arXiv:2607. 18278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Calibration is usually evaluated in aggregate, but the most dangerous failures are often local: predictions that remain highly confident despite being wrong.
arXiv:2606. 21875v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Modern data analysis usually gives a prediction without showing whether the evidence behind it is clear, conflicting, or stable.
arXiv:2608. 11994v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification.
arXiv:2608. 08126v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters, in tension with supervisory expectations that adverse decisions be explainable.
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.
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:2608. 10406v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Web search, product search, and question-answering retrieval systems often assign a relevance label and confidence score to each query-candidate pair.
The paper argues that prediction‑based certifications—such as accuracy, calibration, and conformal coverage—are insufficient to guarantee trustworthy AI. It proves a separation theorem showing that a model can appear reliable under all prediction‑side certificates yet differ arbitrarily in explanation fidelity and deployment behaviour. The authors propose a competence envelope framework that combines both prediction and explanation certification to detect such hidden failures.
arXiv:2608. 09768v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A prediction that is both confident and wrong is a critical reliability failure because it can bypass abstention and human review precisely when the model is mistaken.
arXiv:2606. 02604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: ESG and climate risk data remain fragmented across heterogeneous Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 reporting environments, while conventional validation pipelines lack provenance aware auditability, hidden drift detection, and reproducibility oriented governance.
arXiv:2607. 20537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce ReliableTableQA, a framework for training an LLM to annotate the statistical reliability of tabular QA results, not whether the query is answerable, but whether the computed answer is statistically meaningful.
arXiv:2606. 29654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent deliberation among LLMs can improve reasoning, but deployment requires deciding when the current answer is reliable enough to act on and when it should be escalated to human review.