Multiple-Choice Questions

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper $F_1$, 0.441 evidence $F_1$ and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer \emph{semantics} rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0% to 57.5% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number $k$ of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5%) at both $k=0$ and the adapter's training-time $k=1$, 188/200 (94.0%) at the packaged runtime's default $k=3$ --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of $k=3$, selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~\cite{zhao2024ratescore} decrease as $k$ grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant ($p \ge 0.29$); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).

Adding answer options can lower multiple-choice scores without improving assessment validity. Turkish MMLU Pro examines this distinction using 12,000 Turkish-source questions across 58 sections. Each question retains its stem, five original options and source key, and receives five options copied from other questions in the same section. Sentence-embedding retrieval proposes candidates; a language model selects existing identifiers. Deterministic verification reconstructs all 60,000 additions. A 25-model calibration exposes scoring and generation-budget effects. Five evaluations produce source-key accuracies of 34.8%-81.4%. On 981 shared questions, one API-served model falls from 93.7% with five choices to 83.1% with ten; 102 of 115 lost correct responses select borrowed options. The decrease is 24.4 percentage points on heuristically flagged negative stems and 5.9 points elsewhere. A completed human-checked audit of 200 sampled questions, with undocumented reviewer tool use, yields 47 and 31 multiple-answer judgments across the two record sets, 25 of the latter unresolved. These records support concern about ambiguity, while their dependence and incomplete reviewer-method documentation limit validation. Because order and labels also change, the paired comparison measures augmentation as implemented. The contribution is a traceable construction and an analysis of its validity limits, not evidence that lower ten-choice scores measure knowledge better.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve knowledge-intensive question answering, but the first design choice is easy to overlook: how should the source corpus be partitioned into retrievable units? Fixed-size chunks often return long passages whose relation to the question is only implicit. We introduce EAR, an Entity-Aware Partitioning approach for multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). EAR extracts normalized surface anchors from the question, answer options, and corpus; retrieves local windows around matching corpus anchors; and can attach a larger parent passage through an extractive summary. We evaluate EAR on a cleaned Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU)-style subset of 153 questions selected by an automatic corpus-support heuristic and using decontaminated public textbook text. Across same-protocol top-k = 3 and top-k = 8 sweeps with Mistral, Gemma, and DeepSeek, EAR entity-window reduces retrieved words by 37.5-40.2% relative to chunks. Observed accuracy changes are +5.2, +1.3, and -3.9 points at top-k = 3, and +5.9, -3.3, and -4.6 points at top-k = 8; none of the entity-window differences is statistically significant. The scoped contribution is methodological: EAR provides a compact and inspectable retrieval unit, while its rule-based anchor extractor remains domain-specific and requires separate validation before transfer.

This paper describes our system for Task2 of the second Multilingual Conversational Speech Language Model (MLC-SLM) Challenge. We adapt Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct with a segment-evidence-aware data and post-training pipeline. A language model converts timestamped ASR into coherent event spans, which are expanded by a boundary margin and cropped from the original recording. We then synthesize complementary semantic MCQs with Qwen3.6-27B and acoustic MCQs with Gemini3.1 Flash-Lite, followed by structural, grounding, answer-consistency, and target-model trainability checks, yielding 359,825 verified MCQs across 21 language and accent variants. A text-only probe partitions the data into weak, text-answerable items used for supervised fine-tuning and strong, audio-dependent items used for reinforcement learning with Group Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO), stabilized by debiased advantages, sequence-level importance correction, and dynamic filtering. Our system obtains 90.92% accuracy on the final official evaluation set.

Evaluating video captioning remains a critical challenge for Visual Large Language Models (VLLMs). Existing metrics primarily rely on matching generated text against ground-truth references. This paradigm suffers from the ``one-to-many'' nature of video description, where high-quality captions are often penalized for lexical mismatches or valid shifts in visual focus. Furthermore, such assessments are typically one-dimensional, failing to provide a fine-grained analysis of caption quality. To address this, we redefine caption quality through the lens of information fidelity: A caption must maximize the coverage of salient visual information while ensuring strict factuality. We introduce CapQuiz, a novel reference-free benchmark that assesses captions based on their utility in answering human-verified, fine-grained, multiple-choice questions derived from the video. CapQuiz features a hierarchical taxonomy of 10 question types (spanning Descriptive and Inferential categories) across 24 diverse video domains. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CapQuiz correlates significantly better with human judgments than existing metrics and offers interpretable insights into model performance.

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

Robustness evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge, particularly in assessing their sensitivity to perturbations in input data. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM robustness across multiple dimensions, including word error rate, character repetition and duplication, modifications in choices, and variability in instruction following. To facilitate this evaluation, we construct a synthetic and augmented dataset encompassing a diverse set of LLM benchmarks, specifically targeting multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets and instruction-following tasks. We conduct extensive experiments on LLMs of varying scales-small, medium, and large-as well as across base and instruction-tuned variants. Our analysis quantifies the variability in model responses under perturbed conditions and highlights discrepancies relative to baseline models. The findings provide insights into the stability of LLMs across different evaluation scenarios contributing to the development of more robust and reliable language models as well as robust evaluation methodologies.

Idiomatic expressions are an integral part of natural language, reflecting cultural nuances and posing unique challenges for computational models, particularly in low-resource languages. In this paper, we present the first large-scale benchmark dataset of Bangla idioms, complemented by a synthetic multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset for idiom meaning identification. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of recent large language models (LLMs) across three idiom-related tasks: paraphrasing, idiom span detection, and meaning identification, leveraging zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. Our results reveal substantial variability in model performance, with no single LLM consistently outperforming others across all tasks. Notably, Phi-4-mini-instruct excels in paraphrasing, Kimi-K2-32b-instruct in span detection, and Gemini-2.5-flash in meaning identification. We believe that our datasets and analyses will provide valuable resources to guide future research in improving LLM comprehension of idiomatic expressions, particularly in Bangla and other low-resource languages.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Role-playing large language models (LLMs) are expected to adopt a character's style while also respecting that character's knowledge boundaries. Prior evaluations detect character hallucination but rarely distinguish whether errors arise from failure to recognize a boundary or from failure to comply despite recognition. We introduce CHARM, a multicultural benchmark of 40 real and fictional characters drawn from five cultural-linguistic regions, and validated by native reviewers. It probes two boundary types, Temporal (historical vs. modern) and Cross-Universe (entities outside a character's narrative or historical universe), using abstention-enabled multiple-choice questions. We propose a two-stage evaluation that separates Boundary-Awareness (explicit recognition that a query is out of scope) from Boundary-Compliance (abstention when answering concrete questions). Evaluations across six LLMs show that hallucination is driven predominantly by compliance failures. Models frequently acknowledge that a query lies outside the character's knowledge yet still provide factual, out-of-character answers. By re-posing the same questions to the target character, we confirm that a large fraction of these cases are verified parametric overrides; the model stores the relevant fact but fails to suppress it. We also observe systematic cultural variation in these failures, consistent with imbalances in how characters from different regions are represented in model knowledge.

