arXiv:2607. 12520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What a frontier model recalls about a person or tool from its own weights -- before any retrieval step -- often shapes the first description a human sees, making that parametric corpus presence a measurement problem.
arXiv:2607. 07670v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models hallucinate most about entities they have never seen.
Large language models hallucinate most about entities they have never seen. We ask whether a model's activations betray entity familiarity before a single answer token is generated, and whether that signal predicts the factual reliability of the answers.
arXiv:2606. 00545v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context.
arXiv:2608. 10385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as relevance assessors in information retrieval (IR) evaluation, raising questions about how assessor framing affects judgment reliability and downstream system comparison.
arXiv:2606. 23915v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution in LLM retrieval-augmented generation as interchangeable.
arXiv:2606. 19625v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
Scholar assessment plays a fundamental role in faculty recruitment, funding allocation, academic promotion, and talent discovery. Existing scholar assessment methods predominantly rely on bibliometric indicators and reputation proxies, while recent large language model (LLM)-based approaches mainly focus on evaluating individual research papers rather than comprehensively assessing scholars.
arXiv:2606. 08251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims.
arXiv:2606. 26449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output.
arXiv:2608. 07762v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM benchmarks can build an organization's reputation and attract customers, but only when results are transparent and verifiable.
arXiv:2606. 19625v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.