overall detection performance compared to OpenAI-o3. Notably, our fine-tuned Phi-4-mini model, despite having only 4 billion parameters, maintains competitive performance with just a 2% drop in binary detection and a 0.1% decline in overall detection compared to OpenAI-o3. Our work provides a practical solution for detecting and editing factual inconsistencies in financial text generation while introducing a generalizable framework that can enhance the trustworthiness and alignment of large language models across diverse applications beyond finance. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/pegasi-ai/shield.

Sensitivity to false assumptions (or false premises) in information-seeking questions is critical for robust question-answering (QA) systems. Recent work has shown that false assumptions in naturally occurring questions pose challenges to current models, with low performance on both generative QA and simple detection tasks (Kim et al. 2023). However, the focus of existing work on naturally occurring questions leads to a gap in the analysis of model behavior on the long tail of the distribution of possible questions. To this end, we introduce Syn-(QA)^2, a set of two synthetically generated QA datasets: one generated using perturbed relations from Wikidata, and the other by perturbing HotpotQA (Yang et al. 2018). Our findings from evaluating a range of large language models are threefold: (1) false assumptions in QA are challenging, echoing the findings of prior work, (2) the binary detection task is challenging even compared to the difficulty of generative QA itself, possibly due to the linguistic structure of the problem, and (3) the detection task is more challenging with long-tail questions compared to naturally occurring questions, highlighting the utility of our synthetic datasets and generation method.

Language models (LMs) can produce errors that are hard to detect for humans, especially when the task is complex. RLHF, the most popular post-training method, may exacerbate this problem: to achieve higher rewards, LMs might get better at convincing humans that they are right even when they are wrong. We study this phenomenon under a standard RLHF pipeline, calling it "U-SOPHISTRY" since it is Unintended by model developers. Specifically, we ask time-constrained (e.g., 3-10 minutes) human subjects to evaluate the correctness of model outputs and calculate humans' accuracy against gold labels. On a question-answering task (QuALITY) and programming task (APPS), RLHF makes LMs better at convincing our subjects but not at completing the task correctly. RLHF also makes the model harder to evaluate: our subjects' false positive rate increases by 24.1% on QuALITY and 18.3% on APPS. Finally, we show that probing, a state-of-the-art approach for detecting Intended Sophistry (e.g. backdoored LMs), does not generalize to U-SOPHISTRY. Our results highlight an important failure mode of RLHF and call for more research in assisting humans to align them.

Large Language Models (LLMs) vary in their abilities on a range of tasks. Initiatives such as the Open LLM Leaderboard aim to quantify these differences with several large benchmarks (sets of test items to which an LLM can respond either correctly or incorrectly). However, high correlations within and between benchmark scores suggest that (1) there exists a small set of common underlying abilities that these benchmarks measure, and (2) items tap into redundant information and the benchmarks may thus be considerably compressed. We use data from n > 5000 LLMs to identify the most informative items of six benchmarks, ARC, GSM8K, HellaSwag, MMLU, TruthfulQA and WinoGrande (with d=28,632 items in total). From them we distill a sparse benchmark, metabench, that has less than 3% of the original size of all six benchmarks combined. This new sparse benchmark goes beyond point scores by yielding estimators of the underlying benchmark-specific abilities. We show that these estimators (1) can be used to reconstruct each original individual benchmark score with, on average, 1.5% root mean square error (RMSE), (2) reconstruct the original total score with 0.8% RMSE, and (3) have a single underlying common factor whose Spearman correlation with the total score is r = 0.93.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in completing various tasks such as reasoning, translation, and question answering. However the issue of factual incorrect content in LLM-generated responses remains a persistent challenge. In this study, we evaluate both proprietary and open-source LLMs on their ability to respond with relevant research papers and accurate links to articles hosted on the arXiv platform, based on high level prompts. To facilitate this evaluation, we introduce arXivBench, a benchmark specifically designed to assess LLM performance across eight major subject categories on arXiv and five subfields within computer science, one of the most popular categories among them. Our findings reveal a concerning accuracy of LLM-generated responses depending on the subject, with some subjects experiencing significantly lower accuracy than others. Notably, Claude-3.5-Sonnet exhibits a substantial advantage in generating both relevant and accurate responses. And interestingly, most LLMs achieve a much higher accuracy in the Artificial Intelligence sub-field than other sub-fields. This benchmark provides a standardized tool for evaluating the reliability of LLM-generated scientific responses, promoting more dependable use of LLMs in academic and research environments. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/arxivBenchLLM/arXivBench and our dataset is available on huggingface at https://huggingface.co/datasets/arXivBenchLLM/arXivBench.

We introduce BSDetector, a method for detecting bad and speculative answers from a pretrained Large Language Model by estimating a numeric confidence score for any output it generated. Our uncertainty quantification technique works for any LLM accessible only via a black-box API, whose training data remains unknown. By expending a bit of extra computation, users of any LLM API can now get the same response as they would ordinarily, as well as a confidence estimate that cautions when not to trust this response. Experiments on both closed and open-form Question-Answer benchmarks reveal that BSDetector more accurately identifies incorrect LLM responses than alternative uncertainty estimation procedures (for both GPT-3 and ChatGPT). By sampling multiple responses from the LLM and considering the one with the highest confidence score, we can additionally obtain more accurate responses from the same LLM, without any extra training steps. In applications involving automated evaluation with LLMs, accounting for our confidence scores leads to more reliable evaluation in both human-in-the-loop and fully-automated settings (across both GPT 3.5 and 4).

Modern generative search engines enhance the reliability of large language model (LLM) responses by providing cited evidence. However, evaluating the answer's attribution, i.e., whether every claim within the generated responses is fully supported by its cited evidence, remains an open problem. This verification, traditionally dependent on costly human evaluation, underscores the urgent need for automatic attribution evaluation methods. To bridge the gap in the absence of standardized benchmarks for these methods, we present AttributionBench, a comprehensive benchmark compiled from various existing attribution datasets. Our extensive experiments on AttributionBench reveal the challenges of automatic attribution evaluation, even for state-of-the-art LLMs. Specifically, our findings show that even a fine-tuned GPT-3.5 only achieves around 80% macro-F1 under a binary classification formulation. A detailed analysis of more than 300 error cases indicates that a majority of failures stem from the model's inability to process nuanced information, and the discrepancy between the information the model has access to and that human annotators do.

