Hugging Face Trending Papers

What LLM Forecasters Know but Don't Say: Probing Internal Representations for Calibration and Faithfulness

Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast. We ask whether internal representations offer a more direct window into both.

arXiv AI
Jul 10

What LLM Forecasters Know but Don't Say: Probing Internal Representations for Calibration and Faithfulness

arXiv:2607. 08046v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models fine-tuned for forecasting can be accurate yet poorly calibrated, and their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning may not faithfully reflect the evidence behind a forecast.

By Rapha\"el Sarfati, Pratyush Ranjan Tiwari, Siddharth Boppana, Christopher J. Earls, Srikar Varadaraj, Eric Ho
arXiv AI
Aug 5

CastFSR: A Fast--Slow--Reflect Agentic Reasoning Framework for Context-Aware Time Series Forecasting

arXiv:2608. 03031v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Time series forecasting is fundamental to decision-making in complex systems, where future dynamics are influenced not only by historical observations but also by evolving contextual features.

By Xiaoyu Tao, Mingyue Cheng, Bokai Pan, Chuang Jiang, Huanjian Zhang, Tian Gao, Yaguo Liu, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen
arXiv AI
Aug 25

LLM-based Agents for Forecasting and Prediction: Methods, Training, Evaluation, and Applications

arXiv:2608.23058v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external too...

By Xiaogang Xu, Jiaqi Tang, Jianmin Chen, Yingying Yan, Zhenchao Tang, Xiangxin Zhou, Xiaobin Hu, Wei Wei, Jinfeng Wu, Qifeng Chen, Lu Zhou, Jiafei Wu, Zhe Liu, Jianwei Yin, Weimin Zheng
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 10

Do Reasoning Representations Help Humans Evaluate LLM Outputs?

The paper investigates whether reasoning representations—explanations for large language model outputs—aid humans in evaluating those outputs. A controlled human study tested six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, measuring structural understanding, error detection, and trust calibration. Results revealed a mismatch: participants favored planning- and decomposition-based representations, yet simpler chain-of-thought traces better supported verification, trust, and interpretability, while preferred formats increased calibration risks.

By Jaewoo Lim, Sungbok Shin, Sanghyun Hong