Large language models often answer the same multiple-choice question inconsistently when it is posed under support-oriented and elimination-oriented framings. We investigate whether these discrepancies arise from different internal representations induced by the two framings. We introduce a dual-framing protocol with minimally varied prompts that use either support- or elimination-oriented framing while keeping the evaluation target fixed. To probe the internal computation, we append an untrained special token, [STATE], and treat its residual-stream activation as an intervention interface. Across both models, the two framings induce separable [STATE] activations concentrated in intermediate layers. Swapping these activations between paired prompts systematically changes predictions and improves cross-framing agreement, providing intervention-based evidence that the activations are behaviorally relevant. Beyond instance-level substitution, mean-difference steering directions derived from the dual-framing contrast exhibit more bounded layer-wise responses than matched contrastive activation addition directions under the evaluated protocol.

As Large Language Models rapidly advance, performance on standard multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks is reaching saturation. While the community has responded by developing increasingly difficult datasets, validating question quality and filtering flawed items remains a labor-intensive process. To provide a scalable diagnostic approach, we propose a two-component probabilistic framework for auditing MCQA benchmarks using model output distributions. First, for benchmark-level analysis, we characterize the probability landscape using the top prediction probability ($P_{top1}$) and normalized residual entropy ($H_{norm}$), summarized globally by Mean Pairwise Distance (MPD). Second, for item-level diagnostics, we introduce noise injection to reduce meaningful distractor competition, enabling us to flag candidate items for targeted human review and categorize residual failure patterns. Across four MCQA benchmarks, our landscape analysis reveals benchmark-level differences in model confidence and residual option competition. Concurrently, our noise-injection method flags potentially actionable item-level issues, showing alignment with expert error annotations from MMLU-Redux. These results suggest that our probability-based framework provides a lightweight audit lens for comparing macro-level benchmark structure and prioritizing individual items for targeted human review.

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks in NLP use number-right scoring (accuracy), but in educational testing, the scoring scheme, the combination of the response mode models follow and the rule for grading responses, is a key design choice that dictates which abilities to reward. We examine how alternatives to number right change what MCQA measures with six education-inspired schemes that assess abilities beyond accuracy: distractor elimination, abstention, confidence calibration, and self-correction. On LLM benchmarks, these schemes: 1) shift rankings of 31 LLMs beyond rephrased number right prompts; 2) better predict the LLMs users prefer in LLM Arena; and 3) reveal distinct model capabilities, like that GPT-5 rarely abstains and readily self-corrects, while weaker open-weight models often abstain and hesitate to eliminate choices. Given the benefits of alternative scoring schemes, we discuss ways to extend them to tasks beyond MCQA.

Cultural evaluation of large language models (LLMs) often focuses on high-resource standard languages, leaving regional culture and dialect communities underrepresented. We introduce BavGround, a benchmark for evaluating Bavarian regional cultural grounding and dialect competence across English, German and Bavarian. BavGround contains 206 multiple-choice source questions across eight cultural domains per language, yielding 618 multi-parallel instances, with items covering both broadly accessible cultural knowledge and source-grounded regional knowledge from journalism, historical sources, and specialist literature. We evaluate fifteen 7B-10B open-weight instruction-tuned models and one closed-model reference. Strong multilingual models perform best overall, but performance drops on Bavarian items and source-grounded questions, indicating persistent difficulty with dialectal and localized cultural knowledge. We further show that conclusions depend strongly on evaluation protocol: raw answer-letter scoring, shuffled-letter scoring, option-text likelihood, generated-answer parsing, and semantic matching can produce different absolute scores and rankings, especially for regionally adapted models. Finally, an exploratory analysis of GENBA-10B checkpoints suggests that continued pretraining improves answer-content likelihood unevenly across domains, while dialect competence remains comparatively weak. BavGround supports localized, protocol-aware evaluation of cultural representation in LLMs.

Counterfactual video understanding evaluates whether models grasp physical and commonsense regularities. However, existing multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks inadvertently leak target events through their questions and candidate options. This reduces the core challenge from active discovery to text-guided verification. In this paper, we present FADE, an effective training framework for counterfactual discovery and explanation. Our method is built on an evidence-first, two-stage training paradigm. First, evidence-internalized supervised fine-tuning grounds the model's predictions in decisive visual anomalies. Second, we apply a fading-anchor reinforcement learning strategy that progressively removes textual guidance, compelling the model to independently discover and explain evidence. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we also introduce an effective pipeline that converts existing MCQ datasets into aligned MCQ, open-ended question answering (OQA), and captioning tasks without requiring additional data curation. Our simple approach yields strong results. Using Qwen3-VL-8B as the baseline, FADE achieves state-of-the-art strict paired scores across all three tasks on DualityVidQA-test and IPV-Bench, outperforming GPT-5.6. In specific, when transitioning from constrained MCQs to unconstrained OQA and captioning, our model demonstrates remarkable robustness. Its performance retention is 90.4% and 67.4% on DualityVidQA-test-substantially higher than the 48.1% and 30.7% retained by GPT-5.6. We hope this simple framework can serve as a solid baseline for future research in unconstrained counterfactual video understanding.

We present results from reconstructing multiple-choice model (MCM) and three-parameter logistic (3PL) model curves using a fine-tuned multimodal large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3.5. The model is prompted and fine-tuned to replicate choice probabilities across a large training corpus of multiple-choice items containing both image and text stimuli, conditioned on a labeled set of student ability levels. By learning to reproduce the systematic error patterns of students across a discrete range of abilities, the LLM implicitly captures the underlying response probabilities encoded in the 3PL and MCM curves. This allows us to accurately approximate item difficulty on a held-out test set directly from the model's predicted option probabilities.

Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed computational linguistics and achieved remarkable performance across numerous natural language processing tasks, yet significant gaps persist in understanding how these systems process culturally embedded linguistic expressions. This paper introduces ProverbIT, a novel Italian benchmark comprising 100 multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to complete Italian proverbs. We assess 13 frontier models, including Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and traditional LLMs, across three tasks: proverb completion, multiple-choice selection with correct answers, and multiple-choice selection without correct answers. Our evaluation reveals surprising results: while nearly all models demonstrate knowledge of the proverbs through successful completion tasks, performance drops dramatically when transitioning to multiple-choice formats without correct answers, with even state-of-the-art reasoning models showing substantial degradation. Through detailed Chain-of-Thought analysis of two LRMs, we uncover that models exhibit a strong bias toward selecting literal synonyms and frequently mention correct proverb endings during reasoning without successfully identifying their absence from the given options. These findings suggest that current LLMs rely heavily on memorized patterns rather than deeper semantic understanding of culturally grounded expressions, highlighting important limitations in their reasoning capabilities for figurative language comprehension.

