arXiv:2606. 20208v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine learning models are predominantly evaluated through predictive performance metrics such as ranking quality, prediction error, or classification accuracy.
arXiv:2601. 22324v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Modern clinical practice relies on evidence-based guidelines implemented as compact scoring systems composed of a small number of interpretable decision rules.
arXiv:2610.01519v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neuro-Symbolic (NeSy) predictors incorporate prior knowledge into the prediction process of neural networks, ensuring that outputs satisfy specified...
arXiv:2510. 19698v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can propose rules in natural language, sidestepping the need for a predefined predicate space in traditional rule learning.
arXiv:2607. 22766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality.
arXiv:2602. 09572v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The purpose of predictive modeling on relational data is to predict future or missing values in a relational database, for example, future purchases of a user, risk of readmission of the patient, or the likelihood that a financial transaction is fraudulent.
arXiv:2508. 10971v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge graphs (KGs) can be enhanced through rule mining; however, the resulting logical rules are often difficult for humans to interpret due to their inherent complexity and the idiosyncratic labeling conventions of individual KGs.
RGDT-Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates large language models on Rule‑Governed Decision Tasks, where models must apply external rules to facts, justify decisions, and provide checkable justifications. The benchmark offers 202.1K condition‑level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight task‑probe combinations, and it labels warrant completeness through label‑blind extraction and deterministic checks. Evaluation shows that among correct responses, 40.2% of warrants are incomplete, and existing evaluators struggle to detect this, prompting the authors to train a reward model that improves AUROC to 69.24% and outperforms outcome‑supervised baselines.
arXiv:2609.13520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models have improved rapidly, many fundamental questions remain about how to evaluate the knowledge and reasoning abilities they a...
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.
arXiv:2609.13192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disease prediction using...
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:2607. 01306v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations explain machine learning predictions by identifying minimal input changes that would alter a model's decision.