The paper introduces the Knowledge Layer Model (KLM), an open, implementation‑neutral specification for recording inference details, including versioned epistemic assessments, evidence relations, and explicit unknowns. A reference implementation, SEDIM, is provided, and the authors report internal experiments: a routing benchmark achieved 91.3% accuracy across 15 classes, a native‑model weight‑path test failed all 15 cases, and diagnostic metrics such as AUC were below acceptable thresholds. The study notes that evidence visibility alone does not guarantee correctness or compliance, and calls for independent replication and a full public audit package.
arXiv:2606. 09556v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist agents are often evaluated as if capability were mainly a function of model quality, prompting, or reasoning scaffolds.
arXiv:2610.18603v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks report what an Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent can do on a task suite, but not whether one released version has been engineered with the...
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
arXiv:2607. 19453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We audit whether candle-based machine-learning models can turn predictions of cryptocurrency extrema or short-horizon outcomes into positive Binance Spot paper policies after assumed costs.
arXiv:2607. 24117v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern multi-agent knowledge systems increasingly accumulate knowledge through chains of autonomous transformations rather than direct retrieval.
arXiv:2609.26035v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and e...
arXiv:2609.10494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprises deploy systems, not checkpoints. Usable capability depends jointly on weights, serving route, precision, output contract, and harness, yet...
The paper audits the reproducibility of knowledge‑graph extraction from threat reports by re‑implementing matching rules for only five of twelve systems and re‑scoring ten system outputs under eight protocols. The audit shows that different matching protocols can reverse most pairwise system rankings and that a fixed prediction set can vary from 0.16 to 0.70 F1. The authors also build CTIForge to isolate validation effects, finding that validation changes precision across backbones and increases entity‑type disputes, and they release the full pipeline, protocol suite, and audit records.
TruthInsightBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate automated scientific discovery agents by presenting them with 40 blind tasks drawn from peer‑reviewed studies across ten domains. Each task provides only a neutral objective and frozen data, withholding source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths, forcing agents to determine which claim the data support. A fixed LLM‑based judge scores agents on evidentiary maturity across six dimensions, using 29 artifact‑grounded items, enabling fully automated, repeatable evaluation without human grading.
arXiv:2607. 24563v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Security Operations Centers increasingly rely on automated mapping of Cyber Threat Intelligence reports to MITRE ATT&CK, yet extractor outputs remain fallible and are often stored without the evidence, provenance, and validation history needed to decide whether an individual mapping should be trusted.
OpenDiscoveryTrace is a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that records the reasoning process—thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and confidence—across 124 scientific tasks in drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and literature analysis. The dataset includes seven models (three frontier models and four open‑weight models) and 60 live‑retrieval variants, providing a balanced view of performance and error patterns. Pilot analysis shows that process traces reveal behavioral differences invisible to output‑only evaluation, such as differing error rates and types among frontier models.
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.