aiqbench analysis
This research introduces PUN, a rigorous protocol for generating "plausible unknown names" to isolate true hallucinations and privacy leaks in LLM evaluations from mere name priors or retrieval artifacts. By validating these synthetic identities against human search capabilities, the study provides a critical methodological tool for improving the accuracy of factuality and bias testing in large language models.
No PUN Intended: Plausible Unknown Names for Person-Centred LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2608.21206v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Person names are widely used as prompt variables in LLM evaluations of factuality, privacy leakage, bias and abstention, but when a name's evidential status is uncontrolled, measurements may conflate memorisation, retrieval, name priors and wrong-person attribution. We operationalise an unknown name as one with plausible First-Last form, no indexed full-name evidence, and no ambiguity signals under a documented validation run, and introduce PUN (Plausible Unknown Names), a protocol for constructing and validating such names, combining Wikidata-derived components, web-enabled LLM screening, and controlled search revalidation. We report acceptance rate, reproducibility, ablations, and a 204-participant human study, finding accepted names are more name-like than controls while participants recover person evidence in only 3% of cases. We release 300 names with comparison controls.
Abstract:Person names are widely used as prompt variables in LLM evaluations of factuality, privacy leakage, bias and abstention, but when a name's evidential status is uncontrolled, measurements may conflate memorisation, retrieval, name priors and wrong-person attribution. We operationalise an unknown name as one with plausible First-Last form, no indexed full-name evidence, and no ambiguity signals under a documented validation run, and introduce PUN (Plausible Unknown Names), a protocol for constructing and validating such names, combining Wikidata-derived components, web-enabled LLM screening, and controlled search revalidation. We report acceptance rate, reproducibility, ablations, and a 204-participant human study, finding accepted names are more name-like than controls while participants recover person evidence in only 3% of cases. We release 300 names with comparison controls.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.21206 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.21206v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21206 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 · 221 words
Related coverage

Implementing and Evaluating a Basic Per-Action Monitor for Safer Evals
METR · Sep 27, 2026
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 18, 2026

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · Jul 15, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026