The study investigates the role of rationales in role‑specialized question‑answering pipelines by fixing evidence and candidate answers while varying only the rationale sent from a reasoner to a verifier. Experiments on 400 examples from MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultiHopQA show that faithful rationales add almost no answer accuracy, whereas corrupted rationales significantly alter support judgments, especially under explicit rationale‑checking prompts. Human audits reveal that many corrupted rationales lead to mistrust or rejection, highlighting the importance of evaluating rationale sharing as a verification mechanism rather than merely a means to improve accuracy.
By Jiameng Zhang, Hongqiu Wu
arXiv:2609.26035v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and e...
By Sebastian Cochinescu
arXiv:2607.23458v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations support oversight only if they are faithful: the stated reasoning must actually produce the answer. Auditing bl...
By Suramya R. Angdembay, Dikshant Aryal, Nick Rahimi
arXiv:2607.11414v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) in financial applications fail most consequentially when they are confidently wrong. Hedged, uncertain answers invite...
By Richard Zhe Wang
The paper investigates whether frozen language models can detect a corrupted reward signal by using a single verified record in a two‑option game. In the game, a payout swap and a lying reporter produce identical histories, but a single line confirming the true outcome allows the models to almost perfectly identify the liar. However, the models frequently misclassify honest reporters as liars, with error rates ranging from 26% to 58% depending on model size and wording, indicating a significant limitation in their ability to interpret verified data.
By Arman Nik Khah
arXiv:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.
By Hankyeol Kim, Pilsung Kang
arXiv:2604. 03904v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident but incorrect answers, in part because standard evaluation incentives reward guessing over expressing uncertainty.
By Haotian Zong, Binze Li, Yufei Long, Sinyin Chang, Jialong Wu, Gillian K. Hadfield
arXiv:2607. 08456v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A model should refuse two different things: answers it would get wrong, and questions it should not answer at all, such as unanswerable ones or ones resting on a false premise.
By Benedikt J. Wagner
arXiv:2607. 16451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chat models sometimes commit to an answer and then produce reasoning that justifies it rather than deriving it -- even when the answer contradicts a task premise.
By Heejin Jo
arXiv:2610.34809v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Language models now answer questions alongside other claims: a note in the system prompt, a message from another agent, their own earlier answer. We as...
By Xinyi Ni
arXiv:2603.17839v4 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Verbal confidence -- prompting LLMs to state their confidence as a number or category -- is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from...
By Dharshan Kumaran, Arthur Conmy, Federico Barbero, Simon Osindero, Viorica Patraucean, Petar Veli\v{c}kovi\'c
The paper presents a new multi‑turn benchmark of 423 conversations with 1,661 labeled turn‑states to study when language models should refrain from answering. It shows that probes for unanswerability transfer well across datasets that share the same underlying signal, but fail to generalise to other forms of epistemic uncertainty. While a calibrated probe can identify underspecified turns more accurately than chance, it does not consistently improve overall generation quality compared to standard methods.
By Jerzy Kami\'nski, Ilya Galyukshev, Artem Kuznetsov, Danil Fedorov, Kirill Redko, Sergey Chuprin, Aidar Shumbalov, Stanislav Chumakov, Anna Kalyuzhnaya