arXiv:2606. 24414v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Formal verification produces machine-checkable certificates that attest to the satisfaction or violation of temporal properties, yet these certificates remain opaque to non-specialist stakeholders.
Formal verification produces machine-checkable certificates that attest to the satisfaction or violation of temporal properties, yet these certificates remain opaque to non-specialist stakeholders. We propose a cycle-consistent neural architecture that generates faithful natural language explanations of verification certificates.
arXiv:2511. 09008v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models perform well at natural language interpretation and reasoning, but their lack of formal correctness guarantees limits their adoption in regulated industries like finance and health-care that operate under strict policies.
The study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can translate technical explanations from credit risk models into stakeholder-friendly narratives. Using Freddie Mac loan data, the authors compare standard tabular models (XGBoost + SHAP) with alternative data pipelines (GNN + GNNExplainer and a bimodal mix) and generate explanations with three LLM configurations: a small fine‑tuned Gemma 3 4B, a large fine‑tuned DeepSeek R1 70B, and a zero‑shot Gemini 2.5. Findings show that the quality of explanations is more dependent on the evidence representation than on the LLM, that narratives reliably identify influential factors but are less consistent about the direction of influence, and that credit professionals demand higher evidentiary standards than non‑professionals.
arXiv:2607. 23075v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Detecting fake-order fraud at scale remains a critical challenge for large online-to-offline (O2O) service platforms, as existing approaches often rely on expert-designed features, produce black-box decisions, and provide limited interpretability.
arXiv:2609.21492v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has been shown to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs), yet existing optimization methods largely r...
arXiv:2503.12083v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current Deep Neural Network (DNN) verifiers are typically designed to prioritize scalability over reliability. Reliability can be reinforced...
arXiv:2606. 05781v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deploying frontier large language models (LLMs) for domain-specific structured evaluation tasks often incurs substantial latency, cost, and data privacy overhead.
arXiv:2608. 11047v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While existing benchmarks have made substantial progress in evaluating LLMs across STEM domains, financial reasoning over structured data remains comparatively less explored.
arXiv:2601. 22642v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their stochastic next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking that formal symbolic systems avoid.
arXiv:2607. 17883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprises will not deploy AI agents they cannot trust, and the most-cited reason for distrust is hallucination: confident, fluent output that is simply not true.
Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways. Detecting a conflict is only the first step: review workflows may also need to determine its type, since numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and normative inconsistencies require different evidence and downstream checks.
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.