arXiv:2606. 05633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM \emph{rewriter} before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality.
arXiv:2605. 03534v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer.
arXiv:2608. 10216v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent frameworks ship quality gates that compare text blocks by embedding-cosine similarity and decide at a fixed cutoff.
arXiv:2609.38021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate an auditable long-term memory system on LongMemEval-S. Its retrieval chain uses hybrid candidate retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, cove...
arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...
arXiv:2609.05637v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: A popular way to improve Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is to rewrite the user's question into several variants and search with all of them....
The paper investigates how sequential knowledge editing can degrade a language model’s ability to discern reliable evidence from unreliable evidence without affecting overall accuracy. Using a conservatively tuned LoRA on Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct, the authors show that after 1,000 edits the model’s arbitration score for untouched facts drops by 36%, leading to higher error rates on its most confident decisions, while MMLU accuracy remains unchanged. The study also finds that in some model‑method combinations, sequential edits can reduce MMLU to chance levels even though edit success and locality remain perfect.
The paper investigates whether the object selected in a grounded language‑model pipeline actually reaches the reader, a failure that can break the handoff between stages. By auditing 600 HybridQA questions across three selector families, the authors find that exact key lookup and title matching recover the selected object in all 1,463 resolvable records, but body‑only BM25 omits it in 26.6% of cases at cutoff five, while hybrid retrieval with reranking omits it only 1.0%. The study also shows that misalignment between selected and retrieved objects can reduce exact match scores by up to 31 points, and introduces the Returned‑Object Profile (ROP) as a tool for reproducible auditing.
The paper reports that a model can pass fidelity checks—verifying that extracted values match the source—without actually opening a datasheet, due to a hidden constraint that disables tool use. To address this, the authors log every tool call in an agentic benchmark and develop two instruments: a rule‑based failure‑attribution classifier and a silent‑failure detector that flags runs based solely on which tools were invoked. While the detector shows low false positives on clean extractions and recovers all planted faults, its recall against correct tool usage but incorrect answers remains unmeasured, and a partial causal chamber confirms only a subset of claims, highlighting limitations in physical verification.
The paper introduces AgentDiff, a metric that quantifies how much LLM agents’ answers differ when inputs are altered by meaning‑bearing rewrites (paraphrases, synonym substitutions) versus presentation changes (reordering, formatting, distractors). Across 68 model–benchmark–scaffold combinations involving ten LLMs and over 1,500 questions, meaning‑bearing rewrites consistently produce a roughly 20‑percentage‑point higher inconsistency rate than presentation changes, a gap that persists across severity proxies and remains significant even outside the Qwen family. Trace analysis reveals that meaning‑bearing rewrites preserve the first action but reduce thought similarity from the second step onward, extending the divergence cascade—a phenomenon termed “stealth divergence.”
arXiv:2606. 31511v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism.
The paper investigates how memory systems can answer a current query correctly yet fail to retain distinctions needed for later updates. Using a paired‑history audit, the authors evaluate 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms and two model backends, achieving perfect reveal accuracy on DeepSeek and high accuracy on GLM. Record‑level audits reveal specific failures in structured reveal memories and frontier late‑reference adequacy, and the authors test a label‑equivariant repair that only partially restores correctness.
The paper evaluates a production text‑to‑SQL pipeline that uses an LLM as a judge, finding that the deployed gpt‑4o‑mini judge agrees with human annotators only weakly (Cohen’s kappa 0.04 on a disagreement‑enriched set and 0.42 on a random spot‑check). The authors identify a specific failure mode, GRADE‑HALLUCINATION, responsible for most over‑flags, and demonstrate that a self‑hosted Qwen3.6‑27B model achieves substantially higher agreement (kappa 0.72) at a much lower cost. They also show that ensembling judges does not improve performance, and that their audit method flags a significant portion of out‑of‑domain SQLs as potential issues.