Knowing the Facts but Choosing the Shortcut: Understanding How Large Language Models Compare Entities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16815v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 12:55:30 GMT
• Title: Knowing the Facts but Choosing the Shortcut: Understanding How Large Language Models Compare Entities
• Authors: Hans Hergen Lehmann, Jae Hee Lee, Steven Schockaert, Stefan Wermter,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for knowledge-based reasoning tasks, yet understanding when they rely on genuine knowledge versus superficials remains challenging.<n>We investigate this question through entity comparison tasks by asking models to compare entities along numerical attributes.<n>We identify three biases that strongly influence model predictions: entity popularity, mention order, and semantic co-occurrence.<n>We find that larger models selectively rely on numerical knowledge when it is more reliable, while smaller models show no such discrimination.
• Score: 22.27798386360767
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for knowledge-based reasoning tasks, yet understanding when they rely on genuine knowledge versus superficial heuristics remains challenging. We investigate this question through entity comparison tasks by asking models to compare entities along numerical attributes (e.g., ``Which river is longer, the Danube or the Nile?''), which offer clear ground truth for systematic analysis. Despite having sufficient numerical knowledge to answer correctly, LLMs frequently make predictions that contradict this knowledge. We identify three heuristic biases that strongly influence model predictions: entity popularity, mention order, and semantic co-occurrence. For smaller models, a simple logistic regression using only these surface cues predicts model choices more accurately than the model's own numerical predictions, suggesting heuristics largely override principled reasoning. Crucially, we find that larger models (32B parameters) selectively rely on numerical knowledge when it is more reliable, while smaller models (7--8B parameters) show no such discrimination, which explains why larger models outperform smaller ones even when the smaller models possess more accurate knowledge. Chain-of-thought prompting steers all models towards using the numerical features across all model sizes.

Related papers

• Stands to Reason: Investigating the Effect of Reasoning on Idiomaticity Detection [2.8330244018167945]
  We examine how reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models affect idiomaticity detection performance.<n>We find the effect of reasoning to be smaller and more varied than expected.<n>For smaller models, producing chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning increases performance from Math-tuned intermediate models, but not to the levels of the base models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T21:17:09Z)
• Surface Fairness, Deep Bias: A Comparative Study of Bias in Language Models [45.41676783204022]
  We investigate various proxy measures of bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that evaluating models with pre-prompted personae on a multi-subject benchmark (MMLU) leads to negligible and mostly random differences in scores.<n>With the recent trend for LLM assistant memory and personalization, these problems open up from a different angle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T08:47:40Z)
• AutoElicit: Using Large Language Models for Expert Prior Elicitation in Predictive Modelling [53.54623137152208]
  We introduce AutoElicit to extract knowledge from large language models and construct priors for predictive models.<n>We show these priors are informative and can be refined using natural language.<n>We find that AutoElicit yields priors that can substantially reduce error over uninformative priors, using fewer labels, and consistently outperform in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T10:13:39Z)
• Exploring the Knowledge Mismatch Hypothesis: Hallucination Propensity in Small Models Fine-tuned on Data from Larger Models [0.1227734309612871]
  Fine-tuning language models with data from larger models can appear similar, but they hallucinate more often than larger models. One hypothesis is that fine-tuning a model on data produced by a larger model leads to a knowledge mismatch which contributes to hallucination. We show that on an unseen test set, a smaller model fine-tuned on data generated from a larger model produced more wrong answers when compared to models fine-tuned on data created by the small model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T13:01:46Z)
• Large Language Model Pruning [0.0]
  We suggest a model pruning technique specifically focused on LLMs. The proposed methodology emphasizes the explainability of deep learning models. We also explore the difference between pruning on large-scale models vs. pruning on small-scale models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T18:22:15Z)
• Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning [56.78474185485288]
  We show that abilities can be distilled down from GPT-3.5 ($ge$ 175B) to T5 variants ($le$ 11B) We propose model specialization, to specialize the model's ability towards a target task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T08:51:19Z)
• Training Trajectories of Language Models Across Scales [99.38721327771208]
  Scaling up language models has led to unprecedented performance gains. How do language models of different sizes learn during pre-training? Why do larger language models demonstrate more desirable behaviors?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T19:16:29Z)
• Predicting on the Edge: Identifying Where a Larger Model Does Better [61.793778186198864]
  We show that large models have the largest improvement on examples where the small model is most uncertain. We show that a switcher model which defers examples to a larger model when a small model is uncertain can achieve striking improvements in performance and resource usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T18:53:14Z)
• Exploring Strategies for Generalizable Commonsense Reasoning with Pre-trained Models [62.28551903638434]
  We measure the impact of three different adaptation methods on the generalization and accuracy of models. Experiments with two models show that fine-tuning performs best, by learning both the content and the structure of the task, but suffers from overfitting and limited generalization to novel answers. We observe that alternative adaptation methods like prefix-tuning have comparable accuracy, but generalize better to unseen answers and are more robust to adversarial splits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-07T03:13:06Z)
• When Ensembling Smaller Models is More Efficient than Single Large Models [52.38997176317532]
  We show that ensembles can outperform single models with both higher accuracy and requiring fewer total FLOPs to compute. This presents an interesting observation that output diversity in ensembling can often be more efficient than training larger models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T18:56:18Z)
• Learning Interpretable Models Using Uncertainty Oracles [12.879371384378164]
  A desirable property of interpretable models is small size, so that they are easily understandable by humans. This leads to the following challenges: (a) small sizes imply diminished accuracy, and (b) bespoke levers provided by model families to restrict size might be insufficient to reach the desired size-accuracy trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-06-17T05:53:52Z)

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.