Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 0

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

XYBench: Can LLMs Respond Pragmatically to Queries with Misconceptions?

Yerukola, Akhila, Hwang, Jena D., Zheng, Mingqian, Godsey, Jenna, Kim, Hyunwoo, Pyatkin, Valentina, Hu, Jennifer, Sap, Maarten·2026·arXiv

Abstract

When non-expert users ask LLMs for assistance, their queries can often have misconceptions (e.g., "How do I parse XML with regex?"). In such cases, often referred to as the XY-problem, LLMs must identify the misconception ("regex are fragile") and meaningfully direct the user toward a pragmatic solution that will address the root problem implicit in the request ("use an XML parser"). We introduce XYBench, a benchmark of 8,115 such queries, drawn from technical (StackOverflow/StackExchange) and everyday (WikiHow and a manually-curated subset) domains. We design an evaluation paradigm that assesses model responses along three criteria grounded in cooperative response theory: (a) presence and (b) emphasis on pragmatic solutions, and (c) identification of misconceptions. Our experiments show that even the strongest LLMs predominantly answer the literal request (0.75--0.92) and far less often the intended one (0.33--0.71), while substantially lagging behind humans at identifying misconceptions (at most 63% vs. 79--90%). Further, models overwhelmingly prefer pragmatic responses in a multiple choice setting yet consistently fail to generate them. Oracle ablation experiments show that providing explicit user intent at generation time helps; however a large gap remains, suggesting pragmatic redirection is a fundamentally underdeveloped capability in current LLMs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.06842

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

  • LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation

    Laban, P., Hayashi, H., Zhou, Y., & Neville, J. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 419 · cited 1×

    “…in agen-tic software engineering (Vijayvargiya et al., 2026), poorly-posed information-seeking questions where LLMs hedge across interpretations rather than negotiate them (Srikanth et al., 2025), and multi-turn settings where user intent is disclosed incrementally (Laban et al., 2026).”

Metadata

Authors
Yerukola, A., Hwang, J. D., Zheng, M., Godsey, J., Kim, H., Pyatkin, V., Hu, J., & Sap, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
References
1
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.