This paper test whether preventing a model from seeing option labels while committing to an answer removes positional influence and, in turn, improves performance, and evaluates two different strategies for mitigating bias.
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.
Large language models are increasingly used for ordinal classification, yet semantically equivalent changes to prompt organization can alter their predictions. We conduct systematic experiments to characterize positional bias from label order, demonstration order, and demonstration placement. First, we apply the three probes to ten frontier LLMs on a common ordinal-classification task; every model is sensitive to all three positional sources, showing that the problem is pervasive. Second, we vary eight prompt-, task-, and model-level factors across five datasets; accuracy and stability are often misaligned, and only lower scale cardinality consistently improves both. Third, we compare pointwise, pairwise, and listwise inference, alternative aggregation and debiasing methods, and joint configurations; the tested corrections do not provide a reliable remedy, while a comparison-based listwise formulation offers the best balance but transfers unevenly across models and bias sources. These findings show that positional robustness depends on the full system configuration rather than the model alone. Ordinal-classification systems should therefore be selected jointly for predictive performance and stability.
Yu Wang, Zhe Zhou, Menglin Liu et al.· 0 citations
It is shown that rephrasing a problem while keeping its meaning and answer fixed routinely flips a model's answer in both directions, so some failures become successes and some successes become failures, and BenchDrift generates meaning-preserving variations of benchmark problems along four axes, namely linguistic, referential, pragmatic, and structural.
Shailja Thakur, Sungeun An, Chad DeLuca et al.· 0 citations
Multiple-choice benchmarks are graded on whether a model picks the right option, not on whether it needed the question. Measuring that gap takes care: a model answering A to most items scores above chance wherever the key sits at A, and reads as recognition when it is not. We measure it on UA-JudgeExam: 11,990 four-option items with official keys, published by Ukraine's Higher Qualification Commission of Judges. Shown the options and no question, Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 0.383 against chance, and the leak is concentrated: 11.8% of items are answered blind on all eight option orders, against 0.2 items expected by chance. It is not quotation: search over 280,059 editions of Ukrainian legislation recovers 0.128. Gating those out retains 8,128 items, on which the gating model itself now scores 0.204, and GPT-5.6, which took no part in the selection, still answers 0.515 of them with the question hidden. Scoring twelve held-out models on the whole set and subtracting each one's answer-position habit, only two keep an excess: GPT-5.6 at +0.265, Sonnet 4.6 at +0.081. Without it the ranking misleads: Llama 3.1 8B scores 0.292 blind, above every model but those two, purely by answering A to 92% of items. The gate does select something real: on the items it rejected, eleven of twelve models score 0.518-0.789, every interval clear of what the same model scores on the items it kept. But that signal is one model's, and filtering on it does not transfer upward. Neither is visible on a 400-item sample, where nine models read as"statistically at chance". Rewriting distractors instead overshoots to 0.168, below chance and as exploitable. The same probe on LEXam returns chance: every option there points into the stem, none longer than 33 characters. Item format decides whether the problem can arise; capability decides how much is extracted. We release the corpus, the predictions and the harness.
This work introduces OptimismBench, which detects directional bias with inverted pairs: each scenario elicits both P(success) and P(failure), and asymmetry between the two framings yields a signed bias score without ground truth.
Seonglae Cho, A. Koshiyama· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Test-time adaptation (TTA) offers many ways to update a deployed model without labels, but choosing the wrong update can make a strong source model worse. Recent methods therefore try to predict which adaptation will work from unlabeled test data. We ask a prior question: does the evidence given to the selector contain enough information to determine the best action at all? We show that this is not guaranteed, even with a perfect selector. If an observation channel makes two deployments look the same while their TTA rankings differ, reliable selection is impossible from that channel; richer evidence can restore the decision only when it resolves the relevant ambiguity. We make this boundary exact in a finite-batch Gaussian TTA model, where doing nothing beats mean recentering for small shifts, recentering wins beyond a unique critical shift, and the boundary shrinks as $1/\sqrt n$. Public benchmark studies on CIFAR-100-C and DomainNet-126 show the same failure mode with modern TTA methods: changing only deployment structure can reverse the oracle action while global order-blind evidence remains unchanged. The result is a practical way to separate two failure modes that are usually mixed together: a weak selector versus an information channel that cannot support the desired decision in the first place.
Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a standard format for evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet the popularity of answer options can confound evaluation. Modern LLMs systematically prefer popular but incorrect options over less popular correct ones, a vulnerability we call \textbf{popularity bias}. This pattern aligns with confidence miscalibration: model confidence remains high even as accuracy collapses for popular options. To systematically isolate this phenomenon, we introduce \textbf{PopMCQ}, a benchmark with six controlled strategies that vary option popularity while keeping the correct answer fixed. In our most adversarial setting, where all distractors are more popular than the correct option, models choose popular but wrong answers 66\% of the time. To mitigate this bias, we propose \textbf{PopDebias}, a lightweight inference-time correction that estimates and removes a popularity prior from model predictions. It requires no fine-tuning, is label-free at test time (using only a small calibration split for parameter fitting), and adds negligible computational cost. Experiments on 22 open-source LLMs (0.5B to 32B parameters) show consistent improvements, with accuracy gains up to 54.1 percentage points under strong popularity pressure. The code and data are available https://github.com/DataScienceUIBK/PopMCQ
Abdelrahman Abdallah, Mohammed Ali, Bhawna Piryani et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
