arXiv AI

Explanation Multiplicity: Circuit-Level Interpretability Evidence Does Not Survive Defensible Analytic Variation

arXiv:2608. 13754v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The EU AI Act requires providers of high-risk systems to file technical documentation describing how the system reaches its decisions.

arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

Are We Recovering Mechanisms? Objective-Level Recovery Gaps in Mechanistic Interpretability

The paper investigates mechanistic interpretability, focusing on how automated circuit discovery is evaluated. It shows that the commonly used faithfulness objective can favor circuits that reproduce a model’s behavior poorly, creating an objective-level recovery gap. Experiments on four human-reference tasks and InterpBench reveal that many discovery methods misrank candidate circuits, and that restoring excluded signals can correct most of these misrankings without altering the circuits’ behavior.

By Chuqin Geng, Li Zhang, Haolin Ye, Mark Zhang, Luke Zhang, Xujie Si
arXiv AI
Jun 9

Brain-Prompt Injection: A Route-Safety Audit for BCI-LLM Agents

arXiv:2606. 09315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: BCI-to-agent pipelines turn decoded neural activity into an authorization channel for tool-use agents, exposing a new attack surface we call \emph{brain-prompt injection}: signal-side perturbations, context-only injections, and adaptive dual-decoder attacks can all change the routed action while EEG-side or text-side monitors remain blind.

By Jianwei Tai
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

VERITYGATE: A Four-Gate Schema-Level Faithfulness Framework and Paired Benchmark for Grounded LLM Narrations over Structured Evidence

VERITYGATE is a four‑gate framework that checks whether LLM‑generated narrations adhere to a fixed schema of declared evidence IDs, entities, numbers, and claim types, rather than verifying every fact in the prose. In experiments with GPT‑4o‑mini, Llama‑3.3‑70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 on 900 grounded‑ungrounded pairs, the framework identified high failure rates (up to 80.3% for mini claims) and demonstrated that a single repair pass can improve claim survival rates. The authors also provide code, data, and preliminary human studies to validate the rules and highlight gaps between schema compliance and correct prose. "whyItMatters":"The framework offers a systematic way to evaluate and improve the faithfulness of LLM explanations to structured evidence, revealing significant failure rates and the impact of repair strategies."

By Sachin Gupta
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Validation and Simulation Catch Different Errors: Four Levels of Evaluation for LLM-Generated Circuits

The paper introduces four distinct evaluation levels—schema validity, topological validity, backend executability, and component‑set agreement—to assess large language model‑generated electrical circuits. Using a 150‑circuit trilingual benchmark and a typed circuit interchange pipeline, the authors show that each level captures errors missed by the others, with significant discrepancies observed between validator rejections and ngspice execution outcomes. A repair study further demonstrates that targeted model adjustments can markedly improve topological validity while having mixed effects on executability and component agreement.

By Ali Hedayati Pirouzan