The paper introduces DISCERN, a two-tier protocol for certifying that updates to production models do not increase risk. It first uses unlabeled data to detect benign updates based on disagreement rates, then selectively labels only disagreements through an anytime-valid confidence sequence. The method achieves finite-sample validity with label-complexity bounds of order ρ²/ε², demonstrating significant label savings and strong empirical performance across 14,000+ audit streams.
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.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.
The paper introduces ClaimReceipt, a specification and verifier that checks whether a claim in an agent evaluation can be recomputed from retained evidence (sufficiency) and whether the evidence covers the entire experiment set (coverage). Using the CR‑2 verifier on 1,392 historical records, the authors demonstrate accurate reproduction of audit verdicts, non‑redundant field groups, and zero false positives on semantic faults. In a prospective CR‑3 run, the system correctly flags missing receipts and preserves coverage when private evidence is withheld, while adding minimal overhead to inference time and transaction size.
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.
arXiv:2609.13714v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An updated model can improve an aggregate metric while degrading a slice that matters to a downstream user. We study checkpoint selection subject to no...
arXiv:2606. 15474v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down.
arXiv:2607. 29400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A routing decision can be revised at the next transaction, but a latched source exclusion persists across later decisions.
arXiv:2609.18960v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quality-aware synthetic-data selection rests on a proxy: examples that an LLM judge rates as good should also help a downstream model learn. In a contr...
arXiv:2506. 23033v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Fairness audits are a key component of responsible machine-learning deployment.
arXiv:2608.23308v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An LLM asked for a trading strategy returns three artifacts at once: a natural-language rationale, an executable implementation, and once run, a trac...
arXiv:2608. 06012v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search-agent rewards mix answer quality, citation grounding, tool cost, and anti-hacking terms; a high score therefore need not imply that cited evidence was retrieved, and added penalties can cancel.
The paper audits a developer‑accessible on‑device language model, revealing that it can confidently produce incorrect answers while refusing benign prompts, a phenomenon termed task‑asymmetric miscalibration. The model’s confident outputs are surface‑indistinguishable, with classifiers based on user‑visible features failing to separate correct from wrong responses. The authors propose a model‑agnostic audit protocol, a surface‑indistinguishability test, and a black‑box consistency wrapper that improves reliability without requiring model access.