What Am I Missing? Question-Answering as Hidden State Probing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31561v1
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 17:27:07 GMT
• Title: What Am I Missing? Question-Answering as Hidden State Probing
• Abstract summary: We propose to leverage question-asking as an inference-time intervention.<n>We train a probe on the student's hidden state before and after asking a question.<n>We find that the success of question-asking as an intervention is largely dependent on the model's self-consistency.
• Score: 13.065059683491958
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Test-time reasoning has become a significant field of study since the introduction of chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, the mechanisms of this reasoning process are still under-explored -- from the same input prompt, and even the same partial solution, LLMs can produce varied answers if sampled multiple times. We propose to leverage question-asking as an inference-time intervention that articulates information about the model's hidden state. To achieve that, we present a student-teacher setting where a student asks questions to a teacher. We train a probe on the student's hidden state before and after asking a question and find it is predictive of the trajectory's final correctness, even before generating the teacher's answer. This suggests there is a meaningful signal from the self-diagnosis that occurs during question generation rather than information transfer from the teacher. We then frame question-asking as a sequential decision problem, using this probe as a quality score, and define a gating policy to ask questions that maximize likelihood of correctness. We find that the success of question-asking as an intervention is largely dependent on the model's self-consistency. Our empirical results show a gap between detection and recovery; while our gating policy captures model correctness and uncertainty, interventions are equally likely to harm correct trajectories as they are to recover incorrect ones. This gap between diagnosis and correction has broader implications on language models' capacity for self-refinement under uncertainty.

Related papers

• Understanding Why Language Models Hallucinate: Testing Reasoning Against Priors [11.702863087019809]
  Large language models often produce hallucinated answers that violate prompt-level constraints.<n>We study inference misalignment: a mismatch between the answer supported by the prompt and the answer favored by statistically salient latent associations.<n>We formalize this view with a latent key-task model, in which pretraining-frequency imbalance can cause a shortcut path to dominate the constraint-sensitive path.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T05:02:43Z)
• Pause or Fabricate? Training Language Models for Grounded Reasoning [50.104657152302956]
  We propose Grounded Reasoning via Interactive Reinforcement Learning (GRIL) for grounded reasoning under incomplete information.<n>GRIL decomposes the reasoning process into two stages: clarify and pause, which identifies whether the available information is sufficient, and grounded reasoning, which performs task solving once the necessary premises are established.<n>Experiments on GSM8K-Insufficient and MetaMATH-Insufficient show that GRIL significantly improves premise detection (up to 45%), leading to a 30% increase in task success while reducing average response length by over 20%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T16:45:29Z)
• Testing Uncertainty of Large Language Models for Physics Knowledge and Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant popularity in recent years for their ability to answer questions in various fields. We introduce an analysis for evaluating the performance of popular open-source LLMs. We focus on the relationship between answer accuracy and variability in topics related to physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T13:42:13Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Question Answering [60.72223137560633]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for natural language generation in healthcare, but risk hallucinating factually incorrect information. We benchmark popular uncertainty estimation (UE) methods with different model sizes on medical question-answering datasets. Our results show that current approaches generally perform poorly in this domain, highlighting the challenge of UE for medical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T16:51:33Z)
• Can Model Uncertainty Function as a Proxy for Multiple-Choice Question Item Difficulty? [12.638577140117702]
  We leverage an aspect of generative large models which might be seen as a weakness when answering questions.<n>We explore correlations between two different metrics of uncertainty, and the actual student response distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T10:48:04Z)
• Chain-of-Probe: Examining the Necessity and Accuracy of CoT Step-by-Step [81.50681925980135]
  We propose a method to probe changes in the mind during the model's reasoning.<n>By analyzing patterns in mind change, we examine the correctness of the model's reasoning.<n>Our validation reveals that many responses, although correct in their final answer, contain errors in their reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-23T15:50:22Z)
• R-Tuning: Instructing Large Language Models to Say `I Don't Know' [66.11375475253007]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous domains with their impressive performance but still face their challenges. Previous instruction tuning methods force the model to complete a sentence no matter whether the model knows the knowledge or not. We present a new approach called Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning (R-Tuning) Experimental results demonstrate R-Tuning effectively improves a model's ability to answer known questions and refrain from answering unknown questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:45:44Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)
• Selectively Answering Ambiguous Questions [38.83930394700588]
  We find that the most reliable approach to decide when to abstain involves quantifying repetition within sampled model outputs. Our results suggest that sampling-based confidence scores help calibrate answers to relatively unambiguous questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:25:38Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)

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.