Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate multiple-choice questions (MCQs), where correct answers should ideally be uniformly distributed across options. However, we observe that LLMs exhibit systematic position biases during generation. Through extensive experiments with 10 LLMs and 5 vision-language models (VLMs) on three MCQ generation tasks, we show that these biases are structured, with similar patterns emerging within model families. To investigate the underlying mechanisms, we conduct probing experiments and find that hidden representations in the question stem encode predictive signals of the correct answer position, suggesting that answer position may be implicitly planned during generation. Building on this insight, we apply activation steering to manipulate internal representations and influence answer position. Our results show that steering can partially control positional preferences and substantially shift answer position distributions. Our findings provide a practical framework for studying implicit positional planning in LLMs and highlight the importance of controllable generation for reliable MCQ construction and evaluation.
Position bias in multiple-choice LLM evaluation is widely cited as a confound in capability comparisons, but published measurements rely on single answer-order shuffles whose results confound the bias signal with content-level noise and sampling stochasticity. I introduce inspect_permute, an open-source extension to the inspect_ai evaluation framework that runs exhaustive answer-order permutations per question and reports the chi-squared / Cramer V signature of position bias with bootstrap confidence intervals. I apply the tool across four vendors (gpt-4o-mini, claude-haiku-4-5, gemini-2.5-flash, grok-3) on five MMLU subjects, 24,000 API calls under temperature-0 generation, with falsifier predictions pre-registered via a public SHA-256 hash before half the data was observed. Position bias turns out to be statistically detectable only within a roughly 60-95% base-accuracy Goldilocks zone. Below it, processing-load dominance swamps subject-specific signal; above it, ceiling effects compress the variance below the chi-squared test resolution. Detectable cells separate into two mechanism types: monotone A-to-D decrease (processing_load, in low-tier models) and non-monotone D-drop (content_ambiguity, in a narrow capability band). Standard MMLU places every frontier-tier model above the detection band, so absence of signal there should be read as not measurable, not unbiased. Together with the ceiling-effect characterisation in arXiv:2606.26185, this work brackets the detectable region of position-bias measurement and makes the field central question askable in a verifiable form. Package, data, preregistration under MIT.
Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge. In this paper, we test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance. We evaluate two different strategies for mitigating bias. The first uses a generation-then-matching approach, and the second scores options in isolation, which is positionally unbiased by construction. Neither reliably improves accuracy. A complete decomposition shows that the bottleneck is withholding options, not the matching step. The only configuration that consistently matches the baseline is the one that shows the model all options paired with an LLM matcher. However, eliminating positional influence entirely still does not reliably yield accuracy gains, while cyclic permutation often improves them. For two-stage prompting, an aggregate measure of recall imbalance and a direct per-question measure of order sensitivity both fail to show reliable debiasing.
Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding. Furthermore, the rapid proliferation of LLMs has created the implicit assumption that more sophisticated prompting techniques yield better performance. Several studies claim such gains, but report them under differing models, prompt wordings and answer-extraction rules, so the gains cannot be attributed to the technique alone. We address this gap with ReasonLab, an evaluation framework in which the prompting technique is a first-class experimental variable alongside the model and the dataset, and which retains every generation for inspection. Using ReasonLab we conduct a controlled study of 8 prompting techniques across 10 MCQA datasets, 27 model configurations and 480,927 evaluations at temperature 0. We find that the prompting technique is a minor determinant of accuracy: on configurations without a reasoning budget the reasoning triggers improve on direct prompting by only 3.92 to 4.69 pp and are indistinguishable from one another, and on configurations with reasoning enabled no technique differs by more than 0.51 pp. Self-Generate is the only technique with a consistent effect, a reduction of 2.95 pp. We further investigate three phenomena: (1) the comparison of models on a common set of datasets, where model size does not predict accuracy, (2) the trade-offs across thinking budgets, where enabling reasoning is worth up to 12.74 pp whereas an eightfold budget increase adds only 0.48 to 2.10 pp, and (3) the variation in dataset difficulty, with 60% of benchmarks below 70% accuracy and a 43.9 pp spread from easiest to hardest. These results suggest that, for MCQA, the prompting technique is a minor lever compared with enabling model reasoning, and that substantial headroom remains.