aiqbench analysis
MAPLE introduces a diagnostic framework to evaluate Knowledge Extraction Enhancement techniques by disentangling their effects on answer recovery and disruption, moving beyond simple aggregate accuracy metrics. By testing six methods across OLMo2, Qwen2.5, and Llama3, the study reveals distinct trade-offs in how inference modifications surface latent knowledge versus disrupting correct outputs. This work advances the rigorous assessment of model capabilities and inference-time interventions within large language models.
MAPLE: A Multi-Axis Parametric Knowledge Extraction Lens for LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2610.19827v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs absorb vast knowledge from training data, yet their inherently probabilistic nature offers no guarantee that this knowledge will surface in their outputs. To bridge this gap, Knowledge Extraction Enhancement (KEE) techniques such as activation steering, decoding adjustments, and prompting modify inference, potentially reinforcing existing predictions or surfacing less accessible answers. Yet their evaluations centered on aggregate accuracy, which obscures diverse effects by collapsing recovered failures and disrupted successes into a single score. We introduce MAPLE, a unified framework for characterizing how KEE techniques affect parametric knowledge extraction. Its diagnostic metrics disentangle these effects at the surface, probability, and beyond-sampling levels by measuring answer recovery and disruption, gold-token rank shifts on unrecovered failures, and recovery of answers missed by fixed-budget sampling. We evaluate six KEE techniques spanning decoding, activation steering, and prompting across three model families: OLMo2, Qwen2.5, and Llama3. Our analysis reveals distinct effects and trade-offs across techniques, highlighting the value of MAPLE for understanding and comparing KEE beyond aggregate accuracy.
Abstract:LLMs absorb vast knowledge from training data, yet their inherently probabilistic nature offers no guarantee that this knowledge will surface in their outputs. To bridge this gap, Knowledge Extraction Enhancement (KEE) techniques such as activation steering, decoding adjustments, and prompting modify inference, potentially reinforcing existing predictions or surfacing less accessible answers. Yet their evaluations centered on aggregate accuracy, which obscures diverse effects by collapsing recovered failures and disrupted successes into a single score. We introduce MAPLE, a unified framework for characterizing how KEE techniques affect parametric knowledge extraction. Its diagnostic metrics disentangle these effects at the surface, probability, and beyond-sampling levels by measuring answer recovery and disruption, gold-token rank shifts on unrecovered failures, and recovery of answers missed by fixed-budget sampling. We evaluate six KEE techniques spanning decoding, activation steering, and prompting across three model families: OLMo2, Qwen2.5, and Llama3. Our analysis reveals distinct effects and trade-offs across techniques, highlighting the value of MAPLE for understanding and comparing KEE beyond aggregate accuracy.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.19827 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.19827v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.19827 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 · 260 words
Related coverage
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
SciR: A Controllable Benchmark for Scientific Reasoning in LLMs
arXiv · Sep 28, 2026
SciR: A Controllable Benchmark for Scientific Reasoning in LLMs
arXiv · Jun 12, 2026

Fastino Releases GLiNER2.5: A Boundary-Prediction Architecture That Removes Span Enumeration From Information Extraction
MarkTechPost · Aug 24, 2026