Most multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) only by whether they select the correct answers. This binary scoring treats all incorrect responses alike, even though an LLM's preferences among incorrect options may contain systematic and useful information about its behavior and ability. We introduce the LLM Nominal Response Model (LLM-NRM), an option-aware psychometric framework that models the full distribution over answer choices to jointly estimate LLM ability and option-level item characteristics, while separating model-specific response calibration sharpness, positional preference, and difficulty-dependent fallback behavior. Across 189 LLMs and 31,554 items from 14 benchmarks, LLM-NRM predicts held-out LLM-item interactions more accurately than binary Item Response models and conventional nominal-response baselines, and its ability estimates achieve the strongest Spearman correlation of 0.920 with the external human-preference Arena.ai Elo leaderboard. Distractor identity contributes +101% additional Fisher Information per item beyond correctness, and incorrect responses alone recover full-information ability estimates with Spearman 0.943. The learned item parameters also enable efficient benchmarking, where 41 selected items preserve the full-bank ranking with Kendall's correlation 0.85, corresponding to a 770 times reduction. In conclusion, we show that incorrect answers carry distinct and useful measurement information rather than representing equivalent mistakes.

We convert 21 of 28 full-attention layers of Qwen3-0.6B-Base into KDA (Kimi Delta Attention) linear-attention layers on a single consumer-grade GPU budget, and ask a simple question: what exactly does the conversion break? After surgery, hidden-state alignment and end-to-end KL distillation drive the student close to its teacher in perplexity, yet multiple-choice accuracy stays near random chance (25-29% vs. the teacher's 50.6% on C-Eval). Using a four-permutation diagnostic that rotates answer options while holding content fixed, we show the model sticks to option labels (predicting "A" 81% of the time; 106/161 questions keep the same label under all four rotations) rather than following answer content -- an interface injury that standard distillation metrics cannot see. A 1,000-step format-targeted completion-only KL stage repairs the interface (+12.48 points on C-Eval, label-stickiness roughly halved), after which persona SFT and one round of on-policy DPO preserve benchmark scores within noise. We release code, weights, recipes, and the full audit trail, and distill the engineering lessons -- including an FP32-master failure mode in which bf16 optimizer updates are silently swallowed -- that made convergence possible at this budget.

We investigate the geometry of decision-making in Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) through the lens of isotropy. Analyzing five open-weight models across diverse datasets, we identify decision-critical transition layers characterized by a shift in isotropy, coinciding with a major representational change and the emergence of task-relevant clusters. We demonstrate that this synchronized geometric behavior is strongly correlated with downstream accuracy ($r\approx0.84$), displaying its relevance for successful decision-making. Furthermore, we show that this transition is robust to prompt variations, suggesting that it reflects a general mechanism of model behavior.

Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution. We present Backtrader-Bench, a framework with two complementary pipelines. A deterministic multiple-choice question (MCQ) pipeline generates questions from backtest configurations across five trading strategies, 33 templates, and three difficulty tiers, with an independent checker that re-derives every answer. A generator-solver filtering pipeline autonomously mines harder questions: a generator writes questions verified by executable code, converts them to MCQs, and discards any that a no-tool solver can answer without code execution. We evaluate 11 models without tools (10 runs each) and four with-tools configurations on a 30-question curated set. Tool-augmented agents reach 90.0% accuracy in a single pass (GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7), outperforming the best no-tools baselines (73.0%, averaged over 10 runs) by 17 percentage points. On 38 separately mined questions, no-tools accuracy drops further, with half the models falling to roughly random-chance level (25%). Beyond evaluation, the scalable MCQ infrastructure is designed to produce a training corpus for reinforcement learning, with the ultimate goal of building a specialized agent for quantitative trading workflows.

Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prompted to "reflect," yet whether this resembles human revision remains unclear. We introduce the Human-LLM Reflection Framework (HRF), a controlled two-pass protocol comparing human and LLM revision under identical conditions across self-, peer-, and cross-agent settings. Using an information-theoretic analysis based on per-iteration cross-entropy reduction, we find two failure modes of LLM reflection. On objective tasks with finite answer spaces, reflection yields near-zero information gain (Delta I approx 0), behaving as neutral re-generation indistinguishable from re-sampling. On subjective tasks, it yields significant negative gain (Delta I < 0), moving predictions away from the target. Human revision, by contrast, yields positive gain in both settings. Cross-agent experiments localize the failure to the revision step, not input quality: LLMs degrade even high-quality human responses. Diagnostic analyses (revision conditioned on first-pass correctness, and oracle-guided revision against a random-reshuffle baseline) show that which sub-step dominates varies by task and by model rather than reducing to a single mechanism: self-error detection is present on objective multiple-choice tasks but weak on subjective ones, and recovery under an oracle error signal exceeds the baseline for some models and falls below it for others. The unifying account is structural: without external information, self-conditioned revision cannot reduce uncertainty about the target, so LLM reflection is better understood as conditioned re-generation than as genuine error-driven revision.

Quiz rooms, trivia nights, and quiz shows challenge human knowledge across a wide range of topics, from canonical facts to everyday culture. In this paper, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can perform competitively in such settings, using quiz-style questions to test them on both common and niche topics. We introduce TriviaRoomQA, a multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate everyday, culturally grounded, and long-tail knowledge across 288 topics. The benchmark contains 3,300 parallel multiple-choice questions in six European languages and additional 5,340 French-only questions for a more fine-grained case study. We evaluate 30 open-weight LLMs from European, Asian, and North American providers, covering models from 7 to 70B parameters. We find that models are strong on knowledge-intensive topics such as history, geography, and mathematics, but substantially weaker on everyday popular-culture topics such as celebrities, music, movies, and news. Moreover, model performance varies across languages even for the same underlying questions, suggesting that access to factual knowledge is not always language-independent. In sum, our dataset and experiments demonstrate an important knowledge gap which is not captured by existing academic-based saturated benchmarks.

Clinical NLP evaluation remains dominated by multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which scores only final-answer accuracy and cannot detect when a model reaches the correct diagnosis while grounding it in irrelevant, absent, or contradictory evidence. We introduce MIRA-Ev, a clinical argument mining benchmark built on Spanish Médico Interno Residente (MIR) licensing-exam cases, re-annotated by expert clinicians with span-level premises, claims, and directed support/attack relations, and released in parallel Spanish (native), English, and Basque versions, the first clinical argumentation resource in Basque. MIRA-Ev organizes evaluation into a three-tier task hierarchy: evidence sentence retrieval, argumentative component extraction, and relation classification.

