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:2609.24885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a language model answers from a curated corpus via graph-based retrieval, a large grounding uplift does not establish reasoning over the retrieved...
The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.
The paper investigates whether language models can identify sentences from their training data by using exact duplication counts from publicly released corpora for two model families, OLMo‑2 and Pythia. It finds that for typical duplication levels, models show only a weak trace of exposure, with a rank correlation near –0.08, and that strong signals only appear when a sentence appears roughly a thousand times, at which point fame rather than memory dominates. The study also demonstrates that common membership tests can be misleading, as changing a single word does not alter the model’s preference, and that controlling for register can significantly improve detector performance.
Noesis is a retrieval-augmented architecture designed for small local language models that prioritizes deterministic judgments before generation. It employs a fact layer, positional addressing, provenance scoping, and two-tier context hydration to ensure factual integrity, achieving parity with larger models on exact value accuracy and eliminating confabulated numbers. The system delivers single-generation queries with traceable, source‑linked outputs, improving performance in regulated domains.
arXiv:2606. 00545v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context.
The paper audits a 366‑day autobiographical book generated by a large language model (LLM) against an independent verification corpus. Using a four‑level rubric, 354 of the 366 days (96.7%) failed verification, with only 12 days containing corroborated scenes and 19 days containing actively contradicted claims. Regenerating the same days with current models yielded 100% verification failure, while grounding the generation in the subject’s own corpus improved the rate to 83.3% but still left substantial residual failure.
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.
The paper investigates whether the object selected in a grounded language‑model pipeline actually reaches the reader, a failure that can break the handoff between stages. By auditing 600 HybridQA questions across three selector families, the authors find that exact key lookup and title matching recover the selected object in all 1,463 resolvable records, but body‑only BM25 omits it in 26.6% of cases at cutoff five, while hybrid retrieval with reranking omits it only 1.0%. The study also shows that misalignment between selected and retrieved objects can reduce exact match scores by up to 31 points, and introduces the Returned‑Object Profile (ROP) as a tool for reproducible auditing.
Re:CAP is a reference‑free audit loop for retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) pipelines that probes for missing documents instead of enumerating all relevant ones. It identifies covered topics, generates probing questions, retrieves candidate documents, and uses an LLM judge to keep only those that add new information. On several benchmarks, Re:CAP recovers a significant portion of gold documents that flat BM25 or hybrid retrieval misses, and human evaluation shows most of these documents add new information.