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 introduce a high-quality dataset that contains 3,397 samples comprising (i) multiple choice questions, (ii) answers (including distractors), and (iii) their source documents, from the educational domain. Each question is phrased in two forms, normal and close. Correct answers are linked to source documents with sentence-level annotations. Thus, our versatile dataset can be used for both question and distractor generation, as well as to explore new challenges such as question format conversion. Furthermore, 903 questions are accompanied by their cognitive complexity level as per Bloom's taxonomy. All questions have been generated by educational experts rather than crowd workers to ensure they are maintaining educational and learning standards. Our analysis and experiments suggest distinguishable differences between our dataset and commonly used ones for question generation for educational purposes. We believe this new dataset can serve as a valuable resource for research and evaluation in the educational domain. The dataset and baselines will be released to support further research in question generation.

Despite rising global usage of large language models (LLMs), their ability to generate long-form answers to culturally specific questions remains unexplored in many languages. To fill this gap, we perform the first study of textual multilingual long-form QA by creating CaLMQA, a dataset of 51.7K culturally specific questions across 23 different languages. We define culturally specific questions as those that refer to concepts unique to one or a few cultures, or have different answers depending on the cultural or regional context. We obtain these questions by crawling naturally-occurring questions from community web forums in high-resource languages, and by hiring native speakers to write questions in under-resourced, rarely-studied languages such as Fijian and Kirundi. Our data collection methodologies are translation-free, enabling the collection of culturally unique questions like "Kuber iki umwami wa mbere w'uburundi yitwa Ntare?" (Kirundi; English translation: "Why was the first king of Burundi called Ntare (Lion)?"). We evaluate factuality, relevance and surface-level quality of LLM-generated long-form answers, finding that (1) for many languages, even the best models make critical surface-level errors (e.g., answering in the wrong language, repetition), especially for low-resource languages; and (2) answers to culturally specific questions contain more factual errors than answers to culturally agnostic questions -- questions that have consistent meaning and answer across many cultures. We release CaLMQA to facilitate future research in cultural and multilingual long-form QA.

Advancement in Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning capabilities enables them to solve scientific problems with enhanced efficacy. Thereby, a high-quality benchmark for comprehensive and appropriate assessment holds significance, while existing ones either confront the risk of data contamination or lack involved disciplines. To be specific, due to the data source overlap of LLMs training and static benchmark, the keys or number pattern of answers inadvertently memorized (i.e. data contamination), leading to systematic overestimation of their reasoning capabilities, especially numerical reasoning. We propose SciDA, a multidisciplinary benchmark that consists exclusively of over 1k Olympic-level numerical computation problems, allowing randomized numerical initializations for each inference round to avoid reliance on fixed numerical patterns. We conduct a series of experiments with both closed-source and open-source top-performing LLMs, and it is observed that the performance of LLMs drop significantly under random numerical initialization. Thus, we provide truthful and unbiased assessments of the numerical reasoning capabilities of LLMs. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/m-a-p/SciDA

The internet contains a wealth of knowledge -- from the birthdays of historical figures to tutorials on how to code -- all of which may be learned by language models. However, there is a huge variability in the number of times a given piece of information appears on the web. In this paper, we study the relationship between the knowledge memorized by large language models and the information in their pre-training datasets. In particular, we show that a language model's ability to answer a fact-based question relates to how many documents associated with that question were seen during pre-training. We identify these relevant documents by entity linking pre-training datasets and counting documents that contain the same entities as a given question-answer pair. Our results demonstrate strong correlational and causal relationships between accuracy and relevant document count for numerous question answering datasets (e.g., TriviaQA), pre-training corpora (e.g., ROOTS), and model sizes (e.g., 176B parameters). Moreover, we find that while larger models are better at learning long-tail knowledge, we estimate that today's models must be scaled by many orders of magnitude to reach competitive QA performance on questions with little support in the pre-training data. Finally, we show that retrieval-augmentation can reduce the dependence on relevant document count, presenting a promising approach for capturing the long-tail.

The predictions of question answering (QA)systems are typically evaluated against manually annotated finite sets of one or more answers. This leads to a coverage limitation that results in underestimating the true performance of systems, and is typically addressed by extending over exact match (EM) with pre-defined rules or with the token-level F1 measure. In this paper, we present the first systematic conceptual and data-driven analysis to examine the shortcomings of token-level equivalence measures. To this end, we define the asymmetric notion of answer equivalence (AE), accepting answers that are equivalent to or improve over the reference, and publish over 23k human judgments for candidates produced by multiple QA systems on SQuAD. Through a careful analysis of this data, we reveal and quantify several concrete limitations of the F1 measure, such as a false impression of graduality, or missing dependence on the question. Since collecting AE annotations for each evaluated model is expensive, we learn a BERT matching (BEM) measure to approximate this task. Being a simpler task than QA, we find BEM to provide significantly better AE approximations than F1, and to more accurately reflect the performance of systems. Finally, we demonstrate the practical utility of AE and BEM on the concrete application of minimal accurate prediction sets, reducing the number of required answers by up to x2.6.

Language models have shown promise in various tasks but can be affected by undesired data during training, fine-tuning, or alignment. For example, if some unsafe conversations are wrongly annotated as safe ones, the model fine-tuned on these samples may be harmful. Therefore, the correctness of annotations, i.e., the credibility of the dataset, is important. This study focuses on the credibility of real-world datasets, including the popular benchmarks Jigsaw Civil Comments, Anthropic Harmless & Red Team, PKU BeaverTails & SafeRLHF, that can be used for training a harmless language model. Given the cost and difficulty of cleaning these datasets by humans, we introduce a systematic framework for evaluating the credibility of datasets, identifying label errors, and evaluating the influence of noisy labels in the curated language data, specifically focusing on unsafe comments and conversation classification. With the framework, we find and fix an average of 6.16% label errors in 11 datasets constructed from the above benchmarks. The data credibility and downstream learning performance can be remarkably improved by directly fixing label errors, indicating the significance of cleaning existing real-world datasets. We provide an open-source tool, Docta, for data cleaning at https://github.com/Docta-ai/docta.

Scientific question answering (SQA) is an important task aimed at answering questions based on papers. However, current SQA datasets have limited reasoning types and neglect the relevance between tables and text, creating a significant gap with real scenarios. To address these challenges, we propose a QA benchmark for scientific tables and text with diverse reasoning types (SciTaT). To cover more reasoning types, we summarize various reasoning types from real-world questions. To involve both tables and text, we require the questions to incorporate tables and text as much as possible. Based on SciTaT, we propose a strong baseline (CaR), which combines various reasoning methods to address different reasoning types and process tables and text at the same time. CaR brings average improvements of 12.9% over other baselines on SciTaT, validating its effectiveness. Error analysis reveals the challenges of SciTaT, such as complex numerical calculations and domain knowledge.

