arXiv:2608.23507v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Historical people may appear under different languages, scripts, and transcription traditions, while distinct individuals may share highly similar or...
By Xiang Chen, Zeyu Zhang
arXiv:2610. 31407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multilingual language models can give different identity judgments when the same people's names are written in different scripts.
By Athira Gopal, Patil Prathamesh Pravin, Ankush Kadu, Arpit Jain, Ashwanth Krishnan
arXiv:2605. 06142v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: When people recount personal memories, they often refer to people, places, and events indirectly, relying on con-textual cues rather than explicit names.
By Yehudit Aperstein, Eden Moran, Alexander Apartsin
Entity Alignment (EA) identifies equivalent entities across knowledge graphs and is critical for knowledge base integration and ontology merging. Evaluating EA systems at scale requires expensive expe...
OpenSanctions Pairs is the first large‑scale public benchmark for entity matching on sanctions and OSINT data, comprising 755,540 expert‑labeled pairs drawn from over 1 million entities across 293 source datasets and 45 jurisdictions. The dataset spans multiple languages and writing systems, inconsistent structures, and time‑varying provenance, making it far more heterogeneous than prior benchmarks. Baseline experiments show a rule‑based matcher achieving 91.3 % F1, GPT‑4o reaching 99.0 % F1, and a locally deployable open‑source model scoring 98.2 % F1, with complementary failure modes that highlight the need to focus on downstream pipeline components.
By Chandler Smith, Magnus Sesodia, Friedrich Lindenberg, Christian Schroeder de Witt
arXiv:2608.29133v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: History is not preserved in complete, continuous form. Accounts of a person's activities, relationships and historical contexts are scattered across te...
By Yifeng Lu, Zijie Yang, Jie Li, Qingkai Min, Yue Zhang
Was this person ever at that place, and if so, when? Answering such questions from noisy, multilingual historical documents is the central challenge of HIPE-2026, the third edition of the HIPE evaluation series.
arXiv:2606. 00432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems scale, it becomes increasingly challenging to ensure faithful grounding in external evidence.
By Ibne Farabi Shihab, Fariya Afrin, Sanjeda Akter, Anuj Sharma
The paper introduces Evidence-Aligned Entity Verification (EAEV), a method for detecting entity-level hallucinations in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). EAEV aligns generated entities with retrieved evidence across three dimensions and uses counterfactual stability analysis to maintain robust alignments when evidence changes. Experiments on multiple RAG benchmarks show that EAEV consistently outperforms existing hallucination detection methods and generalizes well.
By Runsong Jia, Zhen Fang, Mengjia Wu, Jie Lu, Yi Zhang
arXiv:2608.20351v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: We ask whether stereotype-loaded queries about culturally marked people leak more personal information from a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) sy...
By Yanhang Li, Zhichao Fan, Zexin Zhuang
Thunder‑DeID+ is a Korean de‑identification system that improves boundary precision, label granularity, and recall when applied to court judgments and other sensitive documents. It introduces a refined three‑tier PII taxonomy and a boundary‑aware tokenizer that augments a pretrained BPE vocabulary with N‑gram and boundary‑scoring components, enabling better alignment of token and PII span boundaries. Evaluations show the tokenizer raises the W. Strict Typed F1‑score from 0.76‑0.77 to 0.87‑0.88 across models, and fine‑tuning on 1,000 broader documents yields a 0.93 score, demonstrating effective transfer beyond court judgments.
By Gyuseong Lee, Gyeongje Cho, Jongmin Kim, Heejin Kim, Yeonkyoung So, Hyunggeun Jeon, Hyunji M. Park, Sangho Kim, Yoonhee Park, Youngbin Pyo, Jaejin Lee
The paper audits a 366‑day autobiographical book generated by a large language model (LLM) against an independent verification corpus. Using a four‑level rubric, 354 of the 366 days (96.7%) failed verification, with only 12 days containing corroborated scenes and 19 days containing actively contradicted claims. Regenerating the same days with current models yielded 100% verification failure, while grounding the generation in the subject’s own corpus improved the rate to 83.3% but still left substantial residual failure.
By Heather Renze