Large language models often appear to reason reliably, yet on many questions repeated sampling yields both correct and incorrect answers, revealing an underlying fragility in how final decisions are formed. We study whether this fragility can be exploited through implicit reasoning steering: using natural-language text to bias a model toward a designated answer without explicit instructions, triggers, or direct answer cues. Our approach, Concept Chaining, generates a short connection paragraph that links question entities to a target option through one or two intermediate concepts. We then continue pretraining a victim model on these connection paragraphs and evaluate whether its answer preference shifts on the original multiple-choice questions. Our results show that indirect, natural-looking text can systematically steer model predictions while remaining substantially less inferable than direct paraphrases, which shows that reasoning brittleness is not merely an evaluation artifact: it creates a practical channel through which latent biases can be amplified by ordinary-looking text to covertly redirect model decisions.

Recent work trains reasoning models with length penalties to curb overthinking and cut inference cost. We show that these penalties make the chain of thought less monitorable. A length-compressed model still lets misleading hints steer its answers, but it less often verbalizes their influence. We train Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-14B with reinforcement learning under length penalties targeting 60% down to 30% of baseline chain-of-thought length, then evaluate them with nine types of biasing hints on held-out MMLU-Pro-R and four transfer benchmarks. A chain is faithful when an LLM monitor can tell from it that the hint influenced the answer. At the 30% target, accuracy stays near baseline and wrong-answer hints switch answers as often as before. Yet faithfulness drops on every evaluation set for both models, by 39% for Qwen3-14B and 35% for Qwen3-4B on MMLU-Pro-R. A control trained with the same correctness and format rewards but no length penalty leaves faithfulness intact or raises it. Shortening alone does not explain the drop. Compressed chains mention the hint 7 to 35 percentage points less often than the uncompressed model's chains shortened to the same length by random sentence deletion, across both model sizes and all five evaluation sets. Length penalties therefore trade monitorability for inference cost by removing the evidence monitors depend on.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these risks by grounding responses in an explicitly maintained corpus, but end-to-end performance depends critically on retrieval configuration and on evaluation beyond multiple-choice formats. We extend PubHealthBench, a question answering (QA) benchmark of 7,929 questions derived from UK Government public health guidance, into a retrieval-augmented setting and systematically evaluate retrieval and generation choices. We compare dense, sparse, and hybrid retrieval across multiple embedding models and corpus variants, and show that hybrid retrieval consistently improves recall and ranking quality, with chunk length and topic interacting with ranking performance. Providing retrieved context substantially increases multiple-choice accuracy across a diverse set of LLMs, enabling smaller open-weight models to match or outperform larger models used without retrieval, with gains primarily driven by retrieval quality and careful context selection. To assess realistic free-form answering, we introduce a rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge covering faithfulness, completeness, clarity, and factual consistency, and validate it against dual human annotations. Judge-human agreement is strongest for faithfulness and completeness, while factual consistency and clarity are less reliably reproduced, motivating caution when interpreting those dimensions at scale. Overall, our results highlight retrieval as a primary lever for reliable public health QA and provide practical guidance for building and evaluating RAG systems grounded in official guidance.

Survey-style evaluations of large language models often treat a prompted response as a measure of a model's values or beliefs. This assumption is particularly fragile when responses are read as evidence of political values, social attitudes, or beliefs. We ask whether prompt robustness differs between objective questions with fixed answers and subjective questions that ask for opinions or values. We evaluate four instruction-tuned model families on three objective datasets (MMLU, ARC, and CulturalBench) and three subjective datasets (Political Compass Test, ValueBench, and World Values Survey). For each question/statement, we apply multiple types of prompt changes, such as variations in wording, framing, and format, and measure whether the model gives the same answer across variants. Using a binomial generalized estimating equation, we find significant effects of model, dataset, prompt category, and their interactions. The dataset type effect is also significant, and the interaction between dataset type and prompt category is large. These results show that prompt robustness depends on the question type, the prompt change, and the model.

In safety-critical traffic scenarios, answering complex questions relies on minute, localized visual cues. However, standard Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) tend to over-attend to backgrounds, overwhelming crucial small objects during visual-language alignment, a failure mode we term 'critical evidence dilution.' Furthermore, existing visual question answering (VQA) datasets rarely expose this flaw, as they lack large-scale, distractor-heavy evaluations that require pinpointing local evidence. To bridge this evaluation and architecture gap, we introduce the Fine-Grained Traffic Reasoning Benchmark (FGTR-Bench) and the Text-Guided Small-Object Reasoning MLLM (TSR-MLLM). FGTR-Bench comprises 40,236 single-image Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) created via multi-agent generation, consistency checks, and expert audits, alongside a disjoint 4,947-sample blind test split. To resolve evidence dilution, TSR-MLLM, built on Qwen3-VL-4B, uses a query-conditioned Text-Guided Small-Object Focus (TG-SOF) map. Applied once at the decoder boundary, the map adds sparse Top-K gated residuals to the most question-relevant vision slots while leaving text tokens unchanged. Together with lightweight decoder adaptation, TSR-MLLM preserves single-pass inference without external detectors or image re-encoding. Under matched settings, TSR-MLLM outperforms the strongest 4B baseline by 2.1 points on FGTR-Bench (74.1% overall), with larger gains on evidence-local tracks. Furthermore, it remains competitive on DriveQA-V (CARLA Signs) under greedy decoding without task-specific fine-tuning.

Large language models now score near ceiling on general benchmarks, but these aggregate measures reveal little about how models behave within single disciplines. Existing art-focused evaluations rely on synthetic questions and rarely report item-level properties. This paper introduces EduArt, an educational-level benchmark for art-historical knowledge and visual reasoning in multimodal LLMs. EduArt comprises 871 human-authored questions from Italian secondary-school exercises and US Advanced Placement Art History exams, spanning two languages and seven formats from multiple choice to in-text word placement and error identification. Twelve models from six provider families were evaluated under a default answer-only condition and a motivation condition requiring written justification, and characterized using Classical Test Theory and a logistic regression isolating the effects of format, language, image presence, and model. The benchmark showed strong psychometric properties (mean discrimination 0.514, 82.3 percent good discriminators), while multiple-choice accuracy saturated near ceiling for six models, showing recognition formats alone cannot distinguish frontier models. Format was a strong independent predictor of accuracy: models exceeding 94 percent on multiple choice fell to 23.9 percent on open completion (Claude Opus 4.6) and 6.2 percent on error identification (Claude Sonnet 4.6). The motivation condition changed accuracy in a predominantly negative, family-dependent direction. These dissociations indicate that art-historical knowledge and the ability to deploy it are distinct capabilities, and that single-format benchmarks overestimate what models can reliably do. Mapping this capability profile is a precondition for responsible use of multimodal LLMs in art-historical scholarship, where tasks demand producing and manipulating content rather than selecting from fixed options.

