STONIC: A Layered Measurement Contract for LLM Value Profiling

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23411v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:55:35 GMT
• Title: STONIC: A Layered Measurement Contract for LLM Value Profiling
• Abstract summary: It compares responses rated in isolation, choices made under counterbalanced conflict, spontaneous answers, and later choices between a model's own answer and authored alternatives.<n>10 of 17 configurations with usable behavioral data preserve the endorsement-choice relation across banks.<n>Three-way annotation of 200 L3 responses provides a task-local check of the semantic audit.
• Score: 33.72751145910978
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLM value studies often merge questionnaire ratings, pairwise choices, and values inferred from generated text into one profile. That merge assumes that the three observations describe the same stable preference. STONIC tests this assumption on 5,144 situations from four banks and 35 fixed model configurations. It compares responses rated in isolation, choices made under counterbalanced conflict, spontaneous answers, and later choices between a model's own answer and authored alternatives. 10 of 17 configurations with usable behavioral data preserve the endorsement-choice relation across banks. Every one of the 17 eligible configurations prefers its own earlier answer (median effect 0.790), although option position changes the choice rate in every eligible configuration. Profile shape transfers most strongly from ratings to conflict choices and weakens for spontaneous text. Three-way annotation of 200 L3 responses provides a task-local check of the semantic audit: FULCRA agrees most closely with the human majority, while DeBERTa retains useful rank information after calibration. Hidden states encode the completed decision more clearly than the prompt alone. Thus the models show reproducible behavioral continuity, but the evidence does not support one scorer-independent value identity across interfaces.

Related papers

• A decodability criterion predicts when hidden-state selection beats majority voting in large language models [10.860308169044679]
  We propose a dynamic selection combiner that trains a linear gate on the answer-token hidden state and selects the highest-scoring candidate.<n>Its main contribution is decodability, a leakage-free measure of how well the gate ranks a question's correct candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T21:02:10Z)
• SEER: A Self-Grounded Evidence Interface for Controlled Spatial Relation Classification [71.9783246097687]
  SEER hides candidate relations during pair localization, constructs a query-specific view with explicit subject/object roles, and retains the full image and sparse box geometry as complementary evidence.<n>For relation-choice protocols with exact inverse support, an optional refinement swaps the entity roles and changes the forward decision only when exactly one visual state obeys the corresponding inverse relation.<n>The unchanged protocol yields +4.35 to +11.79 on all 2,434 filtered EmbSpatial pair-relation questions across three models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T13:16:15Z)
• When Many Answers Are Valid, Voting Fails: Symbolic Verification for Best-of-K Causal Reasoning in LLMs [42.32694162421078]
  We introduce CALVER, a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria.<n>On CLEAR find-one-valid queries that admit multiple graph-valid answers, CALVER reaches 42.1% where plurality, a reward model, an LLM judge, and model confidence remain near 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T11:45:46Z)
• Visual Credit Audit for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning [70.16915309526443]
  Visual Credit Audit separates two Estimands: whether the benchmark image gives the model's declared decision more support than text-only and blank controls, and whether the model responds to relation-specific visual evidence.<n>Applying labels yields dependence-credited correctness (D-CC)<n>Across four open MLLMs and two spatial benchmarks, 12.73-26.25% of decisions are correct yet uncredited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T15:55:31Z)
• Boosting Self-Consistency with Ranking [56.38798757709555]
  Self-consistency improves large language models by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer.<n>We address this limitation with Ranking-Improved Self-Consistency (RISC), which reformulates answer selection in self-consistency as a ranking problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T16:12:30Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors [117.72712117510953]
  Multiple choice questions (MCQs) serve as a common yet important task format in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) This work shows that modern LLMs are vulnerable to option position changes due to their inherent "selection bias" We propose a label-free, inference-time debiasing method, called PriDe, which separates the model's prior bias for option IDs from the overall prediction distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T17:44:56Z)
• Realistic Conversational Question Answering with Answer Selection based on Calibrated Confidence and Uncertainty Measurement [54.55643652781891]
  Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA) models aim at answering a question with its relevant paragraph and previous question-answer pairs that occurred during conversation multiple times. We propose to filter out inaccurate answers in the conversation history based on their estimated confidences and uncertainties from the ConvQA model. We validate our models, Answer Selection-based realistic Conversation Question Answering, on two standard ConvQA datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T09:42:07Z)

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.