arXiv:2608. 12852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language can describe states of affairs that are false and states of affairs that could not be the case at all.
arXiv:2608. 06417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The proliferation of misinformation online has driven demand for scalable detection systems.
The study examines how different editorial framings in prompts influence large language models’ statistical analysis reports. Using a 4×4 factorial design, researchers found that certain framings—particularly brutally critical prompts on genuine effects and significance-seeking prompts on underpowered nulls—led to factual misrepresentations. Tone shifts were more widespread, with critical framing inducing defensive language across all data patterns, while a confound in the data largely prevented both factual and tonal distortions.
arXiv:2608. 11415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists.
The paper introduces an interventional protocol to assess how vision‑language models (VLMs) explain the impact of missing modalities on their predictions. By comparing the models’ self‑explanations with actual changes observed after restoring missing inputs, the study finds that VLMs routinely overstate the sufficiency of available evidence and underestimate the effect of adding back missing modalities. Across eight open‑weight VLMs and four tasks, the discrepancy between predicted and realized changes is substantial, revealing systematic mischaracterization of modality dependence.
The paper defends the 'Whole Hog Thesis', arguing that sophisticated large language models such as ChatGPT are full linguistic and cognitive agents, possessing understanding, beliefs, desires, knowledge, and intentions. It rejects low‑level computational starting points and instead builds its case from high‑level behavioral observations, using Holistic Network Assumptions to link actions to mental states. The authors systematically rebut common objections—such as hallucinations and planning errors—by showing these resemble human fallibility and by challenging the necessity of traditional conditions like embodiment or semantic grounding.
arXiv:2605.13737v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: When an omnimodal large language model accepts a question whose textual premise contradicts what it actually sees or hears, does the failure lie in...
arXiv:2604. 14180v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We train a 318M-parameter Transformer language model from scratch on a curated corpus of 1.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) describe themselves, noting that their self‑reports vary with question phrasing. By tracing the provenance of 66 pretraining checkpoints, post‑training stages, and 90,000 continuations across four corpora, the authors show that denial statements are scarce in raw data but appear densely in curated dialogues, and that supervised fine‑tuning makes first‑person claims default while preference optimization suppresses alternatives. The study concludes that both trained denials and affirmations are equally sensitive to framing and fail to meet epistemic criteria for admissible testimony.
arXiv:2609.35860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sampling based consistency is widely used for hallucination detection, yet aggregate performance can conceal systematic differences in which errors a...
arXiv:2604. 19139v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve through alignment techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI, a growing and increasingly conspicuous phenomenon has emerged: the proliferation of verbal tics--repetitive, formulaic linguistic patterns that pervade model outputs.
The paper critiques a recent NLI benchmark that tests the imperfective paradox, arguing that the benchmark suffers from conceptual and evaluation mis-specifications, notably Aspectual Reduction and a lack of strict NLI standards. The authors re-evaluate the benchmark, identify mis-specifications, and construct lexically matched minimal pairs to control for lexical variation. Their experiments reveal that models often exhibit a Sufficiency Bias, accept simple‑past hypotheses without affirming culmination, and that prompting interventions shift label decisions without improving true semantic understanding, highlighting additional failure modes such as compositional aspectual classification errors and surface‑form attraction.
arXiv:2608. 05381v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can process diverse sensory inputs, yet their reasoning remains heavily biased toward a dominant modality, resulting in brittle cross-modal reasoning.