The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.
The paper investigates hallucination in large language model–based automated program repair (APR). It defines hallucination as producing patches or intermediate artifacts that are not grounded in available repair evidence, and analyzes it across final patches and intermediate tasks such as triggering test case identification, line coverage prediction, and additional test case generation. Experiments on 832 Defects4J bugs show that only 21.0%–55.9% of patches pass the developer test suite, with 72.7% of sampled repairs exhibiting hallucinations, often due to incorrect causal localization or repair strategies.
arXiv:2607. 27275v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training quantization to 4-bit weights is widely reported to be nearly lossless.
The paper reports a preregistered audit of language‑model judges used as measurement instruments, revealing that the assumption that a model’s responses remain stable over time is invalid. Across nearly 53,000 audited requests, repeat rankings and byte‑identical replays fell far below required reliability thresholds, with three identified mechanisms—label‑to‑meaning bias, candidate gaps below the noise floor, and input permutation noise—explaining the discrepancy. The study proposes a three‑level snapshot‑identity framework, eight design rules, and a reporting checklist to prevent such reliability failures in future evaluations.
arXiv:2608. 11822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A growing body of work reports that language models represent task-relevant latent structure that they fail to use.
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.