arXiv:2507. 02778v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI, they still make errors and follow unproductive reasoning paths.
arXiv:2606. 05976v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent works show that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces, despite their ability to correct errors from external sources.
arXiv:2606. 05976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources.
arXiv:2607. 08393v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fine-tuning LLMs to inject new knowledge faces a critical challenge: LLMs can quickly memorize new facts, yet fail to use them for downstream reasoning tasks.
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
arXiv:2607. 14111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations?
arXiv:2607. 16799v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hidden-state readouts can predict whether language-model outputs are correct, but objective correctness (OC) usually agrees with the model's own self-judgement (SJ), leaving the decoded signal semantically ambiguous.
arXiv:2602. 02416v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Self-correction in language models remains elusive.
arXiv:2608. 05675v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Label-free reliability for vision-language models rests on invariance: perturb the input and a faithful reader's answer should not change.
arXiv:2608. 05188v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite ever-increasing sophistication in language model (LM) pre- and post-training pipelines, many important failures persist: models overcondition on user framing ("sycophancy"), exhibit incomplete logical generalization, and produce confident but incorrect responses.
arXiv:2607. 09803v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large autoregressive language models exhibit a self-correction blind spot: they reliably fix identical errors when attributed to an external source yet fail to fix the same errors in their own outputs.
arXiv:2602. 02470v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autoregressive large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in many complex tasks, yet they can still fail in very simple logical reasoning such as the "reversal curse" -- when trained on forward knowledge data of the form "$A \rightarrow B$" (e.
Label-free reliability for vision-language models rests on invariance: perturb the input and a faithful reader's answer should not change. This has a known blind spot, a systematic misreading survives the perturbation and gets certified wrong, which we show is computable, not just real: an error is invisible to an edit exactly when the two commute, so the errors a suite cannot reach form its joint centralizer, a set that shrinks as edits are added and can be written down rather than guessed at.