Improving Cross-Format Robustness in Language Models with Multi-Format Training
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models often remain sensitive to answer format: a question solved correctly in one form may fail in another semantically equivalent form. To study this gap, we define cross-format robustness as the extent to which a model answers the same underlying question consistently across formats. We then compare full-format training with FormatMix, which expands only a subset of training items into multiple equivalent formats using either random or targeted selection. Across GLM4 and Llama-3.1, multi-format supervision consistently improves both task performance and cross-format robustness, whereas Multiple-choice question (MCQ)-only supervision alone brings little benefit and can even reduce robustness. We further find that expanding only about 30% of the training set into multiple formats often recovers most of the gain from full-format training, and this effect appears across the model families and sizes we study. These results suggest that format diversity, rather than additional supervision alone, is the key driver of robustness. That lightweight multi-format augmentation is a practical way to make LLMs less sensitive to answer format without changing the base model.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.
Builds on
26 of 35 references.
References · 26
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,386
- 2023C-Eval: A Multi-Level Multi-Discipline Chinese Evaluation Suite for Foundation Modelscited by 708
- 2023CMMLU: Measuring massive multitask language understanding in Chinesecited by 449
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 269
- 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 243
- 2024Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessmentcited by 126
- 2024Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arenacited by 76
- 2024Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?cited by 71
14 more
- 2024Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?cited by 69
- 2024Are Large Language Models Consistent over Value-laden Questions?cited by 58
- 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Abovecited by 52
- 2025Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluationcited by 41
- 2025Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworkscited by 38
- 2024LLMs May Perform MCQA by Selecting the Least Incorrect Optioncited by 33
- 2025Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answeringcited by 28
- 2024QGEval: Benchmarking Multi-dimensional Evaluation for Question Generationcited by 17
- 2024Wait, that's not an option: LLMs Robustness with Incorrect Multiple-Choice Optionscited by 11
- 2025A Strategic Coordination Framework of Small LLMs Matches Large LLMs in Data Synthesiscited by 9
- 2025LLM Knowledge is Brittle: Truthfulness Representations Rely on Superficial Resemblancecited by 9
- 2024EQUATOR: A Deterministic Framework for Evaluating LLM Reasoning with Open-Ended Questions. # v1.0.0-betacited by 3
- 2023On the Robustness of Question Rewriting Systems to Questions of Varying Hardnesscited by 1
- 2025Improving Score Reliability of Multiple Choice Benchmarks with Consistency Evaluation and Altered Answer Choicescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.