arXiv:2606. 19625v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
arXiv:2606. 19625v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
arXiv:2607. 23804v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context attribution methods for large language models (LLMs) identify which input context contributes to the model response.
arXiv:2608. 20106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce OenoBench, a wine-domain knowledge benchmark of 3,266 multiple-choice questions across six pillars (regions, grape varieties, viticulture, winemaking, producers, business) and four difficulty tiers.
arXiv:2404.06349v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The ability to understand causality significantly impacts the competence of large language models (LLMs) in output explanation and counterfactual r...
arXiv:2512. 04144v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Targeted interventions on language models, such as unlearning or model editing, aim to modify specific information, but their effects often propagate to related, unintended areas (e.
arXiv:2606. 15390v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents can improve without weight updates by accumulating natural-language skills from experience, but current systems entrust every decision about which skills to keep and how to apply them to LLM judgment alone.
The paper introduces ElephantBench, a closed‑book knowledge probe with 1,094 multi‑account factual questions generated via an auditable graph‑based pipeline that pulls documents from a low‑exposure web corpus and identifies naturally occurring disagreements. Across 32 large language models, even the best model only recovers both divergent accounts on 52.4% of questions, and most models recall one account while omitting the other, indicating persistent epistemic myopia. The study shows that scaling model size and inference‑time reasoning improves recall but does not eliminate incompleteness, and that exposure imbalance in the corpus biases models toward the dominant account.
The paper introduces GRACE, a framework that breaks down large language model (LLM) responses into atomic claims and grounds them against trusted knowledge priors using a weighted bipartite graph. Edge weights enable weighted centrality analysis to classify claims as Grounded, Refuted, or Boundary, identifying hallucinations and frontier knowledge. An objective called Return on Attention (RoA) prioritizes expert review only for high‑uncertainty claims, and verified claims become new evidence anchors, creating a loop that expands the knowledge base across iterations.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as integrated data-science agents, combining abstract reasoning with advanced tool use. Yet the relevant benchmark landscape largely divides into symbolic causal reasoning benchmarks without realistic data analysis or data analysis benchmarks without a principled causal data-generating structure.
arXiv:2607. 20465v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The quality of training data fundamentally determines the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet no unified benchmark exists to measure how well LLMs, agents, and data-centric workflows actually prepare training data end to end.
arXiv:2608.28591v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advancements in AI are helping scientists achieve breakthroughs in fields such as mathematics, medicine, and materials sciences. New evaluation...
arXiv:2606. 30128v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting improves LLM reasoning, but the source is contested: do the intermediate steps help because they carry useful semantic content, or because conditioning on more tokens buys extra computation before the model commits to an answer?