Reliability-Aware Adaptive Self-Consistency for Efficient Sampling in LLM Reasoning

Self-Consistency improves reasoning reliability through multi-sample aggregation, but incurs substantial inference cost. Adaptive self-consistency methods mitigate this issue by adjusting the sampling budget; however, they rely on count-based stopping rules that treat all responses equally, often leading to unnecessary sampling. We propose Reliability-Aware Adaptive Self-Consistency (ReASC), which addresses this limitation by reframing adaptive sampling from response counting to evidence sufficiency, leveraging response-level confidence for principled information aggregation. ReASC operates in two stages: a single-sample decision stage that resolves instances confidently answerable from a single response, and a reliability-aware accumulation stage that aggregates responses by jointly leveraging their frequency and confidence. Across five models and four datasets, ReASC consistently achieves the best accuracy-cost trade-off compared to existing baselines, yielding improved inference efficiency across model scales from 3B to 27B parameters. As a concrete example, ReASC reduces inference cost by up to 70\% relative to self-consistency while preserving accuracy on GSM8K using Gemma-3-4B-it.

Confidence-Guided Stepwise Model Routing for Cost-Efficient Reasoning

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) - particularly model scaling and test-time techniques - have greatly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of language models at the expense of higher inference costs. To lower inference costs, prior works train router models or deferral mechanisms that allocate easy queries to a small, efficient model, while forwarding harder queries to larger, more expensive models. However, these trained router models often lack robustness under domain shifts and require expensive data synthesis techniques such as Monte Carlo rollouts to obtain sufficient ground-truth routing labels for training. In this work, we propose Confidence-Guided Stepwise Model Routing for Cost-Efficient Reasoning (STEER), a domain-agnostic framework that performs fine-grained, step-level routing between smaller and larger LLMs without utilizing external models. STEER leverages confidence scores from the smaller model's logits prior to generating a reasoning step, so that the large model is invoked only when necessary. Extensive evaluations using different LLMs on a diverse set of challenging benchmarks across multiple domains such as Mathematical Reasoning, Multi-Hop QA, and Planning tasks indicate that STEER achieves competitive or enhanced accuracy while reducing inference costs (up to +20% accuracy with 48% less FLOPs compared to solely using the larger model on AIME), outperforming baselines that rely on trained external modules. Our results establish model-internal confidence as a robust, domain-agnostic signal for model routing, offering a scalable pathway for efficient LLM deployment.

Black-Box Hallucination Detection via Consistency Under the Uncertain Expression

Despite the great advancement of Language modeling in recent days, Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT3 are notorious for generating non-factual responses, so-called "hallucination" problems. Existing methods for detecting and alleviating this hallucination problem require external resources or the internal state of LLMs, such as the output probability of each token. Given the LLM's restricted external API availability and the limited scope of external resources, there is an urgent demand to establish the Black-Box approach as the cornerstone for effective hallucination detection. In this work, we propose a simple black-box hallucination detection metric after the investigation of the behavior of LLMs under expression of uncertainty. Our comprehensive analysis reveals that LLMs generate consistent responses when they present factual responses while non-consistent responses vice versa. Based on the analysis, we propose an efficient black-box hallucination detection metric with the expression of uncertainty. The experiment demonstrates that our metric is more predictive of the factuality in model responses than baselines that use internal knowledge of LLMs.

Erase or Hide? Suppressing Spurious Unlearning Neurons for Robust Unlearning

Large language models trained on web-scale data can memorize private or sensitive knowledge, raising significant privacy risks. Although some unlearning methods mitigate these risks, they remain vulnerable to "relearning" during subsequent training, allowing a substantial portion of forgotten knowledge to resurface. In this paper, we show that widely used unlearning methods cause shallow alignment: instead of faithfully erasing target knowledge, they generate spurious unlearning neurons that amplify negative influence to hide it. To overcome this limitation, we introduce Ssiuu, a new class of unlearning methods that employs attribution-guided regularization to prevent spurious negative influence and faithfully remove target knowledge. Experimental results confirm that our method reliably erases target knowledge and outperforms strong baselines across two practical retraining scenarios: (1) adversarial injection of private data, and (2) benign attack using an instruction-following benchmark. Our findings highlight the necessity of robust and faithful unlearning methods for safe deployment of language models.