Persona-driven generations (PDGs) have seen prolific use in research and industry applications, where a large language model (LLM) takes on a 'persona' while completing some task. While persona expressed through free-form text (like dialogue) has substantial work investigating stability or consistency, relatively, persona expressed in non-text-heavy outputs (like in multiple-choice question answering, or MCQA) is often overlooked. We work to address this gap, seeking to understand the instability of LLM PDGs in MCQA tasks. We develop three metrics investigating the performance, outcome, and question correctness stability, evaluating three distinct dimensions. Using these metrics, we find that instability varies consistently between model families and model size, and across question domains, with math/commonsense questions leading to greater instability. We also find task prompt format introduces more prediction instability than other hyperparameters, like temperature. Finally, we find that instability is related to task accuracy, and using our instability metrics, find different experimental settings that result in different best and worst personas for tasks, despite their similarity. This reveals the importance of checking hyperparameter instability in PDGs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in exam- and certification-style question answering tasks, where their ability to retrieve, interpret, and apply domain-specific knowledge can be systematically assessed. In Software Engineering, such settings are particularly relevant when questions depend on strict adherence to normative definitions, roles, artifacts, and rules. This paper evaluates the performance of three contemporary LLMs, \textit{GPT-5 mini}, \textit{Gemini 3 Flash}, and \textit{DeepSeek Chat 3.2}, in answering 993 Scrum certification-style questions aligned with the Professional Scrum Master I (PSM I) assessment format. We evaluated the models under three prompting strategies (\textit{zero-shot}, \textit{chain-of-thought}, and \textit{source-grounded}), with repeated executions to assess intra-model stability. We also analyzed performance across Scrum topics and question formats, complemented by a qualitative analysis of recurring error patterns in incorrect answers. Results revealed clear differences among models, with Gemini 3 Flash achieving the highest accuracy, followed by GPT-5 mini and DeepSeek Chat 3.2, while intra-model variability remained low across all conditions. By question format, the models achieved the highest accuracy on single-answer multiple-choice items, whereas multi-select and True/False questions were more error-prone. By topic, performance was more consistent in normatively explicit areas such as Artifacts, Empiricism, and Product Value, but more fragile in Scrum Values, Self-Managing Teams, and Stakeholders & Customers. The qualitative analysis showed that errors were systematic rather than random, involving overgeneralization, restrictive wording, compound distractors, and conflicts between common market interpretations and strict Scrum definitions.

We present SFBench, a benchmark dataset for evaluating systems that assess the feasibility of scientific claims. SFBench includes 197 claims in materials science, each annotated with a ground-truth feasibility score on a five-point scale along with an explanation of that assessment. The collection differs from previous collections in several important ways: 1) it defines a complex task that requires reasoning over claims of varying scientific feasibility; 2) its claims are not extracted from existing scientific publications but are created de novo, greatly reducing the chances that LLMs have trained on them; 3) claims and ground truth are established by subject matter experts, not by artificial intelligence; and 4) unlike many benchmarks that ask about question/answer pairs, provide multiple choice answers, or ask questions requiring short, fixed answers, SFBench explanations are completely open-ended. We describe the benchmark design, data creation process, and evaluation metrics, and we report baseline results using recent GPT models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants across the software development lifecycle, yet their ability to reason about software architecture remains largely unmeasured. Architectural decision-making depends on quality attribute trade-offs, design patterns, and system-level constraints, none of which are exercised by benchmarks that target syntactic or algorithmic tasks. We introduce SAKE (Software Architectural Knowledge Evaluation), a standardized and reproducible benchmark for assessing software architectural knowledge in LLMs. SAKE comprises 2154 expert-curated multiple-choice questions, each with four options, stratified across eight architectural categories and four context-length levels. We evaluate 11 proprietary and open-weight models in zero-shot and five-shot settings. Overall accuracy is high, but performance varies markedly across categories, revealing competency gaps in areas central to professional practice. SAKE, its evaluation scripts, and all results are released as open source to give the community a baseline for tracking architectural reasoning in LLMs.

AI agents extend conventional large language model (LLM) applications by integrating language understanding with task execution, external tool use, and memory mechanisms. While memory allows agents to retain prior interactions and provide more personalized and context-aware responses, it also introduces a new vulnerability: information stored in memory can influence future outputs even when the current query is clean. In this paper, we investigate memory manipulation in LLM-based agents for multiple-choice question answering. We first design and implement an LLM-based AI agent with an external memory component that stores and retrieves task-relevant information. We then introduce basic memory manipulation scenarios in which misleading or corrupted memories are inserted into the agent before it answers multiple-choice questions. Using a controlled experimental setup, we compare the agent's performance before and after memory manipulation and measure changes in answer accuracy, attack success rate, and selection of manipulated options. Our results show that even simple memory manipulations can noticeably affect the agent's final answers, causing it to select incorrect options despite receiving clean and well-formed questions.

Multi-agent AI systems can improve answer selection by allowing different language models to exchange reasoning traces, revise initial predictions, and support a final decision. However, such communication may also introduce reliability risks: reasoning from one agent can correct another agent's mistake, but it can also mislead an agent that was initially correct. This paper studies reliable multi-agent AI communication through reasoning exchange and runtime answer revision. We develop a framework in which agents first answer multiple-choice questions independently, then share reasoning traces and revise their decisions. We conduct numerical experiments where we evaluate whether this process improves accuracy, produces more positive than negative answer transitions, and remains effective across domains such as cybersecurity, networking, and general knowledge. The results help identify when multi-agent reasoning improves reliability and when it may propagate errors.

