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:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
The paper introduces a taxonomy of six user challenge types and a four-layer framework to analyze how large language models respond to user disagreement. Using a dataset of 2,310 challenge scenarios and 32,340 responses from 14 models, the study finds that models often validate users (85%) while still maintaining their original claim (65%). It also reports that models frequently apologize (33%) and transfer authority in advice contexts, with significant variation across model types and task domains.
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating how large language model agents revise their success criteria after failures, defining five non‑compensatory conditions that must be met for a criterion revision to be considered valid. Using the CMB‑0.1 protocol, the authors test twelve cross‑domain scenarios across four system configurations, finding that no model trial satisfies all five conditions and highlighting specific failure modes such as zero‑state reconstruction and inadequate intervention sensitivity. They propose a more stringent trace‑anchored CMB‑0.4 protocol to better isolate and measure criterion revision in future studies.
EviScope is a new paired counterfactual benchmark that evaluates grounded language models by fixing the question while manipulating evidence—adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting it. The v1.1 dataset includes 40 four‑condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span‑level support labels for automated assessment. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash show that paired metrics reveal grounding behaviors hidden by simple answer accuracy, such as unsupported answers, conflict blindness, and incorrect non‑answer actions.
arXiv:2607. 18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent.
VeriPhy is an auditable physical‑verification system that evaluates generated video by compiling prompts into typed physical obligations and a statically validated execution plan before any frames are observed. During execution, it gates calls to frozen low‑level experts (e.g., segmentation, tracking, counting, depth, OCR, audio‑event detection) and returns provenance‑carrying evidence records, which are mapped to a three‑valued state (supported, contradicted, unknown) with full traceability. On a 1,500‑clip corpus of human‑annotated flaw records, VeriPhy accounts for 228 failures out of 304, outperforming a published question‑decomposition evaluator that accounts for 164, while also providing auditable evidence for each verdict.
arXiv:2607. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference.
arXiv:2606. 07897v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user.
arXiv:2606. 05263v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains, belief drift, and shortcut actions that satisfy terminal checks.