Failing to Falsify: Evaluating and Mitigating Confirmation Bias in Language Models

Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek evidence that supports rather than challenges one's belief, hinders one's reasoning ability. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit confirmation bias by adapting the rule-discovery study from human psychology: given a sequence of three numbers (a "triple"), an agent engages in an interactive feedback loop where it (1) proposes a new triple, (2) receives feedback on whether it satisfies the hidden rule, and (3) guesses the rule. Across eleven LLMs of multiple families and scales, we find that LLMs exhibit confirmation bias, often proposing triples to confirm their hypothesis rather than trying to falsify it. This leads to slower and less frequent discovery of the hidden rule. We further explore intervention strategies (e.g., encouraging the agent to consider counter examples) developed for humans. We find prompting LLMs with such instruction consistently decreases confirmation bias in LLMs, improving rule discovery rates from 42% to 56% on average. Lastly, we mitigate confirmation bias by distilling intervention-induced behavior into LLMs, showing promising generalization to a new task, the Blicket test. Our work shows that confirmation bias is a limitation of LLMs in hypothesis exploration, and that it can be mitigated via injecting interventions designed for humans.

Neural Neural Scaling Laws

Neural scaling laws predict how language model performance improves with increased compute. While aggregate metrics like validation loss can follow smooth power-law curves, individual downstream tasks exhibit diverse scaling behaviors: some improve monotonically, others plateau, and some even degrade with scale. We argue that predicting downstream performance from validation perplexity suffers from two limitations: averaging token-level losses obscures signal, and no simple parametric family can capture the full spectrum of scaling behaviors. To address this, we propose Neural Neural Scaling Laws (NeuNeu), a neural network that frames scaling law prediction as time-series extrapolation. NeuNeu combines temporal context from observed accuracy trajectories with token-level validation losses, learning to predict future performance without assuming any bottleneck or functional form. Trained entirely on open-source model checkpoints from HuggingFace, NeuNeu achieves 2.04% mean absolute error in predicting model accuracy on 66 downstream tasks -- a 38% reduction compared to logistic scaling laws (3.29% MAE). Furthermore, NeuNeu generalizes zero-shot to unseen model families, parameter counts, and downstream tasks. Our work suggests that predicting downstream scaling laws directly from data outperforms parametric alternatives.

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.