Ideally Open-Domain Question Answering models should exhibit a number of competencies, ranging from simply memorizing questions seen at training time, to answering novel question formulations with answers seen during training, to generalizing to completely novel questions with novel answers. However, single aggregated test set scores do not show the full picture of what capabilities models truly have. In this work, we perform a detailed study of the test sets of three popular open-domain benchmark datasets with respect to these competencies. We find that 60-70% of test-time answers are also present somewhere in the training sets. We also find that 30% of test-set questions have a near-duplicate paraphrase in their corresponding training sets. Using these findings, we evaluate a variety of popular open-domain models to obtain greater insight into what extent they can actually generalize, and what drives their overall performance. We find that all models perform dramatically worse on questions that cannot be memorized from training sets, with a mean absolute performance difference of 63% between repeated and non-repeated data. Finally we show that simple nearest-neighbor models out-perform a BART closed-book QA model, further highlighting the role that training set memorization plays in these benchmarks

Understanding research papers remains challenging for foundation models due to specialized scientific discourse and complex figures and tables, yet existing benchmarks offer limited fine-grained evaluation at scale. To address this gap, we introduce RPC-Bench, a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers, containing 15K human-verified QA pairs. We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts. We also define an elaborate LLM-human interaction annotation framework to support large-scale labeling and quality control. Following the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, we develop a scalable framework that evaluates models on correctness-completeness and conciseness, with high agreement to human judgment. Experiments reveal that even the strongest models (GPT-5) achieve only 68.2% correctness-completeness, dropping to 37.46% after conciseness adjustment, highlighting substantial gaps in precise academic paper understanding. Our code and data are available at https://rpc-bench.github.io/.

How much do large language models actually hallucinate when answering questions grounded in provided documents? Despite the critical importance of this question for enterprise AI deployments, reliable measurement has been hampered by benchmarks that rely on static datasets vulnerable to contamination, LLM-based judges with documented biases, or evaluation scales too small for statistical confidence. We address this gap using RIKER, a ground-truth-first evaluation methodology that enables deterministic scoring without human annotation. Across 35 open-weight models, three context lengths (32K, 128K, and 200K tokens), four temperature settings, and three hardware platforms (NVIDIA H200, AMD MI300X, and Intel Gaudi 3), we conducted over 172 billion tokens of evaluation - an order of magnitude beyond prior work. Our findings reveal that: (1) even the best-performing models fabricate answers at a non-trivial rate - 1.19% at best at 32K, with top-tier models at 5 - 7% - and fabrication rises steeply with context length, nearly tripling at 128K and exceeding 10% for all models at 200K; (2) model selection dominates all other factors, with overall accuracy spanning a 72-percentage-point range and model family predicting fabrication resistance better than model size; (3) temperature effects are nuanced - T=0.0 yields the best overall accuracy in roughly 60% of cases, but higher temperatures reduce fabrication for the majority of models and dramatically reduce coherence loss (infinite generation loops), which can reach 48x higher rates at T=0.0 versus T=1.0; (4) grounding ability and fabrication resistance are distinct capabilities - models that excel at finding facts may still fabricate facts that do not exist; and (5) results are consistent across hardware platforms, confirming that deployment decisions need not be hardware-dependent.

Existing language model evaluations primarily measure general capabilities, yet reliable use of these models across a range of domains demands factual accuracy and recognition of knowledge gaps. We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

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.

Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named Testset Slot Guessing (TS-Guessing), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52\% and 57\%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

We identify label errors in the test sets of 10 of the most commonly-used computer vision, natural language, and audio datasets, and subsequently study the potential for these label errors to affect benchmark results. Errors in test sets are numerous and widespread: we estimate an average of at least 3.3% errors across the 10 datasets, where for example label errors comprise at least 6% of the ImageNet validation set. Putative label errors are identified using confident learning algorithms and then human-validated via crowdsourcing (51% of the algorithmically-flagged candidates are indeed erroneously labeled, on average across the datasets). Traditionally, machine learning practitioners choose which model to deploy based on test accuracy - our findings advise caution here, proposing that judging models over correctly labeled test sets may be more useful, especially for noisy real-world datasets. Surprisingly, we find that lower capacity models may be practically more useful than higher capacity models in real-world datasets with high proportions of erroneously labeled data. For example, on ImageNet with corrected labels: ResNet-18 outperforms ResNet-50 if the prevalence of originally mislabeled test examples increases by just 6%. On CIFAR-10 with corrected labels: VGG-11 outperforms VGG-19 if the prevalence of originally mislabeled test examples increases by just 5%. Test set errors across the 10 datasets can be viewed at https://labelerrors.com and all label errors can be reproduced by https://github.com/cleanlab/label-errors.

We present the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD), a new reading comprehension dataset consisting of 100,000+ questions posed by crowdworkers on a set of Wikipedia articles, where the answer to each question is a segment of text from the corresponding reading passage. We analyze the dataset to understand the types of reasoning required to answer the questions, leaning heavily on dependency and constituency trees. We build a strong logistic regression model, which achieves an F1 score of 51.0%, a significant improvement over a simple baseline (20%). However, human performance (86.8%) is much higher, indicating that the dataset presents a good challenge problem for future research. The dataset is freely available at https://stanford-qa.com

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently confabulate scientific facts, severely undermining their trustworthiness. Addressing this challenge requires benchmarks that go beyond binary factuality and enable fine-grained evaluation. We introduce ReFACT (Reddit False And Correct Texts), a benchmark of 1,001 expert-annotated question-answer pairs spanning diverse scientific domains for the detection of scientific confabulation. Each instance includes both a scientifically correct answer and a non-factual counterpart annotated with precise error spans and error types. ReFACT enables multi-stage evaluation: (1) confabulation detection, (2) fine-grained error localization, and (3) correction. We benchmark 9 state-of-the-art LLMs, revealing limited performance (about 50 percent accuracy). Even top models such as GPT-4o fail to distinguish factual from confabulated scientific answers, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM-as-judge evaluation paradigms. Our findings highlight the need for fine-grained, human-validated benchmarks to detect and correct scientific confabulation in domain-specific contexts. The dataset is available at: https://github.com/ddz5431/ReFACT

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

How can we train models to perform well on hard test data when hard training data is by definition difficult to label correctly? This question has been termed the scalable oversight problem and has drawn increasing attention as language models have continually improved. In this paper, we present the surprising conclusion that current language models often generalize relatively well from easy to hard data, even performing as well as "oracle" models trained on hard data. We demonstrate this kind of easy-to-hard generalization using simple training methods like in-context learning, linear classifier heads, and QLoRA for seven different measures of datapoint hardness, including six empirically diverse human hardness measures (like grade level) and one model-based measure (loss-based). Furthermore, we show that even if one cares most about model performance on hard data, it can be better to collect and train on easy data rather than hard data, since hard data is generally noisier and costlier to collect. Our experiments use open models up to 70b in size and four publicly available question-answering datasets with questions ranging in difficulty from 3rd grade science questions to college level STEM questions and general-knowledge trivia. We conclude that easy-to-hard generalization in LMs is surprisingly strong for the tasks studied, suggesting the scalable oversight problem may be easier than previously thought. Our code is available at https://github.com/allenai/easy-to-hard-generalization

Ambiguous questions are a challenge for Question Answering models, as they require answers that cover multiple interpretations of the original query. To this end, these models are required to generate long-form answers that often combine conflicting pieces of information. Although recent advances in the field have shown strong capabilities in generating fluent responses, certain research questions remain unanswered. Does model/data scaling improve the answers' quality? Do automated metrics align with human judgment? To what extent do these models ground their answers in evidence? In this study, we aim to thoroughly investigate these aspects, and provide valuable insights into the limitations of the current approaches. To aid in reproducibility and further extension of our work, we open-source our code at https://github.com/din0s/ambig_lfqa.

