arXiv AI

LLMs, Reasoning and Plagiarism

arXiv:2601. 02380v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent reports claim that Large Language Models (LLMs) derive new science and exhibit human-level general intelligence.

arXiv AI
Sep 7

Evidence Integration in Large Language Models

The paper proposes a distributional theory explaining how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence into their decision-making process. It identifies three key predictions: (1) evidence is more persuasive when it aligns with the model’s prior beliefs, (2) models more readily accept errors from their own internal processes than from external sources, and (3) the same evidence can improve weaker models while harming stronger ones. Extensive experiments across ten million trials, twelve LLMs from four families, and eight domains—including quantum mechanics, physics, genetics, and molecular biology—confirm these predictions and reveal that evidence integration occurs late in the network as a structured sequence of steps rather than through a simple trust metric.

By Sebastien Kawada, Manolis Kellis
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Can Scientific Claims Be Removed from Large Language Models? A Systematic Evaluation of Claim-Level Unlearning

The paper introduces the task of Scientific Claim Unlearning and presents a new benchmark, SciUnlearn, to evaluate it. It highlights that language models trained on static scientific corpora risk disseminating outdated or retracted claims as scientific knowledge evolves. Current machine unlearning methods fail to effectively remove claim-level knowledge, often only suppressing it superficially, underscoring the need for specialized techniques for structured knowledge removal.

By Snigdha Paul, Manasi Patwardhan, Arman Cohan
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

It's All Training: A Fully Synthetic Single-Stage Recipe for LLMs

arXiv:2609.37891v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current pre-training datasets are derived from web crawls, with all their issues, and were not designed to support mid- and post-training pipelines--...

By Pierre-Carl Langlais, Pieter Delobelle, Yannick Detrois, Pavel Chizhov, Carlos Rosas-Hinostroza, Neil Si Smail, Benjamin Burtin, Hanna Shcharbakova, Ivan Yamshchikov, Anastasia Stasenko
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Large language models eroding science understanding: an empirical study of malignment

This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and how susceptible they are to manipulation by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritize knowledge from selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading, demonstrating that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment.

By Harry Collins, Hartmut Grote, Paul Newbury, Patrick Sutton, Simon Thorne
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Do Language Models Follow Occam's Razor? An Evaluation of Parsimony in Inductive and Abductive Reasoning

The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) follow Occam's Razor when performing inductive and abductive reasoning. It introduces a synthetic framework for generating questions that require both types of reasoning and a new automated metric to evaluate the simplicity and correctness of generated hypotheses. Experiments show that while LLMs can handle simple scenarios, they struggle with complex world models and producing high‑quality, simplest hypotheses, even when using advanced reasoning techniques.

By Yunxin Sun, Abulhair Saparov