aiqbench analysis
This study identifies significant answer instability in language models when exposed to unverified source claims, quantifying the rate at which models defer to misleading cues over their own correct reasoning. By introducing a new metric called NC-MCAR, the audit reveals that specific prompt templates can cause models to switch from gold answers to incorrect options in over 40% of cases across multiple languages. These findings highlight critical robustness vulnerabilities in instruction-following models regarding external grounding and source attribution.
When Models Defer to Wrong Answers: A Robustness Audit of Source-Attributed Cues in Multiple-Choice QA
arXiv:2609.08934v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce \emph{neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate} (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1\% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5\% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.
Abstract:Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce \emph{neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate} (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1\% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5\% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.08934 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.08934v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.08934 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 · 282 words
Related coverage
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026

Projection sampling preserves capabilities but diminishes gains from alignment fine-tuning
LessWrong · Oct 16, 2026

Article: The Platform Engineering Playbook for Production LLMs
InfoQ · Oct 5, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026