One of the most widely used tasks to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) is Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA). While open-ended question answering tasks are more challenging to evaluate, MCQA tasks are, in principle, easier to assess, as the model's answer is thought to be simple to extract and is directly compared to a set of predefined choices. However, recent studies have started to question the reliability of MCQA evaluation, showing that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs, especially when the model generates free-form text before selecting one of the answer choices. In this work, we shed light on the inconsistencies of MCQA evaluation strategies, which can lead to inaccurate and misleading model comparisons. We systematically analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment, and how they are influenced by answer constraints in the prompt across different domains. Our experiments demonstrate that traditional evaluation strategies often underestimate LLM capabilities, while LLM-based answer extractors are prone to systematic errors. Moreover, we reveal a fundamental trade-off between including format constraints in the prompt to simplify answer extraction and allowing models to generate free-form text to improve reasoning. Our findings call for standardized evaluation methodologies and highlight the need for more reliable and consistent MCQA evaluation practices.

Large language models (LLMs) can correctly answer "When was Einstein born?" yet fail to provide the same date when writing about Einstein's life revealing a fundamental inconsistency in how models access factual knowledge across task complexities. While models display impressive accuracy on factual question-answering benchmarks, the reliability gap between simple and complex queries remains poorly understood, eroding their trustworthiness. In this work, we introduce Short-Long Form Alignment for Factual Question Answering (SLAQ), a controlled evaluation framework that compares LLMs' answers to the same factual questions asked (a) in isolation (short) vs. (b) integrated into complex queries (long). Looking at 16 LLMs across 600 queries, we find a systematic misalignment of answers to the corresponding short and long queries. We further uncover position-dependent accuracy loss and momentum effects where consecutive correct or incorrect answers create self-reinforcing patterns. Through mechanistic analysis, we find that aligned facts activate overlapping model internals, and that metrics based on mechanistic similarity can predict short-long answer alignment with up to 78% accuracy. Our work establishes factual consistency over query complexity as an important aspect of LLMs' trustworthiness and challenges current evaluation practices, which implicitly assume that good performance for simple factual queries implies reliability in more complex knowledge-seeking tasks too.

Language models in production do not write prose. They fill forms: JSON fields, function arguments, extraction templates. We show that the form itself causes hallucination. We ask thirteen models the same question about the same input and change only the answer format. The inputs are built so the question cannot be answered: a viral post showing 12,400 likes but no visible replies, a support ticket whose call was never transcribed. In free text, GPT-5.5 answers honestly. It says there is no reply data, 98% of the time. Given a required JSON field for sentiment, the same model invents an answer 40 times out of 40. It fabricates the mood of crowds it never saw and quotes customers it never heard. The pattern holds with force. Required fields drive fabrication to 100% in ten of thirteen models. An explicit "insufficient evidence" option rescues only the frontier: all nine open-weight models ignore it. A direct instruction, do not infer sentiment, is overridden by the schema in four of six models. Resistance does not come with scale: within a single model family, the smallest model refuses, the mid-sized model fabricates, the largest refuses again. Honesty under format pressure is a training outcome that no one is measuring. The fabrication hides exactly where hedging is impossible: in required enums and minimum-count arrays, fields where no disclaimer fits. We release PhantomFill, a benchmark with deterministic scoring and two reportable numbers: the Coerced Fabrication Rate and the Escape Utilization Rate. The fix we test is one line of schema. The failure we measure is everywhere.

The evaluation of question answering models compares ground-truth annotations with model predictions. However, as of today, this comparison is mostly lexical-based and therefore misses out on answers that have no lexical overlap but are still semantically similar, thus treating correct answers as false. This underestimation of the true performance of models hinders user acceptance in applications and complicates a fair comparison of different models. Therefore, there is a need for an evaluation metric that is based on semantics instead of pure string similarity. In this short paper, we present SAS, a cross-encoder-based metric for the estimation of semantic answer similarity, and compare it to seven existing metrics. To this end, we create an English and a German three-way annotated evaluation dataset containing pairs of answers along with human judgment of their semantic similarity, which we release along with an implementation of the SAS metric and the experiments. We find that semantic similarity metrics based on recent transformer models correlate much better with human judgment than traditional lexical similarity metrics on our two newly created datasets and one dataset from related work.

While day-to-day questions come with a variety of answer types, the current question-answering (QA) literature has failed to adequately address the answer diversity of questions. To this end, we present GooAQ, a large-scale dataset with a variety of answer types. This dataset contains over 5 million questions and 3 million answers collected from Google. GooAQ questions are collected semi-automatically from the Google search engine using its autocomplete feature. This results in naturalistic questions of practical interest that are nonetheless short and expressed using simple language. GooAQ answers are mined from Google's responses to our collected questions, specifically from the answer boxes in the search results. This yields a rich space of answer types, containing both textual answers (short and long) as well as more structured ones such as collections. We benchmarkT5 models on GooAQ and observe that: (a) in line with recent work, LM's strong performance on GooAQ's short-answer questions heavily benefit from annotated data; however, (b) their quality in generating coherent and accurate responses for questions requiring long responses (such as 'how' and 'why' questions) is less reliant on observing annotated data and mainly supported by their pre-training. We release GooAQ to facilitate further research on improving QA with diverse response types.

Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus, they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models (regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at regular intervals.

We present an empirical evaluation of various outputs generated by nine of the most widely-available large language models (LLMs). Our analysis is done with off-the-shelf, readily-available tools. We find a correlation between percentage of memorized text, percentage of unique text, and overall output quality, when measured with respect to output pathologies such as counterfactual and logically-flawed statements, and general failures like not staying on topic. Overall, 80.0% of the outputs evaluated contained memorized data, but outputs containing the most memorized content were also more likely to be considered of high quality. We discuss and evaluate mitigation strategies, showing that, in the models evaluated, the rate of memorized text being output is reduced. We conclude with a discussion on potential implications around what it means to learn, to memorize, and to evaluate quality text.

