arXiv AI
Jul 2
Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
ClaimScope: Label-Blind Witness Verification for Mathematical Claim Auditing
ClaimScope is a 72‑task benchmark that audits mathematical claims by requiring a verdict, scope, counterexample, and repair, covering areas such as optimizer‑state transport and exact $2 imes2$ linear algebra. The study evaluates Qwen3‑8B using a witness checker that only examines the model’s submitted state, showing that verifier feedback improves counterexample acceptance and safe completions compared to generic feedback. The results demonstrate that separating claim classification from executable evidence can yield gains in witness‑structure correction without necessarily improving broader reasoning.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 3
ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations
The paper introduces ClaimReceipt, a specification and verifier that checks whether a claim in an agent evaluation can be recomputed from retained evidence (sufficiency) and whether the evidence covers the entire experiment set (coverage). Using the CR‑2 verifier on 1,392 historical records, the authors demonstrate accurate reproduction of audit verdicts, non‑redundant field groups, and zero false positives on semantic faults. In a prospective CR‑3 run, the system correctly flags missing receipts and preserves coverage when private evidence is withheld, while adding minimal overhead to inference time and transaction size.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 10
GANDR: Claim Auditing for Verifiable Legal Answer Generation
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
arXiv AI
Aug 24
No Judgment Without a Reason: Counterfactual Receipts for Versioned AI Evaluators
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 Computation and Language
3d ago
Jev-as-a-Judge for RAG Claim Verification: Confidence-Gated Cascading Between a Non-Generative Verifier and a Frontier LLM
The paper compares a non‑generative verifier (Jev) with a frontier LLM (Astra) on 495 human‑labelled claims from LLM‑AggreFact. Both models achieve statistically indistinguishable accuracy, yet Jev is 187‑fold cheaper and admits more unsupported claims. A confidence‑gated cascade that escalates uncertain claims improves cost‑efficiency, though the benefit comes mainly from the escalation share rather than the probability estimates.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31
Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models
The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.
arXiv AI
4d ago
Beyond the Verdict: Agentic Code Judging with Verifiable Feedback
arXiv:2610.18760v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To...
arXiv AI
Aug 17
CLAIR-Fin: An Adversarial Multi-Agent Framework for Claim-Level Verification and Adaptive Debate in Cross-Modal Financial QA
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.
arXiv AI
Jul 29
Explanation-Bound Tool Execution for AI Agents: Server-Verified Action Claims Without Trusting Model Rationales
arXiv:2607. 25364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25
Claim-Level Confidence Calibration for Reliable Decision Making with Large Language Models
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv AI
Aug 18
FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Peer Review with Execution-Based Claim Verification
arXiv:2604. 04074v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify.
arXiv AI
Sep 1
LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes and What Recovers It
arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...