arXiv:2608. 12877v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-hop fact verification, which verifies claims by reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence, is critical for combating misinformation on social media yet remains highly challenging.
arXiv:2607. 01251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Debate, where AI agents argue opposing positions, has emerged as a key approach to scalable oversight.
arXiv:2511. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information.
arXiv:2609.06063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Agents are increasingly deployed in real-world settings, where they interact with external tools and make sequential decisions with limited human ov...
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as interactive assistants for technical problem solving. However, when users provide incomplete descriptions or plausible but unverified explanations, LLMs may prematurely align with these assumptions and propose solutions before collecting sufficient evidence.
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
arXiv:2606. 13262v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent approaches combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with retrieval-augmented reasoning have shown promise for automated fact verification.
arXiv:2609.01383v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision Language Models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in interpreting static visual artifacts, but modern data analysis is inherently dynamic...
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. 14049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The emergence of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly enhanced the ability of large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, multi-step tasks.
arXiv:2606. 13220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as interactive assistants for technical problem solving.
Vision Language Models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in interpreting static visual artifacts, but modern data analysis is inherently dynamic, requiring the active interrogation of interacti...