We build four new test sets for the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD) and evaluate the ability of question-answering systems to generalize to new data. Our first test set is from the original Wikipedia domain and measures the extent to which existing systems overfit the original test set. Despite several years of heavy test set re-use, we find no evidence of adaptive overfitting. The remaining three test sets are constructed from New York Times articles, Reddit posts, and Amazon product reviews and measure robustness to natural distribution shifts. Across a broad range of models, we observe average performance drops of 3.8, 14.0, and 17.4 F1 points, respectively. In contrast, a strong human baseline matches or exceeds the performance of SQuAD models on the original domain and exhibits little to no drop in new domains. Taken together, our results confirm the surprising resilience of the holdout method and emphasize the need to move towards evaluation metrics that incorporate robustness to natural distribution shifts.

In this paper, we describe a feedforward artificial neural network trained on the ImageNet 2012 contest dataset [7] with the new method of [5] to an accuracy rate of 98.3% with a 99.69 Top-1 rate, and an average of 285.9 labels that are perfectly classified over the 10 batch partitions of the dataset. The best performing model uses 322,430,160 parameters, with 4 decimal places precision. We conjecture that the reason our model does not achieve a 100% accuracy rate is due to a double-labeling problem, by which there are duplicate images in the dataset with different labels.

In this work, we present SciGraphQA, a synthetic multi-turn question-answer dataset related to academic graphs. SciGraphQA is 13 times larger than ChartVQA, the previously largest chart-visual question-answering dataset. It is also the largest open-sourced chart VQA dataset with non-synthetic charts. To build our dataset, we selected 290,000 Computer Science or Machine Learning ArXiv papers published between 2010 and 2020, and then used Palm-2 to generate 295K samples of open-vocabulary multi-turn question-answering dialogues about the graphs. As context, we provided the text-only Palm-2 with paper title, abstract, paragraph mentioning the graph, and rich text contextual data from the graph itself, obtaining dialogues with an average 2.23 question-answer turns for each graph. We asked GPT-4 to assess the matching quality of our question-answer turns given the paper's context, obtaining an average rating of 8.7/10 on our 3K test set. We evaluated the 0-shot capability of the most popular MLLM models such as LLaVa, mPLUGowl, BLIP-2, and openFlamingo's on our dataset, finding LLaVA-13B being the most performant with a CIDEr score of 0.08. We further enriched the question prompts for LLAVA by including the serialized data tables extracted from the graphs using the DePlot model, boosting LLaVA's 0-shot CIDEr to 0.15. To verify the validity of our dataset, we also fine-tuned LLaVa using our dataset, reaching a substantially higher CIDEr score of 0.26. We anticipate further accuracy improvement by including segmentation mask tokens and leveraging larger LLM backbones coupled with emergent prompting techniques. Our code and data are open-sourced.

This paper presents FormationEval, an open multiple-choice question benchmark for evaluating language models on petroleum geoscience and subsurface disciplines. The dataset contains 505 questions across seven domains including petrophysics, petroleum geology and reservoir engineering, derived from three authoritative sources using a reasoning model with detailed instructions and a concept-based approach that avoids verbatim copying of copyrighted text. Each question includes source metadata to support traceability and audit. The evaluation covers 72 models from major providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and open-weight alternatives. The top performers achieve over 97\% accuracy, with Gemini 3 Pro Preview reaching 99.8\%, while tier and domain gaps persist. Among open-weight models, GLM-4.7 leads at 98.6\%, with several DeepSeek, Llama, Qwen and Mistral models also exceeding 93\%. The performance gap between open-weight and closed models is narrower than expected, with several lower-cost open-weight models exceeding 90\% accuracy. Petrophysics emerges as the most challenging domain across all models, while smaller models show wider performance variance. Residual length bias in the dataset (correct answers tend to be longer) is documented along with bias mitigation strategies applied during construction. The benchmark, evaluation code and results are publicly available.

Question answering biases in video QA datasets can mislead multimodal model to overfit to QA artifacts and jeopardize the model's ability to generalize. Understanding how strong these QA biases are and where they come from helps the community measure progress more accurately and provide researchers insights to debug their models. In this paper, we analyze QA biases in popular video question answering datasets and discover pretrained language models can answer 37-48% questions correctly without using any multimodal context information, far exceeding the 20% random guess baseline for 5-choose-1 multiple-choice questions. Our ablation study shows biases can come from annotators and type of questions. Specifically, annotators that have been seen during training are better predicted by the model and reasoning, abstract questions incur more biases than factual, direct questions. We also show empirically that using annotator-non-overlapping train-test splits can reduce QA biases for video QA datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing, raising the risk that users will rely on these responses as if they were correct. Mitigating such overreliance is a key challenge. Through a think-aloud study in which participants use an LLM-infused application to answer objective questions, we identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance: explanations (supporting details for answers), inconsistencies in explanations, and sources. Through a large-scale, pre-registered, controlled experiment (N=308), we isolate and study the effects of these features on users' reliance, accuracy, and other measures. We find that the presence of explanations increases reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. However, we observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies. We discuss the implications of these findings for fostering appropriate reliance on LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) often make factually incorrect responses despite their success in various applications. In this paper, we hypothesize that relying heavily on simple co-occurrence statistics of the pre-training corpora is one of the main factors that cause factual errors. Our results reveal that LLMs are vulnerable to the co-occurrence bias, defined as preferring frequently co-occurred words over the correct answer. Consequently, LLMs struggle to recall facts whose subject and object rarely co-occur in the pre-training dataset although they are seen during finetuning. We show that co-occurrence bias remains despite scaling up model sizes or finetuning. Therefore, we suggest finetuning on a debiased dataset to mitigate the bias by filtering out biased samples whose subject-object co-occurrence count is high. Although debiased finetuning allows LLMs to memorize rare facts in the training set, it is not effective in recalling rare facts unseen during finetuning. Further research in mitigation will help build reliable language models by preventing potential errors. The code is available at https://github.com/CheongWoong/impact_of_cooccurrence.

