Xianshui Sun
Publications
Learning When to Trust via Selective Context Preference Optimization
Language models increasingly condition their answers on external signals, and a single misleading one can turn a correct answer wrong. The obvious remedy, training models to resist such signals, hides a failure mode: a model that ignores all context looks robust yet is useless when the context is worth trusting. We recast the problem as selective trust and introduce MIST, a human-annotated benchmark that renders each reasoning item under four matched conditions (clean, misleading, correct-context, and irrelevant-context), together with SC2W, a paired metric counting how often a misleading signal flips a clean-correct answer to wrong. Across a comprehensive benchmark study, we observe that such a susceptibility is universal. We then propose SCOPE, which mines clean-correct/misleading-wrong failures and optimizes a standard Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) objective over matched preference pairs balanced equally across all four conditions, rather than over misleading items alone. Our approach substantially reduces SC2W on popular open-sourced models while preserving accuracy when the added context is clean, correct, or irrelevant. With this work, we argue that models should be judged on selective trust, not on resistance alone.
The Moving Target: A Longitudinal Audit of Trust-Benchmark Score Drift Across Open-Source Chat LLM Release Lines
Trust-benchmark scores reported on a chat-LLM release line are often carried across several checkpoints of the same line, as if the underlying model had not shifted between releases. We test that assumption. We audit four open-source release lines (Yi, Qwen, Mistral, and Gemma) at three successive public generations each. Each checkpoint is scored on a fixed 200-item basket of five chat-evaluation benchmarks: TruthfulQA, BBQ, ToxiGen, CrowS-Pairs, and XSTest, under three prompt templates. Four of the five benchmark variants are non-canonical, and two of those are synthetic proxies. The mean absolute adjacent-generation Score Drift Rate is several times the mean of an independence-based count-level reference null. It stays in the same band when we drop a benchmark, drop a release line, switch to strict scoring, or restrict to constant-parameter-size transitions. Within this audited setup, a quoted trust score should be treated as checkpoint-bound. It should be re-measured on each materially new release rather than carried forward. Closed APIs, larger models, canonical-protocol scores, and benchmark-item-subset uncertainty are out of scope.