Forced chain-of-thought (CoT) is widely assumed to make vision-language models more reliable on video question answering. We propose a small three-probe evaluation recipe to test that assumption: paired accuracy across direct, CoT, answer-first, and no-video conditions; a counterfactual video-swap diagnostic over the CoT chains; and a four-rung visual-degradation ladder. Each probe is reported under both a strict and a permissive regex scorer, with multiplicity correction over a manuscript-declared primary family. Applied to Qwen2.5-VL on Video-MME subsets, the recipe returns a two-part finding. The CoT chains are strongly video-conditioned: swapping the input video collapses chain overlap and flips most final letters, the opposite of what a "boilerplate-chain" null would predict. Yet on the same data, forced CoT does not improve MCQ accuracy, and on the smaller 7B model it produces a small but statistically supported drop under a post-hoc primary scorer choice. We do not claim this generalizes beyond the Qwen2.5-VL / Video-MME instantiation; the raw responses and a single recomputation script will be released with the supplementary material so every number can be re-derived.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in many tasks, their assessment in Portuguese has received less attention, particularly for open-ended, discursive tasks that demand deeper reasoning and generation capabilities. While the original BLUEX benchmark addressed the scarcity of Portuguese evaluation datasets through multiple-choice questions from Brazilian university entrance exams, it did not cover the more challenging second-phase examinations, which require free-form written responses. In this work, we introduce BLUEX v2, a benchmark derived from the second-phase entrance exams of Brazil's two leading universities: UNICAMP (Comvest) and USP (Fuvest), spanning exam years 2022--2025. Our dataset comprises 395 questions unfolding into 919 graded subquestions, with 55.7% of questions containing associated images (represented as context-aware captions during inference to enable evaluation across both vision-capable and text-only models). Each question is annotated with subject area, official reference answers, LLM-generated rubric criteria, and six cognitive capability tags. We evaluate 21 state-of-the-art LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge protocol. Results reveal a 4.92-point performance spread across models (4.18-9.10 on a 0-10 scale), with Mathematical Reasoning and Image Understanding emerging as the hardest capability dimensions. The evaluation code, model outputs, and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/TropicAI-Research/BLUEXv2 and on Hugging Face at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Tropic-AI/BLUEX-v2.

The development of large language models (LLMs) has led to an increased focus on their adaptation to specialized domains and languages, yet the effectiveness of domain adaptation strategies remains unclear. We present a study of medical domain adaptation using French medical question-answering (QA) as a case study. We compare continual pretraining (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and their combination across three model families, multiple sizes, and three initialization types, explicitly disentangling adaptation effects from base model choice. We evaluate both multiple-choice (MCQA) and open-ended QA (OEQA) under greedy and constrained decoding using automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation. For MCQA, CPT+SFT most often achieves the best scores, but gains over SFT are small and frequently not statistically significant, making SFT a strong and cost-effective default. For OEQA, CPT consistently improves overlap-based metrics, while SFT often degrades generation quality; instruction tuning and CPT+SFT are preferred by LLM-based evaluation. Cross-lingual experiments further show effective transfer from French adaptation to English benchmarks. Overall, we provide practical guidelines for selecting adaptation strategies under computational constraints.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on jurisdiction-specific legal reasoning remains underexplored. We present TW-LegalBench that utilizes Taiwanese legal system's rich official corpus open to the public to fill the gap in evaluating LLMs on Taiwanese law, among common-law benchmarks that focus on English sources and civil-law benchmarks focusing on sources of Simplified Chinese. TW-LegalBench comprises three task types: (1) over 16,000 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) across five years of official examinations in 18 professional domains; (2) 117 open-ended essay questions (OEQs) from examinations for legal professionals with official scoring rubrics; and (3) more than 14,000 legal judgment prediction (LJP) instances covering hundreds of crime categories. We evaluate 13 LLMs using accuracy for MCQs, a decomposed LLM-as-Judge framework based on the scoring rubric points for OEQs, and metrics for sentencing accuracy and statute citation for LJP. Our results reveal that top-performing models exceed the passing threshold for qualified lawyers (passing rate: 11%) but fall short of that for judges and prosecutors (passing rate: 1~2%). For LJP, while models demonstrate reasonable verdict type accuracy and sentence prediction capability, they struggle to cite exact legal articles. These findings highlight that reliable legal text generation remains challenging for LLMs, even though their performance on qualification examinations approaches human level.

Compressing large language models reduces memory use and inference cost, but it can also create failures that standard benchmarks miss. A pruned model may still perform well on multiple-choice evaluations, yet fail to answer the same question in open generation. We ask what pruning changes: does it erase the correct answer, or does it make the answer harder to produce as the top output? We study this question with multilingual question answering, tracking the same questions before and after pruning. We find a benchmark illusion. Under high-sparsity pruning, especially Wanda, models often fail in greedy open generation while still selecting the correct answer under multiple-choice scoring. In these recognition-only errors, the answer is usually not gone, but demoted: it often reappears with beam search, sampling, or one in-context example. Overall, multiple-choice benchmarks can overstate the usability of compressed LLMs, creating an evaluation blind spot. Compressed models should be tested on what they can produce, not only on what they can recognize.

Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which can overestimate real clinical ability due to guessing strategies and answer biases. To address these limitations, we introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications that reduce MCQA-specific artifacts and better test reasoning. We evaluate 21 LLMs and show that evaluation design strongly affects results. Under our harder setup, the best model (Qwen3.5-122B) drops by 28.4 and 31 pp on English and Polish exams, respectively. Despite low evidence of data contamination, standard MCQA scores do not reliably reflect true medical competence. To facilitate further research, we make our benchmark publicly available.

Large language models often remain sensitive to answer format: a question solved correctly in one form may fail in another semantically equivalent form. To study this gap, we define cross-format robustness as the extent to which a model answers the same underlying question consistently across formats. We then compare full-format training with FormatMix, which expands only a subset of training items into multiple equivalent formats using either random or targeted selection. Across GLM4 and Llama-3.1, multi-format supervision consistently improves both task performance and cross-format robustness, whereas Multiple-choice question (MCQ)-only supervision alone brings little benefit and can even reduce robustness. We further find that expanding only about 30% of the training set into multiple formats often recovers most of the gain from full-format training, and this effect appears across the model families and sizes we study. These results suggest that format diversity, rather than additional supervision alone, is the key driver of robustness. That lightweight multi-format augmentation is a practical way to make LLMs less sensitive to answer format without changing the base model.

Multiple-choice (MCQA) benchmarks are the standard for evaluating pretrained large language models, but their reliance on log-likelihood scoring makes them unreliable. Specifically, standard scores are highly sensitive to the exact phrasing (surface form) of the answers, conflating a model's familiarity with a specific phrase with its actual capability. We demonstrate this flaw using a controlled testbed of 1B-8B models trained on the same knowledge. Despite having identical knowledge, standard metrics falsely report a performance gap of over 2 points. To solve this, we propose ParaEval, an evaluation framework that queries models using multiple paraphrases per answer option. By scoring each model based on its most favorable phrasing, ParaEval successfully reduces the false performance gap to below 1 point. We confirm that these evaluation artifacts, and the improvements from ParaEval, persist in frontier 70B and 120B open-source models. Ultimately, ParaEval provides a robust and efficient way to evaluate true underlying capability rather than surface-form familiarity.