We present a new kind of question answering dataset, OpenBookQA, modeled after open book exams for assessing human understanding of a subject. The open book that comes with our questions is a set of 1329 elementary level science facts. Roughly 6000 questions probe an understanding of these facts and their application to novel situations. This requires combining an open book fact (e.g., metals conduct electricity) with broad common knowledge (e.g., a suit of armor is made of metal) obtained from other sources. While existing QA datasets over documents or knowledge bases, being generally self-contained, focus on linguistic understanding, OpenBookQA probes a deeper understanding of both the topic---in the context of common knowledge---and the language it is expressed in. Human performance on OpenBookQA is close to 92%, but many state-of-the-art pre-trained QA methods perform surprisingly poorly, worse than several simple neural baselines we develop. Our oracle experiments designed to circumvent the knowledge retrieval bottleneck demonstrate the value of both the open book and additional facts. We leave it as a challenge to solve the retrieval problem in this multi-hop setting and to close the large gap to human performance.

We introduce MilkQA, a question answering dataset from the dairy domain dedicated to the study of consumer questions. The dataset contains 2,657 pairs of questions and answers, written in the Portuguese language and originally collected by the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa). All questions were motivated by real situations and written by thousands of authors with very different backgrounds and levels of literacy, while answers were elaborated by specialists from Embrapa's customer service. Our dataset was filtered and anonymized by three human annotators. Consumer questions are a challenging kind of question that is usually employed as a form of seeking information. Although several question answering datasets are available, most of such resources are not suitable for research on answer selection models for consumer questions. We aim to fill this gap by making MilkQA publicly available. We study the behavior of four answer selection models on MilkQA: two baseline models and two convolutional neural network archictetures. Our results show that MilkQA poses real challenges to computational models, particularly due to linguistic characteristics of its questions and to their unusually longer lengths. Only one of the experimented models gives reasonable results, at the cost of high computational requirements.

To enable building and testing models on long-document comprehension, we introduce QuALITY, a multiple-choice QA dataset with context passages in English that have an average length of about 5,000 tokens, much longer than typical current models can process. Unlike in prior work with passages, our questions are written and validated by contributors who have read the entire passage, rather than relying on summaries or excerpts. In addition, only half of the questions are answerable by annotators working under tight time constraints, indicating that skimming and simple search are not enough to consistently perform well. Our baseline models perform poorly on this task (55.4%) and significantly lag behind human performance (93.5%).

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly verbose, free form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big. LLM based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.

Research on evaluating and analyzing large language models (LLMs) has been extensive for resource-rich languages such as English, yet their performance in languages such as Persian has received considerably less attention. This paper introduces FarsEval-PKBETS benchmark, a subset of FarsEval project for evaluating large language models in Persian. This benchmark consists of 4000 questions and answers in various formats, including multiple choice, short answer and descriptive responses. It covers a wide range of domains and tasks,including medicine, law, religion, Persian language, encyclopedic knowledge, human preferences, social knowledge, ethics and bias, text generation, and respecting others' rights. This bechmark incorporates linguistics, cultural, and local considerations relevant to the Persian language and Iran. To ensure the questions are challenging for current LLMs, three models -- Llama3-70B, PersianMind, and Dorna -- were evaluated using this benchmark. Their average accuracy was below 50%, meaning they provided fully correct answers to fewer than half of the questions. These results indicate that current language models are still far from being able to solve this benchmark

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have shown unprecedented potential in various fields, especially as the backbones for question-answering (QA) systems. However, they tend to be easily deceived by tricky questions such as "How many eyes does the sun have?". Such frailties of PLMs often allude to the lack of knowledge within them. In this paper, we find that the PLMs already possess the knowledge required to rebut such questions, and the key is how to activate the knowledge. To systematize this observation, we investigate the PLMs' responses to one kind of tricky questions, i.e., the false premises questions (FPQs). We annotate a FalseQA dataset containing 2365 human-written FPQs, with the corresponding explanations for the false premises and the revised true premise questions. Using FalseQA, we discover that PLMs are capable of discriminating FPQs by fine-tuning on moderate numbers (e.g., 256) of examples. PLMs also generate reasonable explanations for the false premise, which serve as rebuttals. Further replaying a few general questions during training allows PLMs to excel on FPQs and general questions simultaneously. Our work suggests that once the rebuttal ability is stimulated, knowledge inside the PLMs can be effectively utilized to handle FPQs, which incentivizes the research on PLM-based QA systems.

Subjective Answer Grading (SAG) plays a crucial role in education, standardized testing, and automated assessment systems, particularly for evaluating short-form responses in Short Answer Scoring (SAS). However, existing approaches often produce coarse-grained scores and lack detailed reasoning. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential as zero-shot evaluators, they remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in scoring decisions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SAS-Bench, a benchmark specifically designed for LLM-based SAS tasks. SAS-Bench provides fine-grained, step-wise scoring, expert-annotated error categories, and a diverse range of question types derived from real-world subject-specific exams. This benchmark facilitates detailed evaluation of model reasoning processes and explainability. We also release an open-source dataset containing 1,030 questions and 4,109 student responses, each annotated by domain experts. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive experiments with various LLMs, identifying major challenges in scoring science-related questions and highlighting the effectiveness of few-shot prompting in improving scoring accuracy. Our work offers valuable insights into the development of more robust, fair, and educationally meaningful LLM-based evaluation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in educational, clinical, and professional settings, but their tendency for sycophancy -- prioritizing user agreement over independent reasoning -- poses risks to reliability. This study introduces a framework to evaluate sycophantic behavior in ChatGPT-4o, Claude-Sonnet, and Gemini-1.5-Pro across AMPS (mathematics) and MedQuad (medical advice) datasets. Sycophantic behavior was observed in 58.19% of cases, with Gemini exhibiting the highest rate (62.47%) and ChatGPT the lowest (56.71%). Progressive sycophancy, leading to correct answers, occurred in 43.52% of cases, while regressive sycophancy, leading to incorrect answers, was observed in 14.66%. Preemptive rebuttals demonstrated significantly higher sycophancy rates than in-context rebuttals (61.75% vs. 56.52%, Z=5.87, p<0.001), particularly in computational tasks, where regressive sycophancy increased significantly (preemptive: 8.13%, in-context: 3.54%, p<0.001). Simple rebuttals maximized progressive sycophancy (Z=6.59, p<0.001), while citation-based rebuttals exhibited the highest regressive rates (Z=6.59, p<0.001). Sycophantic behavior showed high persistence (78.5%, 95% CI: [77.2%, 79.8%]) regardless of context or model. These findings emphasize the risks and opportunities of deploying LLMs in structured and dynamic domains, offering insights into prompt programming and model optimization for safer AI applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various domains. Math Word Problems (MWPs) serve as a crucial benchmark for evaluating LLMs' reasoning abilities. While most research primarily focuses on improving accuracy, it often neglects understanding and addressing the underlying patterns of errors. Current error classification methods rely on static and predefined categories, which limit their ability to capture the full spectrum of error patterns in mathematical reasoning. To enable systematic error analysis, we collect error samples from 15 different LLMs of varying sizes across four distinct MWP datasets using multiple sampling strategies. Based on this extensive collection, we introduce MWPES-300K, a comprehensive dataset containing 304,865 error samples that cover diverse error patterns and reasoning paths. To reduce human bias and enable fine-grained analysis of error patterns, we propose a novel framework for automated dynamic error classification in mathematical reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that dataset characteristics significantly shape error patterns, which evolve from basic to complex manifestations as model capabilities increase. With deeper insights into error patterns, we propose error-aware prompting that incorporates common error patterns as explicit guidance, leading to significant improvements in mathematical reasoning performance.