Can You Trick the Grader? Adversarial Persuasion of LLM Judges

As large language models take on growing roles as automated evaluators in practical settings, a critical question arises: Can individuals persuade an LLM judge to assign unfairly high scores? This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks, where correctness should be independent of stylistic variation. Grounded in Aristotle's rhetorical principles, we formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses. Across six math benchmarks, we find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion. Notably, increasing model size does not substantially mitigate this vulnerability. Further analysis demonstrates that combining multiple persuasion techniques amplifies the bias, and pairwise evaluation is likewise susceptible. Moreover, the persuasive effect persists under counter prompting strategies, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines and underscoring the need for robust defenses against persuasion-based attacks.

Don't Judge Code by Its Cover: Exploring Biases in LLM Judges for Code Evaluation

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

Fooling the LVLM Judges: Visual Biases in LVLM-Based Evaluation

Recently, large vision-language models (LVLMs) have emerged as the preferred tools for judging text-image alignment, yet their robustness along the visual modality remains underexplored. This work is the first study to address a key research question: Can adversarial visual manipulations systematically fool LVLM judges into assigning unfairly inflated scores? We define potential image induced biases within the context of T2I evaluation and examine how these biases affect the evaluations of LVLM judges. Moreover, we introduce a novel, fine-grained, multi-domain meta-evaluation benchmark named FRAME, which is deliberately constructed to exhibit diverse score distributions. By introducing the defined biases into the benchmark, we reveal that all tested LVLM judges exhibit vulnerability across all domains, consistently inflating scores for manipulated images. Further analysis reveals that combining multiple biases amplifies their effects, and pairwise evaluations are similarly susceptible. Moreover, we observe that visual biases persist under prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting the vulnerability of current LVLM evaluation systems and underscoring the urgent need for more robust LVLM judges.

ReflAct: World-Grounded Decision Making in LLM Agents via Goal-State Reflection

Recent advances in LLM agents have largely built on reasoning backbones like ReAct, which interleave thought and action in complex environments. However, ReAct often produces ungrounded or incoherent reasoning steps, leading to misalignment between the agent's actual state and goal. Our analysis finds that this stems from ReAct's inability to maintain consistent internal beliefs and goal alignment, causing compounding errors and hallucinations. To address this, we introduce ReflAct, a novel backbone that shifts reasoning from merely planning next actions to continuously reflecting on the agent's state relative to its goal. By explicitly grounding decisions in states and enforcing ongoing goal alignment, ReflAct dramatically improves strategic reliability. This design delivers substantial empirical gains: ReflAct surpasses ReAct by 27.7% on average, achieving a 93.3% success rate in ALFWorld. Notably, ReflAct even outperforms ReAct with added enhancement modules (e.g., Reflexion, WKM), showing that strengthening the core reasoning backbone is key to reliable agent performance.

MultiActor-Audiobook: Zero-Shot Audiobook Generation with Faces and Voices of Multiple Speakers

We introduce MultiActor-Audiobook, a zero-shot approach for generating audiobooks that automatically produces consistent, expressive, and speaker-appropriate prosody, including intonation and emotion. Previous audiobook systems have several limitations: they require users to manually configure the speaker's prosody, read each sentence with a monotonic tone compared to voice actors, or rely on costly training. However, our MultiActor-Audiobook addresses these issues by introducing two novel processes: (1) MSP (**Multimodal Speaker Persona Generation**) and (2) LSI (**LLM-based Script Instruction Generation**). With these two processes, MultiActor-Audiobook can generate more emotionally expressive audiobooks with a consistent speaker prosody without additional training. We compare our system with commercial products, through human and MLLM evaluations, achieving competitive results. Furthermore, we demonstrate the effectiveness of MSP and LSI through ablation studies.

FaithUn: Toward Faithful Forgetting in Language Models by Investigating the Interconnectedness of Knowledge

Various studies have attempted to remove sensitive or private knowledge from a language model to prevent its unauthorized exposure. However, prior studies have overlooked the complex and interconnected nature of knowledge, where related knowledge must be carefully examined. Specifically, they have failed to evaluate whether an unlearning method faithfully erases interconnected knowledge that should be removed, retaining knowledge that appears relevant but exists in a completely different context. To resolve this problem, we first define a new concept called superficial unlearning, which refers to the phenomenon where an unlearning method either fails to erase the interconnected knowledge it should remove or unintentionally erases irrelevant knowledge. Based on the definition, we introduce a new benchmark, FaithUn, to analyze and evaluate the faithfulness of unlearning in real-world knowledge QA settings. Furthermore, we propose a novel unlearning method, KLUE, which updates only knowledge-related neurons to achieve faithful unlearning. KLUE identifies knowledge neurons using an explainability method and updates only those neurons using selected unforgotten samples. Experimental results demonstrate that widely-used unlearning methods fail to ensure faithful unlearning, while our method shows significant effectiveness in real-world QA unlearning.