Accuracy and Order Sensitivity Diverge Under Label-Free Strategies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11947v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:34:45 GMT
• Title: Accuracy and Order Sensitivity Diverge Under Label-Free Strategies
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.127762845164668
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge. In this paper, we test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance. We evaluate two different strategies for mitigating bias. The first uses a generation-then-matching approach, and the second scores options in isolation, which is positionally unbiased by construction. Neither reliably improves accuracy. A complete decomposition shows that the bottleneck is withholding options, not the matching step. The only configuration that consistently matches the baseline is the one that shows the model all options paired with an LLM matcher. However, eliminating positional influence entirely still does not reliably yield accuracy gains, while cyclic permutation often improves them. For two-stage prompting, an aggregate measure of recall imbalance and a direct per-question measure of order sensitivity both fail to show reliable debiasing.

Related papers

• Consistency Without Alignment: Item-Sensitive Language Models Indistinguishable From Random [0.0]
  Item-sensitivity, defined as whether a model's choice depends on the specific input rather than on its own output prior, is widely reported as evidence of task competence.<n>We show this evidence is necessary but not sufficient using a forced-choice signalling task abstracted from the board game Deception: Murder in Hong Kong.<n>Across seven language models, two model families, a post-training ablation, and three independent scoring rules, every one of 21 model-by-rule cells is reliably item-sensitive.<n>We call this consistency without alignment and argue it generalises to any evaluation that relies on item-sensitivity, permutation consistency
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T02:12:10Z)
• Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization [34.54211638111961]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T17:59:58Z)
• Learning from Emptiness: De-biasing Listwise Rerankers with Content-Agnostic Probability Calibration [76.08899010904652]
  CapCal is a training-free framework that mechanically decouples positional bias from ranking decisions.<n>It achieves superior performance among training-free methods while preserving single-pass efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-11T10:47:22Z)
• Quantifying and Mitigating Selection Bias in LLMs: A Transferable LoRA Fine-Tuning and Efficient Majority Voting Approach [13.829059542429876]
  Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) answering is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>LLMs often exhibit selection bias in MCQ tasks, where their choices are influenced by factors like answer position or option symbols rather than the content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T21:31:37Z)
• 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)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Mind the Gap: A Closer Look at Tokenization for Multiple-Choice Question Answering with LLMs [16.357595595062946]
  There is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice.<n>Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter.<n>Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T14:47:58Z)
• SCOPE: Stochastic and Counterbiased Option Placement for Evaluating Large Language Models [0.27309692684728604]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve inflated scores on multiple-choice tasks by exploiting inherent biases in option positions or labels.<n>This study introduces SCOPE, an evaluation framework designed to measure and mitigate such selection bias in a dataset-independent manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T08:28:17Z)
• Confidence-Based Model Selection: When to Take Shortcuts for Subpopulation Shifts [119.22672589020394]
  We propose COnfidence-baSed MOdel Selection (CosMoS), where model confidence can effectively guide model selection. We evaluate CosMoS on four datasets with spurious correlations, each with multiple test sets with varying levels of data distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:48:15Z)
• Delving into Identify-Emphasize Paradigm for Combating Unknown Bias [52.76758938921129]
  We propose an effective bias-conflicting scoring method (ECS) to boost the identification accuracy. We also propose gradient alignment (GA) to balance the contributions of the mined bias-aligned and bias-conflicting samples. Experiments are conducted on multiple datasets in various settings, demonstrating that the proposed solution can mitigate the impact of unknown biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T14:50:24Z)
• Consensus-Guided Correspondence Denoising [67.35345850146393]
  We propose to denoise correspondences with a local-to-global consensus learning framework to robustly identify correspondence. A novel "pruning" block is introduced to distill reliable candidates from initial matches according to their consensus scores estimated by dynamic graphs from local to global regions. Our method outperforms state-of-the-arts on robust line fitting, wide-baseline image matching and image localization benchmarks by noticeable margins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-03T09:10:00Z)

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.