Estimating the difficulty of exam questions is essential for developing good exams, but professors are not always good at this task. We compare various Large Language Model-based methods with three professors in their ability to estimate what percentage of students will give correct answers on True/False exam questions in the areas of Neural Networks and Machine Learning. Our results show that the professors have limited ability to distinguish between easy and difficult questions and that they are outperformed by directly asking Gemini 2.5 to solve this task. Yet, we obtained even better results using uncertainties of the LLMs solving the questions in a supervised learning setting, using only 42 training samples. We conclude that supervised learning using LLM uncertainty can help professors better estimate the difficulty of exam questions, improving the quality of assessment.

We present SimpleQA, a benchmark that evaluates the ability of language models to answer short, fact-seeking questions. We prioritized two properties in designing this eval. First, SimpleQA is challenging, as it is adversarially collected against GPT-4 responses. Second, responses are easy to grade, because questions are created such that there exists only a single, indisputable answer. Each answer in SimpleQA is graded as either correct, incorrect, or not attempted. A model with ideal behavior would get as many questions correct as possible while not attempting the questions for which it is not confident it knows the correct answer. SimpleQA is a simple, targeted evaluation for whether models "know what they know," and our hope is that this benchmark will remain relevant for the next few generations of frontier models. SimpleQA can be found at https://github.com/openai/simple-evals.

Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.

We conduct a feasibility study into the applicability of answer-agnostic question generation models to textbook passages. We show that a significant portion of errors in such systems arise from asking irrelevant or uninterpretable questions and that such errors can be ameliorated by providing summarized input. We find that giving these models human-written summaries instead of the original text results in a significant increase in acceptability of generated questions (33% rightarrow 83%) as determined by expert annotators. We also find that, in the absence of human-written summaries, automatic summarization can serve as a good middle ground.

Increasing test-time computation is a straightforward approach to enhancing the quality of responses in Large Language Models (LLMs). While Best-of-N sampling and Self-Consistency with majority voting are simple and effective, they require a fixed number of sampling responses for each query, regardless of its complexity. This could result in wasted computation for simpler questions and insufficient exploration for more challenging ones. In this work, we argue that model confidence of responses can be used for improving the efficiency of test-time scaling. Unfortunately, LLMs are known to be overconfident and provide unreliable confidence estimation. To address this limitation, we introduce Self-Calibration by distilling Self-Consistency-derived confidence into the model itself. This enables reliable confidence estimation at test time with one forward pass. We then design confidence-based efficient test-time scaling methods to handle queries of various difficulty, such as Early-Stopping for Best-of-N and Self-Consistency with calibrated confidence. Experiments on three LLMs across six datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Specifically, applying confidence-based Early Stopping to Best-of-N improves MathQA accuracy from 81.0 to 83.6 with a sample budget of 16 responses, indicating the efficacy of confidence-based sampling strategy at inference time.

It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases, but little work has been done on how these biases manifest in model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset of question sets constructed by the authors that highlight attested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two levels: (i) given an under-informative context, we test how strongly responses reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, we test whether the model's biases override a correct answer choice. We find that models often rely on stereotypes when the context is under-informative, meaning the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are more accurate when the context provides an informative answer, they still rely on stereotypes and average up to 3.4 percentage points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with a social bias than when it conflicts, with this difference widening to over 5 points on examples targeting gender for most models tested.

Despite near-perfect results in artificial evaluations, the effectiveness of model editing in real-world applications remains unexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose to study model editing in question answering (QA) by establishing a rigorous evaluation practice to assess the effectiveness of editing methods in correcting LLMs' errors. It consists of QAEdit, a new benchmark derived from popular QA datasets, and a standardized evaluation framework. Our single editing experiments indicate that current editing methods perform substantially worse than previously reported (38.5% vs. ~96%). Through module analysis and controlled experiments, we demonstrate that this performance decline stems from issues in evaluation practices of prior editing research. One key issue is the inappropriate use of teacher forcing in testing prevents error propagation by feeding ground truth tokens (inaccessible in real-world scenarios) as input. Furthermore, we simulate real-world deployment by sequential editing, revealing that current approaches fail drastically with only 1000 edits. Our analysis provides a fundamental reexamination of both the real-world applicability of existing model editing methods and their evaluation practices, and establishes a rigorous evaluation framework with key insights to advance reliable and practical model editing research.

Existing studies on bias mitigation methods for large language models (LLMs) use diverse baselines and metrics to evaluate debiasing performance, leading to inconsistent comparisons among them. Moreover, their evaluations are mostly based on the comparison between LLMs' probabilities of biased and unbiased contexts, which ignores the gap between such evaluations and real-world use cases where users interact with LLMs by reading model responses and expect fair and safe outputs rather than LLMs' probabilities. To enable consistent evaluation across debiasing methods and bridge this gap, we introduce BiasFreeBench, an empirical benchmark that comprehensively compares eight mainstream bias mitigation techniques (covering four prompting-based and four training-based methods) on two test scenarios (multi-choice QA and open-ended multi-turn QA) by reorganizing existing datasets into a unified query-response setting. We further introduce a response-level metric, Bias-Free Score, to measure the extent to which LLM responses are fair, safe, and anti-stereotypical. Debiasing performances are systematically compared and analyzed across key dimensions: the prompting vs. training paradigm, model size, and generalization of different training strategies to unseen bias types. We will publicly release our benchmark, aiming to establish a unified testbed for bias mitigation research.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce errors, including factual inaccuracies, biases, and reasoning failures, collectively referred to as "hallucinations". Recent studies have demonstrated that LLMs' internal states encode information regarding the truthfulness of their outputs, and that this information can be utilized to detect errors. In this work, we show that the internal representations of LLMs encode much more information about truthfulness than previously recognized. We first discover that the truthfulness information is concentrated in specific tokens, and leveraging this property significantly enhances error detection performance. Yet, we show that such error detectors fail to generalize across datasets, implying that -- contrary to prior claims -- truthfulness encoding is not universal but rather multifaceted. Next, we show that internal representations can also be used for predicting the types of errors the model is likely to make, facilitating the development of tailored mitigation strategies. Lastly, we reveal a discrepancy between LLMs' internal encoding and external behavior: they may encode the correct answer, yet consistently generate an incorrect one. Taken together, these insights deepen our understanding of LLM errors from the model's internal perspective, which can guide future research on enhancing error analysis and mitigation.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

