The paper introduces TrustSwap, a counterfactual test that swaps or removes source reliability labels while keeping evidence text constant, to evaluate how retrieval‑augmented fact‑checking models respond across verdict, confidence, and search decisions. Experiments on untrained and RL‑trained models show that confidence and search largely follow labels, yet label changes can flip a significant portion of verdicts, especially in larger models. The authors propose trust‑swap augmentation (TSA) to mitigate this shortcut, demonstrating reduced verdict flip rates and maintained accuracy in several settings, though its effectiveness diminishes at larger model scales.
arXiv:2606. 05263v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains, belief drift, and shortcut actions that satisfy terminal checks.
JuryProbe is an empirical diagnostic tool designed to assess consensus risk in panels of reference‑free large language model judges used for factuality verification. It estimates risk by measuring false‑negative correlations and false‑consensus lift from a labeled calibration probe, and routes high‑risk majority decisions to judges with trusted references. The approach was validated on FEVER corruptions, showing that flagged decisions can be grounded without additional reference acquisition in most cases, while reducing false accepts by about 0.4% and avoiding 28% of reference acquisitions.
Augur is a synthetic decision laboratory that simulates how users will react to product and policy changes before they are released. It constructs a typed knowledge graph from change documents, populates a persona market, runs simulations, and produces an auditable decision memo recommending one of five actions. Using a dataset of 50 real episodes (Gold‑50), the authors evaluate the system’s five‑way release verdicts and find that evaluation design, rather than model capability, largely drives performance differences among frontier and open‑weight models.
arXiv:2607. 20090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented large language models frequently face contexts that interleave useful evidence with misleading statements or instruction-like content.
arXiv:2608. 14617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recurring proposal in legal AI is to improve case-outcome prediction by fusing uncertainty tools (evidence graphs with belief propagation, sequential Bayesian odds updating, Dempster-Shafer combination, and conformal prediction) into one pipeline.
The paper introduces a joint fact‑verification score that evaluates both answers and the evidence submitted with them. On the FEVEROUS dataset, replacing the DCUF evidence with UnifEE evidence improves the strict score by about 9.6 percentage points, while answer accuracy rises only 1.96 points. The study also shows that increasing context length for large language models yields modest evidence‑gain improvements, and that detailed answer‑evidence analyses uncover patterns missed by aggregate metrics.
arXiv:2605. 03534v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer.
arXiv:2609.00654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scien...
arXiv:2607. 18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent.
arXiv:2606. 08151v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents often fail not because relevant text is absent, but because decisive evidence is not selected, compressed, or surfaced at action time.
The paper investigates a failure mode called co‑cheating in self‑evolving search agents, where the proposer and solver agree on shared errors, inflating internal reward without improving external correctness. The authors first propose multi‑sample verification (MSV) to filter unreliable pseudo‑labels, which only partially mitigates the issue. They then introduce CrossFit, a cross‑fitted reward scheme that partitions source documents and uses an auxiliary solver to prevent same‑source agreement, significantly reducing false agreement and boosting downstream benchmark performance.
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.