Automatic Question Difficulty Estimation (AQDE) holds growing promise for educational assessment because it has the potential to yield difficulty estimates that are competitive with expert judgment, while helping reduce the time and financial burden associated with pilot administrations and scaling to digital testing contexts. Prior AQDE studies report mixed evidence on whether adding distractors as additional text to the question stem and the correct key consistently improves difficulty prediction. We hypothesize that the effectiveness of distractor information depends on its structural representation, and that explicitly modeling distractors as separate components improves difficulty estimation over baselines that omit this information. To address this, we designed controlled architectures that model MCQ components as distinct inputs to isolate the contribution of distractor content and order. Specifically, we represented distractors by encoding each distractor as its own text input and aggregating their representations either with order-aware concatenation (with positional tags) or with an order-invariant summation. We evaluated these architectures using two Chilean datasets (Natural and Social Sciences, 2016-2020; 4,114 multiple-choice questions). Compared to a simpler model that only used the question stem and the key, our best distractor-aware architecture achieved higher predictive performance, reaching R^2 = 0.83 for Natural Sciences and R^2 = 0.71 for Social Sciences items. An order-invariant variant achieved nearly the same accuracy with approximately half as many parameters, offering a favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-off. These results show that structural information (especially distractor content) drives gains in predictive accuracy, supporting the development of efficient, structure-aware models that are computationally viable for large-scale educational applications.

We introduce ChinaHeritaQA, a multimodal benchmark dataset for evaluating the cultural reasoning abilities of vision-language models (VLMs) on UNESCO World Heritage sites in China. The dataset comprises 2,279 in-the-wild images paired with 14,133 bilingual (Chinese/English) multiple-choice QA pairs spanning seven cognitive dimensions, from basic identity recognition to historical periodization and architectural analysis. Guided by a UNESCO-aligned heritage ontology and verified through rigorous human annotation, the dataset ensures linguistic quality and factual consistency. Evaluations of state-of-the-art VLMs reveal that while top models exceed human performance on average, substantial task-level variation emerges: models excel at visual recognition but struggle with culturally grounded reasoning. Performance also varies by dynasty and region. ChinaHeritaQA reveals that strong visual retrieval does not extend to cultural and historical understanding. We release the dataset to support future research on culturally aware multimodal learning.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made substantial advancements in video understanding, yet the reliability of their responses remains underexplored. This work presents a diagnostic study of absent answer detection for MLLMs in video understanding, where the correct answer is deliberately excluded from the candidate set and a reliable model is expected to recognize that no valid option exists. We evaluate the absent answer detection behavior under three settings: multiple-choice questions augmented with an ``None of the Above'' option, open-ended generation with a detection instruction, and standard evaluation without any guidance. Across a diverse set of models and benchmarks, we find that MLLMs overwhelmingly select plausible distractors rather than detecting the absent answer. This failure is more pronounced in temporal reasoning tasks and worsens with denser frame sampling. We further explore chain-of-thought prompting as a mitigation strategy and find that while it substantially improves detection rates, performance remains unsatisfactory, suggesting that prompting-based strategies alone are insufficient to fully address this limitation. These findings expose a systematic failure in absent answer detection and highlight the need for explicit detection mechanisms in multimodal systems.

Reliable evaluation of large language models in surgery remains underdeveloped. Broad medical benchmarks test clinical knowledge, while surgery requires procedural reasoning, management trade-offs, negation handling, and selection among plausible operative decisions. We present SurgiQ, a text-only, source-grounded benchmark of 13,055 four-option multiple-choice questions spanning six surgical domains and four question formats: case-based, reasoning, best-option, and negative. SurgiQ is constructed from surgical textbooks, open-access papers, and examination material using a multi-stage generation, verification, and expert-audit pipeline. We evaluate 35 open-weight LLMs under a unified log-likelihood protocol. Our results show substantial remaining headroom: smaller models often remain near the 25% random baseline, while the best model reaches 68.1% accuracy. General-purpose models, especially Qwen2.5, outperform most biomedical models, suggesting that current medical specialization does not yet provide sufficiently broad surgical coverage. Calibration and error analysis further show that even strong models make confident mistakes on clinically plausible distractors, motivating more reliable and broader surgical LLM evaluation.

We introduce mmPISA-bench, a compact high-quality multilingual reasoning benchmark derived from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The benchmark consists of 25 multiple-choice questions that require reasoning in order to be answered correctly. Each question is provided in official human translations to 43 languages and complemented with machine-translated counterparts (i.e., 2,150 data points in total). We evaluate two mainstream proprietary LLMs across languages, reasoning effort levels, and translation types in terms of their ability to answer the questions correctly. Our results show that modern LLMs can reason effectively across all evaluated languages, achieve accuracy comparable to human test-takers, with some performance variations across covered languages. We further find that machine-translated questions do not degrade accuracy relative to official human translations which suggests that high-quality machine translation (synthetic data) might often be adequate for large-scale multilingual reasoning evaluations where official translations are not available. Finally, we analyze token usage and related inference cost and find that LLMs usage in some languages is simultaneously more expensive and less accurate.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance across diverse tasks, but they often generate responses that appear plausible while being factually incorrect. This problem is compounded by the lack of explicit uncertainty estimates, which makes it difficult for users to judge the reliability of model outputs. Existing uncertainty quantification methods typically rely on indirect signals, such as entropy across sampled generations. These signals can be difficult to interpret and do not fully leverage the model's ability to assess its own uncertainty. We propose a simple yet effective self-assessment method for uncertainty quantification in LLMs. Our approach groups sampled generations into semantically distinct clusters, converts them into answer options in a structured multiple-choice question, and uses the probability assigned by the LLM to each option as a confidence estimate. Experiments across multiple models and datasets show that our method consistently outperforms baseline approaches. Notably, it achieves competitive performance with as few as two additional samples, demonstrating both its effectiveness and efficiency.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related decision support. Yet most evaluations treat diagnosis as a single-shot task with complete information provided upfront, often as a multiple-choice selection. This diverges from clinical practice, where diagnosis is interactive and open-ended, involving sequential hypothesis refinement through targeted questioning. We address this gap. We build MeDxBench, a large-scale benchmark of 4,421 clinical cases across 20 specialties. We further propose MeDxAgent, a multi-agent consultation system for interactive diagnosis, and systematically study its prompt-, flow- and agent-level design choices. MeDxAgent achieves a 10.3% accuracy gain over the baseline on MeDxBench, closing 52.3% of the gap to a full-information oracle. We find that specific design choices: collecting demographics first, passing summarized dialogue for diagnosis, and feeding candidate diagnoses for targeted questioning, improve accuracy, mirroring how physicians reason, though their effect emerges fully only in combination. Code and dataset will be released upon publication.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) remain unreliable on spatial multiple-choice questions, and their failures are often attributed to poorly attended visual information. We identify a complementary failure mode, spatial lexical bias: a spatial relation word added to the answer options can act as a lexical-semantic distractor that draws the model's decision toward that option. Using nine open-weight MLLMs, we show that this phenomenon is widespread. We then isolate diagnostic cases in which a model answers a binary spatial question correctly yet consistently chooses a newly added third spatial option, which we call binary-stable but ternary-fragile cases. Leveraging mechanistic interpretability tools on these cases, we find that the failure arises on the language side rather than the visual side: visual attention analyses and residual-stream probes show the correct spatial relation remains internally available, while irrelevant-option controls, activation patching, and sparse component interventions trace the bias to specific LLM-side channels and neurons. Accordingly, we show that a lightweight LLM-only DPO update on tiny single-object-pair synthetic data mitigates the bias, lifting four-way robust accuracy by up to 100 points on synthetic data, and by 68.0, 32.6, and 20.1 points on broader evaluation datasets WhatsUp, SpatialMQA-Direct, and VSR.

