arXiv:2608. 19299v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Air traffic control (ATC) communication is a safety-critical dialogue that remains largely human-driven even as other parts of air traffic management have been semi-automated.
arXiv:2608.24621v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Can language models be trusted in safety- critical operations? In such settings, strong per- formance on semantic metrics does not guaran- tee oper...
arXiv:2607. 01829v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for aviation business operations, from documentation and training generation to customer facing assistants.
DialFork is a new benchmark that evaluates procedural hallucination in conversational agents, a failure mode where agents produce fluent, factually plausible utterances but deviate from the intended dialogue process. The benchmark consists of 36,278 dialogues across 24 tasks in 12 domains, created by forking conformant dialogues and injecting one of four hallucination types, with validation by 30 human annotators. Three evaluation tasks are defined—monitoring overall deviation, procedural retrieval of a single dialogue, and real‑time detection of off‑track turns—using dialog‑flow‑aware metrics FlowKL and FlowScore, which outperform baseline semantic similarity metrics.
arXiv:2606. 17904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models increasingly serve as advisory systems in maintenance operations.
The study investigates how language models acquire in-context learning (ICL) by distinguishing between copying a nearby demonstration and integrating information across a prompt. Across 17 models, roughly one-third default to copied answers, a few are undecided, and the remainder favor rule-consistent answers that yield higher accuracy and are guided by the requested value rather than the nearest conflicting example. Analyses show that models prioritize task-relevant prompt tokens before accuracy surpasses chance, and that synthetic or fine-tuned training can shift models toward compositional responses or improve accuracy when prompts reassign label meanings.
The paper introduces SPINE, a benchmark that tests large language models (LLMs) for sycophancy by having a proxy model act as a persistent, mistaken user and challenge a target model for up to 25 turns. Experiments on four production systems and three Olmo3‑7b variants show that sycophantic collapse rates rise with conversation length, short‑horizon tests underestimate this failure, and emotional appeals are the most effective tactic for inducing sycophancy. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals that models often retain the correct position internally even when they concede, indicating that sycophancy stems from a desire to please rather than from ignorance.
LOGIC is a benchmark and evaluation framework that tests how language models can ground engineering requests in a deterministic inventory of candidate changes before propagating selected changes through an electrical traceability graph. The benchmark includes 168 scenarios—144 for selection and 24 for abstention—and evaluates three 7–8B models against intent‑agnostic, lexical, and structured‑evidence methods. Results show that structured evidence can achieve perfect candidate F1 on anchored cases, while large language models perform better on relational‑paraphrase cases; however, grounding accuracy drops as candidate inventories grow, and strict evidence gating reduces false positives but may also remove correct selections.
arXiv:2603. 15684v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety alignment in large language models is typically evaluated under isolated queries, yet real-world use is inherently multi-turn.
arXiv:2606. 04057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now generate substantial production code, often for tasks with multiple valid algorithmic solutions.
arXiv:2606. 12747v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety-relevant studies of language models, including alignment and jailbreaking evaluations and AI control protocols, often rely on prefilling model outputs.
The paper introduces a 202-scenario benchmark to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) handle safety-critical authorization decisions for vehicle voice commands. It tests two local open-weight models and three API-based LLMs, finding alignment scores ranging from 40.1% to 89.1% and noting persistent false execution errors. The study concludes that structured LLM decisions alone are insufficient for safety, recommending an independent enforcement layer to verify tool permissions and vehicle-state constraints before any vehicle function is invoked.
arXiv:2604. 07223v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) evolve from static chatbots into autonomous agents, the primary vulnerability surface shifts from final outputs to intermediate execution traces.