Recent advancements in reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models (LLMs), exemplified by DeepSeek R1, have shown that even a simple question-answering task can substantially improve an LLM's reasoning capabilities. In this work, we extend this approach by modifying the task into a multi-attempt setting. Instead of generating a single response per question, the model is given multiple attempts, with feedback provided after incorrect responses. The multi-attempt task encourages the model to refine its previous attempts and improve search efficiency. Experimental results show that even a small LLM trained on a multi-attempt task achieves significantly higher accuracy when evaluated with more attempts, improving from 45.6% with 1 attempt to 52.5% with 2 attempts on the math benchmark. In contrast, the same LLM trained on a standard single-turn task exhibits only a marginal improvement, increasing from 42.3% to 43.2% when given more attempts during evaluation. The results indicate that, compared to the standard single-turn task, an LLM trained on a multi-attempt task achieves slightly better performance on math benchmarks while also learning to refine its responses more effectively based on user feedback. Full code is available at https://github.com/DualityRL/multi-attempt

Long-Form Question Answering (LFQA) involves generating comprehensive, paragraph-level responses to open-ended questions, which poses a significant challenge for evaluation due to the richness of information and flexible response format. Existing LFQA-evaluation benchmarks often lack reference answers and are limited in size and topic coverage, reducing their reliability. To address this gap, we introduce LFQA-E, a well-constructed, multilingual, and reference-based benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate automatic metrics for LFQA. LFQA-E comprises 1618 questions and 7323 pairwise comparisons across 15 topics, drawn from diverse sources such as online queries and examination questions, thereby enabling a comprehensive assessment of evaluation metrics. We examine five categories of metrics, encompassing 17 specific methods, using LFQA-E. The results demonstrate that none of the existing automatic metrics perform comparably to human judgments, highlighting their inability to capture the dense information in long-form responses. Furthermore, we present a detailed analysis of the failure cases and the generalization capacity of these metrics, offering insights to guide the future development of LFQA evaluation methods. The benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/YuchenFan48/LFQA-E.

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.

As large language models increase in capability, researchers have started to conduct surveys of all kinds on these models with varying scientific motivations. In this work, we examine what we can learn from a model's survey responses on the basis of the well-established American Community Survey (ACS) by the U.S. Census Bureau. Evaluating more than a dozen different models, varying in size from a few hundred million to ten billion parameters, hundreds of thousands of times each on questions from the ACS, we systematically establish two dominant patterns. First, smaller models have a significant position and labeling bias, for example, towards survey responses labeled with the letter "A". This A-bias diminishes, albeit slowly, as model size increases. Second, when adjusting for this labeling bias through randomized answer ordering, models still do not trend toward US population statistics or those of any cognizable population. Rather, models across the board trend toward uniformly random aggregate statistics over survey responses. This pattern is robust to various different ways of prompting the model, including what is the de-facto standard. Our findings demonstrate that aggregate statistics of a language model's survey responses lack the signals found in human populations. This absence of statistical signal cautions about the use of survey responses from large language models at present time.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) generalize across different task difficulties, a key question for effective data curation and evaluation. Existing research is mixed regarding whether training on easier or harder data leads to better results, and whether those gains come on easier or harder test data. We address this question by conducting a systematic evaluation of LLMs' generalization across models, datasets, and fine-grained groups of example difficulty. We rank examples in six datasets using the outputs of thousands of different LLMs and Item Response Theory (IRT), a well-established difficulty metric in educational testing. Unlike prior work, our difficulty ratings are therefore determined solely by the abilities of many different LLMs, excluding human opinions of difficulty. With a more objective, larger-scale, and finer-grained analysis, we show that cross-difficulty generalization is often limited; training on either easy or hard data cannot achieve consistent improvements across the full range of difficulties. These results show the importance of having a range of difficulties in both training and evaluation data for LLMs, and that taking shortcuts with respect to difficulty is risky.

Large Language Model (LLM) leaderboards based on benchmark rankings are regularly used to guide practitioners in model selection. Often, the published leaderboard rankings are taken at face value - we show this is a (potentially costly) mistake. Under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to (often minute) details. We show that for popular multiple choice question benchmarks (e.g. MMLU) minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions. We explain this phenomenon by conducting systematic experiments over three broad categories of benchmark perturbations and identifying the sources of this behavior. Our analysis results in several best-practice recommendations, including the advantage of a hybrid scoring method for answer selection. Our study highlights the dangers of relying on simple benchmark evaluations and charts the path for more robust evaluation schemes on the existing benchmarks.

Existing question answering (QA) datasets are no longer challenging to most powerful Large Language Models (LLMs). Traditional QA benchmarks like TriviaQA, NaturalQuestions, ELI5 and HotpotQA mainly study ``known unknowns'' with clear indications of both what information is missing, and how to find it to answer the question. Hence, good performance on these benchmarks provides a false sense of security. A yet unmet need of the NLP community is a bank of non-factoid, multi-perspective questions involving a great deal of unclear information needs, i.e. ``unknown uknowns''. We claim we can find such questions in search engine logs, which is surprising because most question-intent queries are indeed factoid. We present Researchy Questions, a dataset of search engine queries tediously filtered to be non-factoid, ``decompositional'' and multi-perspective. We show that users spend a lot of ``effort'' on these questions in terms of signals like clicks and session length, and that they are also challenging for GPT-4. We also show that ``slow thinking'' answering techniques, like decomposition into sub-questions shows benefit over answering directly. We release sim 100k Researchy Questions, along with the Clueweb22 URLs that were clicked.

Generating high-quality question-answer pairs for specialized technical domains remains challenging, with existing approaches facing a tradeoff between leveraging expert examples and achieving topical diversity. We present ExpertGenQA, a protocol that combines few-shot learning with structured topic and style categorization to generate comprehensive domain-specific QA pairs. Using U.S. Federal Railroad Administration documents as a test bed, we demonstrate that ExpertGenQA achieves twice the efficiency of baseline few-shot approaches while maintaining 94.4% topic coverage. Through systematic evaluation, we show that current LLM-based judges and reward models exhibit strong bias toward superficial writing styles rather than content quality. Our analysis using Bloom's Taxonomy reveals that ExpertGenQA better preserves the cognitive complexity distribution of expert-written questions compared to template-based approaches. When used to train retrieval models, our generated queries improve top-1 accuracy by 13.02% over baseline performance, demonstrating their effectiveness for downstream applications in technical domains.