Patient-voiced clinical-triage benchmarks report high under-triage rates for consumer LLMs for constrained multiple-choice output, yet the same cases score differently with free-text. We ask whether output format changes the model's \emph{clinical representation} or only the mapping from a preserved representation to an answer. Using sparse-autoencoder (SAE) features in Gemma 3 4B/12B IT and Qwen3-8B, we find the same medical features fire on the shared clinical narrative under both formats but go {silent} at the multiple-choice decision token in all the cases at every model. Three independent methods (natural-language autoencoder verbalization, decision-token logit attribution, and top-feature characterization) agree that scaffold and format features, but not medical features, drive the decision logits. Behaviorally, the multiple-choice penalty inverts under both structured and natural-language input, option-order shuffle rules out positional bias, and the gap is dominated by off-by-one decision (the model picks an adjacent acuity letter to the gold answer) rather than knowledge failure. Thus, the failure originates in the output format and not in the clinical representation.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) is proliferating, yet their performance is observed to vary based on prompting styles and tones. In this study, we investigate both whether and how tonal variations in prompts lead to disparate LLM accuracy for objective multiple-choice questions. We use two datasets: a 50-base question dataset with five tone variants and a 570-base question MMLU subset spanning 57 subjects with seven tone variants. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance of four cost-efficient, popular LLMs: ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5-nano, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. Across models, tonal effects are systematic but highly model-dependent. Some models show small, yet statistically significant, shifts, while others exhibit large accuracy swings across tones. Further, we identify subject-level differences in tone sensitivity and present a routing framework to explain how tones may attune internal reasoning modes. Our findings caution users against assuming tone-robust reliability in LLM deployments.

Safety defenses for large language models (LLMs) are typically trained and evaluated on single-turn prompts, yet real attacks often unfold as indirect, multi-turn probing. To defend against this more nuanced form of deception, we present a unified pipeline that generates realistic multi-turn deceptive question sets via multi-objective genetic prompt optimization with co-evolving mutation operators. We validate this dataset through a human study, which also revealed that early generations yielded the most convincing deception and practical constraints such as adherence filtering and ordering effects. Using this data, we were able to detect deceptive attempts to access prohibited information using simple, explainable geometric signals in embedding space coupled with a lightweight feed-forward classifier. Three geometric features (angular coverage, distance ratio, and linearity) augmented with pairwise similarity statistics led to a compact predictive model that achieved consistently high recall (0.89) across base, reworded, and truncated (three-turn) scenarios, with test-time F1 ranging from 0.74-0.86. The results support a central hypothesis that multi-turn deceptive intent leaves a stable geometric footprint that enables lightweight, transparent screening without expensive end-to-end training. We further discuss responsible uses, limitations, and paths toward larger, more diverse human-evaluated datasets. The primary contribution to artificial intelligence is the multi-objective evolutionary framework for prompt generation, and the engineering application is the deployment of a lightweight geometric detection system for LLM safety infrastructure.

Large language models often generate confident but incorrect answers rather than abstaining when uncertain. This problem is particularly acute for small language models (SLMs), where computational constraints and autonomous operation amplify the need for reliable uncertainty detection. We propose Second Guess, a lightweight, parameter-free prompting technique for abstention in multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) that is well-suited for SLMs. Our key empirical insight is that models which truly know an answer will select it consistently, while uncertain models exhibit unstable behavior when an ``I don't know'' option is added. Evaluated on four open models (2B-8B parameters) and four benchmarks, Second Guess achieves the highest composite risk improvement of 10.81%. Notably, it maintains an 8% composite risk improvement on fine-tuned models where entropy-based methods degrade, and improves most for lower-performing models. All code and results required to reproduce this work is available in https://github.com/Mystic-Slice/second-guess

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, yet their cultural knowledge remains uneven across regions and languages. We present the DFKI-MLT system for SemEval-2026 Task 7 on cultural awareness, where we apply activation steering to multilingual LLMs using language vectors extracted from parallel FLORES data. Our method performs inference-time adaptation by adding language-specific steering vectors to the residual stream at a selected transformer layer, without any parameter updates. We participated in both the short-answer (SAQ) and multiple-choice (MCQ) tracks; however, only our MCQ submission received an official score. In the official MCQ track, we achieved 86.96% accuracy, ranking 7th out of 17 teams. To better understand system behavior, we conduct post-hoc analyses on the shared-task MCQ and SAQ settings. These analyses show that activation steering yields modest and heterogeneous improvements on cultural reasoning: gains are strongly layer-sensitive, vary substantially across language-region pairs, with some configurations even degrading performance, and interact with prompt formulation, comparing generic and culturally conditioned prompts. Our findings suggest that prompt design and activation steering should be jointly optimized for culturally aware multilingual inference.

Item difficulty must often be estimated before test administration, when no responses are yet available for calibration. While most response-free difficulty modelling approaches derive item-text features by hand for a separate statistical model, we fine-tune a transformer end-to-end on the wording, avoiding the theory-based feature design and the preprocessing that discards information. We address reading-comprehension multiple-choice items, whose difficulty depends on inferential demands spanning passage, question, and options, yet the simplest model sees one undifferentiated sequence and is trained on difficulty alone. We introduce and investigate two extensions to the joint-encoding baseline: a component-wise variant, which encodes the wording parts separately, and a multi-task variant, which adds an auxiliary task of question answering. We compare the methods across three training-set sizes sampled from a corpus of nearly 30,000 items whose labels approximate response-based Rasch difficulty. At the smallest training size, both extensions improve on the baseline, the multi-task variant across every metric, and component-wise encoding in rank ordering. Further research may ground the auxiliary supervision in observed responses and extend the approach to other item types.