This analysis reveals Qwen3-4B's default mechanism favors certainty generation through a broad coalition of shared features, while uncertainty is implemented as a sparse override mediated by a small set of dedicated features.
Abstract
Large language models tend to overconfidence, giving assertive answers when the evidence suggests hedging or abstention. Using controlled reasoning scenarios that manipulate logical necessity and possibility, we study this behavior in Qwen3-4B, across three ways to express uncertainty: verbal epistemic markers, abstention, and numeric confidence scores. Our results confirm this tendency toward overconfidence, particularly when the model is prompted to output a numeric confidence score. At the interpretability level, we propose a method that differentially identifies transcoder features responsible for uncertainty and certainty. Our analysis reveals Qwen3-4B's default mechanism favors certainty generation through a broad coalition of shared features, while uncertainty is implemented as a sparse override mediated by a small set of dedicated features. Intervening on these uncertainty features both causally proves this imbalance underlying overconfidence and also mitigate overconfident errors. The same set of features generalise across the three uncertainty-expression settings, languages, and an out-of-distribution modality task.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in settings where textual summaries, numerical observations, and external tool outputs may provide conflicting evidence. We study how LLMs arbitrate between such sources when they support opposing decisions. To do so, we introduce a controlled synthetic benchmark in which latent risk trajectories generate both numerical time series and natural language summaries, allowing us to construct conflicts where exactly one evidence source is aligned with the ground-truth label. This design lets us independently manipulate modality, temporal recency, source reliability, and evidence provenance. Across open-weight instruction-tuned models, we find that arbitration behaviour is systematic rather than random: models exhibit distinct text-versus-number preferences, follow temporal recency more consistently than explicit reliability cues, and can over-rely on external forecasts even when they conflict with direct contextual evidence. These results suggest that current LLMs often rely on heuristic arbitration strategies when integrating heterogeneous evidence, highlighting a failure mode for tool-augmented decision systems.
Mattia Carletti, Edward Phillips, Fredrik K. Gustafsson et al.· 0 citations
Statistical reasoning is multidimensional, yet evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically emphasize response accuracy while overlooking how models construct and communicate statistical explanations. This study demonstrates the value of a multidimensional evaluation by combining response accuracy, response behavior, structural topic modeling, and lexical similarity analysis. The framework is applied to explanations generated by 15 current-generation LLMs responding to 90 questions drawn from four statistics examinations spanning high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels. Accuracy varied substantially across models, ranging from 55\% to 78\%. In contrast, structural topic modeling revealed a common conceptual organization of statistical reasoning across all models, while lexical similarity analysis identified modest but consistent vendor-specific differences in explanatory style. Models developed by the same vendor (e.g. Anthropic, OpenAI) produced explanations that were slightly more similar than models from different vendors. These findings demonstrate that statistical reasoning in contemporary LLMs cannot be characterized by accuracy alone and illustrate how complementary analyses of response behavior and model-generated explanations provide a more comprehensive evaluation of statistical reasoning in generative AI.
Benevolence bias is identified and measure, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions, and is easy to diagnose and straightforward to fix.
Yuanzi Li, Jun-Hao Wang, Minghui Liu et al.· 0 citations
The results show that indirect, natural-looking text can systematically steer model predictions while remaining substantially less inferable than direct paraphrases, which shows that reasoning brittleness is not merely an evaluation artifact: it creates a practical channel through which latent biases can be amplified by ordinary-looking text to covertly redirect model decisions.
Xiao Ye, Sanika Chavan, Yuxi Huang et al.· 0 citations
Large language models increasingly produce and interpret verbal probability expressions, yet whether these expressions carry consistent meaning across models (or match human perceptions of uncertainty) remains unknown. We present a systematic cross-model evaluation using a word-to-number mapping task grounded in established human benchmarks. Eleven uncertainty expressions were presented to 19 models under two conditions, forced single-number response and explanation elicitation, alongside a novel bidirectional roundtrip test of internal consistency. LLMs track the human benchmark with surprising fidelity: word ordering is preserved, three anchor points are recovered, and ``possible''shows the highest variance and cross-model disagreement of any expression tested, consistent with its documented bimodal interpretation in humans. However, models show a systematic upward bias for negative expressions such as ``unlikely''and ``improbable.''Explanation elicitation reduces within-model variance while increasing between-model divergence, stabilizing individual models at the cost of inter-model consensus, and the roundtrip experiment reveals clear stratification, with frontier models maintaining coherent bidirectional representations. LLMs thus reproduce the structure of human verbal probability cognition, including its biases, while diverging systematically at the negative end---with implications for any setting where humans and models exchange probabilistic language.
It is well established that large language models (LLMs) are sensitive to prompt framing, reflecting patterns in their training data or prior prompts. In this study, we investigate the extent to which LLMs reinforce users biases expressed in the prompts and examine the boundary between implicit framing effects and explicit prompt manipulation. Specifically, we evaluate how susceptible LLMs are to direct and suggestive prompts that encourage models to support or challenge particular positions. We evaluate six LLMs using 160 distinct prompts spanning ten topics across opinion-based and factual domains. The prompts systematically vary in prompting strategy, support versus challenge instructions, prompt polarity, users'expressed beliefs, and topic domain, spanning both opinion-based and factual questions. Our results show that LLMs systematically adapt their responses to align with prompt framing, even in factual contexts. This suggests that prompt framing can outweigh factual consistency in model responses. Overall, our findings delineate the extent and boundaries of LLM manipulability. Furthermore, the results imply that LLMs can reinforce subtle user biases and are susceptible to explicit prompt manipulation even in domains where responses should remain factually stable.
Mudar Adas, Polina Tsvilodub, Michael Franke et al.· 0 citations
A new method, called CW-Net, translates the reasoning process of an autonomous vehicle’s AI system into understandable concepts that explain its behavior.
