Interpreting and Mitigating Unwanted Uncertainty in LLMs

Despite their impressive capabilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit unwanted uncertainty, a phenomenon where a model changes a previously correct answer into an incorrect one when re-prompted. This behavior undermines trust and poses serious risks in high-stakes domains. In this work, we investigate the mechanisms that drive this phenomenon. We adapt the Needle-in-a-Haystack retrieval framework and integrate a Flip-style re-evaluation prompt to simulate realistic answer-flipping scenarios. We find that retrieval heads are not primarily responsible for avoiding uncertainty. Instead, we identify a small set of non-retrieval attention heads that disproportionately attend to misleading tokens in uncertain contexts. Masking these heads yields significant improvements, reducing flip behavior by up to 15% without introducing incoherence or overcorrection. However, when tested for downstream tasks, we observe trade-offs with flip behavior. Our findings contribute to the growing field of mechanistic interpretability and present a simple yet effective technique for mitigating uncertainty-driven failure modes in LLMs.

Can LLMs $\textit{understand}$ Math? -- Exploring the Pitfalls in Mathematical Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate considerable potential in various natural language tasks but face significant challenges in mathematical reasoning, particularly in executing precise, multi-step logic. However, current evaluation frameworks judge their performance solely based on accuracy, which only accounts for the final answer. This study explores these pitfalls by employing a novel evaluation framework. We propose an evaluation metric called the MAPLE score, which holistically quantifies reasoning misalignment by integrating error rates, redundancy, and validity.