Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06377v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 17:59:58 GMT
• Title: Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization
• Abstract summary: Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals.<n>A single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong.<n>We recast the problem as selective trust.
• Score: 34.54211638111961
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, training models to resist such signals, hides a failure mode: a model that ignores all context looks robust yet is useless when the context is worth trusting. We recast the problem as selective trust and introduce MIST, a human-annotated benchmark that renders each reasoning item under four matched conditions (clean, misleading, correct-context, and irrelevant-context), together with SC2W, a paired metric counting how often a misleading signal flips a clean-correct answer to wrong. Across a comprehensive benchmark study, we observe that such a susceptibility is universal. We then propose SCOPE, which mines clean-correct/misleading-wrong failures and optimizes a standard Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) objective over matched preference pairs balanced equally across all four conditions, rather than over misleading items alone. Our approach substantially reduces SC2W on popular open-sourced models while preserving accuracy when the added context is clean, correct, or irrelevant. With this work, we argue that models should be judged on selective trust, not on resistance alone.

Related papers

• Accuracy and Order Sensitivity Diverge Under Label-Free Strategies [4.127762845164668]
  Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models.<n>Multiple choice scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order.<n>In this paper, we test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T11:34:45Z)
• LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning [6.241883798820154]
  We study cross-model consensus, the degree to which independently trained models, each solving the problem once, agree on a final answer.<n>We treat the panel as an LLM-jury, in which the structure of agreement, not any model's score of another, is the verification signal.<n>We make this precise with a parameter-free law, derived in closed form, that predicts consensus accuracy from three measured panel statistics to a mean absolute error of $0.03$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T05:57:54Z)
• CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction [51.56484100374058]
  Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness.<n>We introduce textscCaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction.<n>textscCaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:27:53Z)
• Same Question, Different Answers: Evaluating LLM Reliability Beyond Accuracy [41.17236645999555]
  We study how model answers change under meaning-preserving paraphrases across factual question answering and mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>Across four benchmarks and 13 models, we find that model outputs frequently depend on the exact wording of the prompt.<n>For many questions, models alternate between correct and incorrect answers depending on phrasing, with mismatch rates reaching more than 23%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T16:45:13Z)
• Pause and Reflect: Conformal Aggregation for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [8.024041325202612]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning with self-consistency improves performance by aggregating multiple sampled reasoning paths.<n>We introduce a conformal procedure for CoT reasoning that directly addresses aggregation uncertainty.<n>Our approach replaces majority voting with weighted score aggregation over reasoning paths and calibrates an abstention rule using conformal risk control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T20:33:59Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• Sample Smart, Not Hard: Correctness-First Decoding for Better Reasoning in LLMs [72.82403830490084]
  We argue that the decoding rule should be calibrated by correctness, not confidence alone.<n>We propose simple strategies that achieve this goal: Greedy-Threshold makes sampling greedy at very low confidence steps.<n>Together, our findings challenge prevailings about decoding under uncertainty and show gains across math and general reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T14:46:12Z)
• Judging with Confidence: Calibrating Autoraters to Preference Distributions [56.17041629492863]
  We argue that a reliable autorater must learn to model the full distribution of preferences defined by a target population.<n>We present two learning methods tailored to different data conditions.<n>Our results show that finetuning autoraters with a distribution-matching objective leads to verbalized probability predictions that are better aligned with the target preference distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T20:36:41Z)

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.