aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a critical vulnerability in Large Language Model evaluation where models systematically favor popular but incorrect answer choices, a phenomenon termed "popularity bias." The authors introduce PopMCQ to isolate this effect and propose PopDebias, a lightweight inference-time correction that significantly improves accuracy without requiring model fine-tuning. This work is essential for refining benchmark reliability and ensuring fair assessment of LLM capabilities across diverse parameter scales.
Large Language Models Systematically Favor Popular Options: Evidence and Mitigation Across MCQs
arXiv:2608.29257v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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
Abstract: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 this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.29257 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.29257v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29257 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 279 words
Related coverage

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026