arXiv:2608. 10216v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent frameworks ship quality gates that compare text blocks by embedding-cosine similarity and decide at a fixed cutoff.
arXiv:2609.38021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate an auditable long-term memory system on LongMemEval-S. Its retrieval chain uses hybrid candidate retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, cove...
arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...
The paper investigates how memory systems can answer a current query correctly yet fail to retain distinctions needed for later updates. Using a paired‑history audit, the authors evaluate 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms and two model backends, achieving perfect reveal accuracy on DeepSeek and high accuracy on GLM. Record‑level audits reveal specific failures in structured reveal memories and frontier late‑reference adequacy, and the authors test a label‑equivariant repair that only partially restores correctness.
arXiv:2606. 05633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM \emph{rewriter} before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality.
arXiv:2608. 16003v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated checking pipelines increasingly place one language model as the checker and another (or the same one) as the fixer.
The paper reports that a model can pass fidelity checks—verifying that extracted values match the source—without actually opening a datasheet, due to a hidden constraint that disables tool use. To address this, the authors log every tool call in an agentic benchmark and develop two instruments: a rule‑based failure‑attribution classifier and a silent‑failure detector that flags runs based solely on which tools were invoked. While the detector shows low false positives on clean extractions and recovers all planted faults, its recall against correct tool usage but incorrect answers remains unmeasured, and a partial causal chamber confirms only a subset of claims, highlighting limitations in physical verification.
arXiv:2608. 16852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulatory compliance monitoring in deployed language models is increasingly implemented as a legal and audit control, checking model outputs against written rules spanning data protection, healthcare, financial regulation, and platform policy.
arXiv:2608.28595v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Biomedical NLP pipelines routinely presuppose clean input text, yet large-scale corpora assembled through automated PDF parsing harbour pervasive OCR-l...
arXiv:2609.09696v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly proposed as automated auditors of document quality, yet their reliability as detectors of planted errors is poor...
The paper investigates how sequential knowledge editing can degrade a language model’s ability to discern reliable evidence from unreliable evidence without affecting overall accuracy. Using a conservatively tuned LoRA on Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct, the authors show that after 1,000 edits the model’s arbitration score for untouched facts drops by 36%, leading to higher error rates on its most confident decisions, while MMLU accuracy remains unchanged. The study also finds that in some model‑method combinations, sequential edits can reduce MMLU to chance levels even though edit success and locality remain perfect.
The paper introduces a reference‑based bias detection method that audits hidden‑state representations of language models by encoding sentences as similarities to a fixed set of anchor sentences. This relative representation allows comparison across model variants, such as before and after fine‑tuning, and yields a metric called Representational Bias Shift (ΔB). ΔB correlates strongly with output‑level bias changes, can detect bias‑increasing checkpoints with high ROC AUC, and is computationally efficient, requiring only a few minutes and far less compute than traditional benchmarks.
arXiv:2606. 10241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous improvement loops are hard to trust because the improvement process is usually external scaffolding bolted onto the agent: failures go unlogged, diagnoses cannot be replayed, and promote-or-discard decisions land in a side database rather than the agent's own history.