The paper audits a 366‑day autobiographical book generated by a large language model (LLM) against an independent verification corpus. Using a four‑level rubric, 354 of the 366 days (96.7%) failed verification, with only 12 days containing corroborated scenes and 19 days containing actively contradicted claims. Regenerating the same days with current models yielded 100% verification failure, while grounding the generation in the subject’s own corpus improved the rate to 83.3% but still left substantial residual failure.
By Heather Renze
arXiv:2609.09243v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model in retrieved documents, which reduces hallucination but creates a new attack surface: i...
By Iliano Fasolino
arXiv:2609.06147v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Ask a language model the same question about the same document twenty times, and it sometimes returns two different answers. We built Probity, a benc...
By Seyed Mosayeb Alam
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.
By Scott E. Frias
arXiv:2608.29307v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Language models increasingly answer questions by consulting retrieved documents rather than memory alone, a design now common in search assistants an...
By Sai Krishna Reddy Mulakkayala, Niki van Stein, Aske Plaat
arXiv:2609.11261v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Five decades of litigation have disgorged hundreds of millions of pages of formerly secret business records from the tobacco industry, along with doc...
By Daniel Akselrad, Robert N. Proctor
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.
By Parsa Mazaheri, Kasra Mazaheri
arXiv:2609.00470v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external corpora, but implicit trust in retrieved documents creates a critical at...
By Muhaimin Bin Munir, Akib Jawad Ononto, Nazia Shehnaz Joynab, Bhavani Thuraisingham, Latifur Khan
AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
By Chen Qian, Yimeng Wang, Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, Andreas Stathopoulos
arXiv:2606. 09046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Useful audits reveal not only how often a model fails, but also where its failures concentrate.
By Vyzantinos Repantis, Ameya Gawde, Harshvardhan Singh
arXiv:2606. 09500v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective.
By Yoojin Nam, Jinhoon Jeong, Namkug Kim
MedFabric is a new benchmark for detecting word‑level medical fabrications, comprising 646 fabricated statements each paired with a ground‑truth passage that shares the same LLM authorship and nearly identical wording. The study shows that current detectors perform poorly—expert clinicians achieve only 53.3% macro‑F1 and no detector family surpasses 60% without gold evidence—highlighting that detection hinges on evidence correctness rather than subtlety of fabrication. The authors demonstrate that a retrieval‑confidence gate can substantially improve performance, raising macro‑F1 from 61% to 74%.
By Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Qian Qian, Xiaofeng Lin, Dongxu Zhang, Jun Han, Zhichao Yang, Davin Hill, Tamer Soliman, Sanjit Singh Batra, Robert Tillman, Guang Cheng