arXiv subjects

Yuehao Tang

Publications and source records attributed to Yuehao Tang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Correct Prediction, Wrong Steps? Consensus Reasoning Knowledge Graph for Robust Chain-of-Thought Synthesis

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly used for various tasks, often coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to boost accuracy. Recent work has shown that high label-prediction accuracy does not guarantee correct intermediate reasoning, and the causes of *reasoning flaws* vary from sample to sample, yet existing remedies either focus on a single domain or assume that one flaw type applies uniformly across samples. A simple mitigation method is to provide the model with the correct answer, but we show that this yields no consistent improvement in reasoning quality. This indicates that the problem cannot be fixed by LLMs' awareness of answers, and must instead be addressed through the *structure* of reasoning. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT (Consensus Reasoning-knowledge-graph Aggregation for Flaw-aware Trace synthesis), which aggregates the consensus components shared across multiple candidate reasoning traces to synthesize improved ones. CRAFT consistently improves label-prediction accuracy on both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming most baselines, while its post-processed traces achieve higher quality under fine-grained benchmark evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Quantifying LLM Biases Across Instruction Boundary in Mixed Question Forms

Large Language Models (LLMs) annotated datasets are widely used nowadays, however, large-scale annotations often show biases in low-quality datasets. For example, Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) datasets with one single correct option is common, however, there may be questions attributed to none or multiple correct options; whereas true-or-false questions are supposed to be labeled with either True or False, but similarly the text can include unsolvable elements, which should be further labeled as Unknown. There are problems when low-quality datasets with mixed question forms can not be identified. We refer to these exceptional label forms as Sparse Labels, and LLMs' ability to distinguish datasets with Sparse Labels mixture is important. Since users may not know situations of datasets, their instructions can be biased. To study how different instruction settings affect LLMs' identifications of Sparse Labels mixture, we introduce the concept of Instruction Boundary, which systematically evaluates different instruction settings that lead to biases. We propose BiasDetector, a diagnostic benchmark to systematically evaluate LLMs on datasets with mixed question forms under Instruction Boundary settings. Experiments show that users' instructions induce large biases on our benchmark, highlighting the need not only for LLM developers to recognize risks of LLM biased annotation resulting in Sparse Labels mixture, but also problems arising from users' instructions to identify them. Code, datasets and detailed implementations are available at https://github.com/ZpLing/Instruction-Boundary.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

LLM Abstention Can Be a Prompt Artifact, in Addition to Genuine Uncertainty

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to abstain from answering questions they are unsure about. However, this ability is often misused: in real-world applications, user prompts sometimes contain uncertainty elements, and driven by this, LLMs are inclined to abstain even on problems they are capable of solving. We argue that LLM abstention is not only an expression of genuine uncertainty; it is also an artifact that can be largely influenced by prompts. We name this phenomenon *Abstention Inflation*. We add "Unknown" as an extra option for LLMs to choose from; experiments show serious accuracy drops on True/False Questions (TFQs). Replacing "Unknown" with an unrelated random word produces an identical effect. We argue that LLMs are trained to imitate the surface pattern of *abstention*, rather than to express genuine uncertainty. Based on eleven experimental settings, we support four claims that form a progressive argument: **(C1)** *Abstention Inflation* is triggered by the structural presence of an extra option, not by genuine uncertainty; **(C2)** further, it makes the model deny it can answer even when it can; **(C3)** at the representation level, this manifests as a later-layer output override; **(C4)** finally, this bias is stable across repeated sampling and option positions, emerges through instruction tuning, and is mitigated at larger model sizes.

cs.CL↗