Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23715v1
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 17:49:44 GMT
• Title: Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models
• Authors: Jinzhe Li, Gengxu Li, Yi Chang, Yuan Wu,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs.<n>This emphasizes the significance of possessing the textbfPremise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises.<n>We introduce the textbfPremise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics.
• Score: 11.379764847748378
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have witnessed rapid advancements, demonstrating remarkable capabilities. However, a notable vulnerability persists: LLMs often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs. This emphasizes the significance of possessing the \textbf{Premise Critique Ability} for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises. Most existing studies assess LLMs' reasoning ability in ideal settings, largely ignoring their vulnerabilities when faced with flawed premises. Thus, we introduce the \textbf{Premise Critique Bench (PCBench)}, designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics. We conducted systematic evaluations of 15 representative LLMs. Our findings reveal: (1) Most models rely heavily on explicit prompts to detect errors, with limited autonomous critique; (2) Premise critique ability depends on question difficulty and error type, with direct contradictions being easier to detect than complex or procedural errors; (3) Reasoning ability does not consistently correlate with the premise critique ability; (4) Flawed premises trigger overthinking in reasoning models, markedly lengthening responses due to repeated attempts at resolving conflicts. These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LLMs' proactive evaluation of input validity, positioning premise critique as a foundational capability for developing reliable, human-centric systems. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/Premise_Critique.

Related papers

• Can Large Multimodal Models Actively Recognize Faulty Inputs? A Systematic Evaluation Framework of Their Input Scrutiny Ability [10.607081850023286]
  We introduce the Input Scrutiny Ability Evaluation Framework (ISEval), which encompasses seven categories of flawed premises and three evaluation metrics.<n>Most models struggle to actively detect flawed textual premises without guidance.<n>These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LMMs' proactive verification of input validity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T02:13:46Z)
• Refining Critical Thinking in LLM Code Generation: A Faulty Premise-based Evaluation Framework [11.47215537484756]
  This paper proposes FPBench, the first code generation evaluation framework targeting faulty premises.<n>Most models exhibit poor reasoning abilities and suboptimal code generation performance under faulty premises.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T16:39:39Z)
• Reasoning Models Can be Easily Hacked by Fake Reasoning Bias [59.79548223686273]
  We introduce THEATER, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate Reasoning Theater Bias (RTB)<n>We investigate six bias types including Simple Cues and Fake Chain-of-Thought.<n>We identify'shallow reasoning'-plausible but flawed arguments-as the most potent form of RTB.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T09:06:10Z)
• DeepCritic: Deliberate Critique with Large Language Models [77.5516314477878]
  We focus on studying and enhancing the math critique ability of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our developed critique model built on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct significantly outperforms existing LLM critics on various error identification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T17:03:17Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability [50.47497036981544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably.<n>This poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment.<n>We present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T10:52:38Z)
• Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
  This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks.<n>We introduce the first benchmark GaslightingBench, specifically designed to evaluate the vulnerability of MLLMs to negation arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• UBENCH: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  UBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating large language models. It includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. We also evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• CriticBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Critique-Correct Reasoning [26.45110574463893]
  CriticBench is a benchmark designed to assess Large Language Models' abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning. We evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T18:59:02Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.