arXiv Machine Learning

Do LLM Recommenders Know When They're Hallucinating? Auditing Confidence Calibration in Catalog Faithfulness

arXiv:2608. 10008v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM recommenders for top-$K$ item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog.

arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

System Attribution in LLM Brand Recommendations: Single Responses Identify the System, Aggregated Brand Profiles Do Not Transfer

The study evaluates whether aggregated brand recommendation profiles can identify the language model that generated them. Using 6,475 responses from five deployed endpoints, a character‑n‑gram classifier accurately attributes single responses to the correct system (97.84% accuracy). However, when responses are aggregated into domain‑condition units, the classifier’s performance drops to 66.53%, and a forest model misclassifies all gift‑domain units, indicating that aggregated brand behaviour does not reliably reveal the underlying system.

By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin
arXiv AI
Aug 13

Hallucination Mitigation with Agentic AI, Nested Learning, and AI Sustainability via Semantic Caching

arXiv:2605. 29055v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper describes an approach to hallucination detection and mitigation using a HOPE-inspired Nested Learning architecture with Continuum Memory Systems (CMS) and semantic similarity caching, tested on a hybrid benchmark of 310 prompts (217 epistemic-uncertainty prompts, 93 fabrication-induction stress tests).

By Diego Gosmar, Deborah A. Dahl
arXiv AI
2d ago

On-Device Named-Entity Recognition: A Deployability Study of Accuracy, Cost, Reliability, and Confidence

The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.

By Vinay Kumar Chaganti
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM

The study analyzes 373,019 judgments from LLM‑scored benchmarks, decomposing variance into system, item, judge, and interaction components via generalizability theory. It finds that with a single judge, generalizability converges to a ceiling determined by the system‑by‑judge variance, which is substantially lower in pairwise preference settings, allowing one judge to suffice. The research also reveals significant biases in presentation order and highlights that many published win‑rate claims fall below the measured floor of the benchmarks.

By Atul Anand
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 13

LODESTAR: Trustworthy Entropy Is Navigated, Not Merely Measured -- Reinforced Polarizer Keeps a Frozen LLM from Being Confidently Misled by the Wrong Evidence

arXiv:2608. 11922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy makes a strong selection rule in retrieval-augmented question answering: across five QA benchmarks, keeping the candidate answer that a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean answer $F_1$ from 0.

By Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Hung-Chun Hsu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 11

Rethinking Verbalized Confidence for LLM-as-a-Judge: A Compatibility Shift on Post-2025 Proprietary Models

The paper argues that verbalized confidence—once viewed as overconfident and coarse—has become the preferred soft‑scoring method for LLM‑as‑a‑Judge on top‑tier proprietary models released after 2025. Experiments on SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2 across up to 18 LLMs show that log‑probabilities are no longer the best signal, and that adding an overconfidence advisory and self‑debate further improves calibration and robustness. The authors note that these enhancements incur little accuracy loss on post‑2025 models but do affect pre‑2025 ones, highlighting a compatibility shift in how confidence should be measured.

By Yu-Chung Hsiao
arXiv AI
Sep 7

When Do Internal Probes Beat Reading the Answer? Miscalibrated Readouts and Behavior-Concealed Knowledge in Language Models

A 0.6B language model consistently answers YES to 1,200 logical tests, yet its behavior shows no discrimination. Linear probes reveal the correct verdict with high AUC (0.96) and transfer to unseen structures, but a single scalar readout fails due to a saturated decision threshold offset by +4.6 σ. Adjusting this threshold restores behavior accuracy from 50 % to 81 % and improves higher‑scale models, demonstrating that miscalibrated readouts, not hidden knowledge loss, drive performance gaps.

By Gnaneswar Villuri, Hashmath Shaik, Alex Doboli