Label-free reliability for vision-language models rests on invariance: perturb the input and a faithful reader's answer should not change. This has a known blind spot, a systematic misreading survives the perturbation and gets certified wrong, which we show is computable, not just real: an error is invisible to an edit exactly when the two commute, so the errors a suite cannot reach form its joint centralizer, a set that shrinks as edits are added and can be written down rather than guessed at.
arXiv:2507. 02778v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI, they still make errors and follow unproductive reasoning paths.
By Ken Tsui
arXiv:2607. 09803v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large autoregressive language models exhibit a self-correction blind spot: they reliably fix identical errors when attributed to an external source yet fail to fix the same errors in their own outputs.
By Ingrid Petrova, Luan Vejsiu
arXiv:2608. 16805v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large vision-language models can recognize the objects and attributes in a crowded scene yet assign an attribute to the wrong same-class instance.
By Yuanzhi Xu, Qian Gao, Jun Fan, Guohui Ding, Zhenyu Yang, Yuteng Xiao, Sixue Lin
Large autoregressive language models exhibit a self-correction blind spot: they reliably fix identical errors when attributed to an external source yet fail to fix the same errors in their own outputs. Prior work has documented this phenomenon empirically, through controlled error injection, error-depth decompositions, RL-based verifier-corrector training, and intrinsic self-verification, but offers no formal model of why generating a token suppresses the ability to detect its error, no quantitative activation condition for correction markers, and no convergence guarantee for reinforcement-learning-based self-correction.
arXiv:2608. 05670v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A model's agreement across perturbed inputs is used both as a label-free reliability signal and as a self-training target, on the premise that agreement tracks correctness.
By Rasul Khanbayov, Hasan Kurban
arXiv:2606. 16541v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autoformalization, translating natural-language mathematics into formal proof assistants, is bottlenecked not by translation fluency but by \emph{faithfulness}: a formal statement can typecheck and be provable, yet still encode a different theorem than the source intended.
By Noor Islam S. Mohammad, Tamim Sheikh
arXiv:2608. 10420v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning shortcuts are solutions of a neurosymbolic system's rules that produce correct predictions through unintended concepts.
By Xin Xu
arXiv:2607. 01690v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Finetuning a language model on documents that are explicitly annotated as fictional results in a model that still actually believes the documents' core claims, an effect known as Negation Neglect.
By Joshua Penman
arXiv:2608. 01207v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Test-time scaling lifts large language model reasoning by sampling many candidate solutions and selecting among them, yet the same recipe transfers poorly to vision-language models (VLMs): recent work shows that simple majority voting beats selection methods built on the model's own self-verification, apparently because at the selection layer an image-grounded answer and a confident guess from the language prior look the same.
By Puzhuo Zheng, Hasan Kurban
arXiv:2604. 27720v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to medical visual question answering (Med-VQA), yet whether they can \emph{localize} the evidence behind their answers---a prerequisite for clinical auditability---is poorly characterized.
By Xupeng Chen, Binbin Shi, Chenqian Le, Qifu Yin, Lang Lin, Haowei Ni, Ran Gong, Panfeng Li
arXiv:2607. 20433v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While language models remain frozen at their training state, the world evolves continuously.
By Jea Kwon, Jiwon Kim, Dong-kyum Kim, Meeyoung Cha