arXiv:2607. 14707v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder.
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
arXiv:2606. 27383v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence.
arXiv:2607. 20537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce ReliableTableQA, a framework for training an LLM to annotate the statistical reliability of tabular QA results, not whether the query is answerable, but whether the computed answer is statistically meaningful.
CaSKG introduces a counterfactual‑causal skill graph framework that calibrates procedural relations before retrieval, building a high‑recall directed candidate graph from semantic, lexical, input/output, and structural evidence and refining it with repair evidence and optional LLM judgment. The framework applies direction‑conditioned textual counterfactual probes—removing, substituting, and reordering skill pairs—to aggregate evidence with Bayesian smoothing, producing a state‑filtered weighted graph for task‑conditioned expansion. Evaluated across six LLM backbones on ALFWorld and ScienceWorld, CaSKG outperforms existing Graph‑of‑Skills methods, improving macro‑average scores and reducing mean environment steps while preserving essential skill dependencies.
The study compared human and large language model (LLM) workflows for title‑and‑abstract screening in a complex scoping review. Human reviewers and two GPT‑5.4 file‑batch runs retained 42.2‑45.0% of records with 82.3‑82.9% recall, while Gemini 3.1 achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. Identical GPT‑5.4 runs showed 91.7% agreement yet differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible ones.
arXiv:2609.23088v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Educational foundation models must solve problems, understand curriculum structure, diagnose learner difficulties, and provide appropriate instructiona...
arXiv:2606. 31002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Theorem-proving benchmarks evaluate proof search against fixed formal statements, but natural-language-to-Lean formalization must generate the formal statement itself.
arXiv:2510.13935v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The facts a language model stores are tied to its parameter count, so small models that fit on edge devices fail on expert problems, which ne...
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
arXiv:2606. 28360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: University students often struggle to navigate complex academic policies, leading to advising bottlenecks and delayed access to critical information.
arXiv:2602. 08873v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation.
FinRiskAtlas is a Chinese-language benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) for financial risk review by focusing on decision‑aligned tasks rather than generic financial knowledge. It contains 9,742 instances across 53 task families, including 42 domain‑knowledge families and 11 downstream review operations defined by explicit evaluation contracts. The extended FinRisk‑Ask framework replays 680 pre‑action states from 104 professional trajectories, withholding future evidence during inference to assess evidence‑state control and request targeting. Results across 33 model configurations show that operation‑level evaluation yields distinct rankings and that knowledge‑based shortlisting can incur significant regret, while frequent use of the Ask branch does not necessarily improve evidence acquisition, highlighting gaps in broad financial capability scores.