arXiv AI
CausalVerify: An Execution-Grounded Benchmark for LLM Causal Inference Workflows
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 24
Are Stated Reasoning Steps Causally Load-Bearing?
The study investigates whether the reasoning steps a language model writes are causally responsible for its answers. Using a causal intervention method on the activation stream, the authors find that for Qwen3-4B, about 77% of stated steps are causally load‑bearing, while behavioral tests overestimate this by roughly 11 percentage points. The faithfulness of reasoning decreases with model size and depth of reasoning, especially for the smaller Qwen3-1.7B.
arXiv AI
Jul 10
When LLMs Agree, Are They Right? Auditing Self-Consistency and Cross-Model Agreement as Confidence Signals
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
arXiv AI
Jun 9
Causal Agent Replay: Counterfactual Attribution for LLM-Agent Failures
arXiv:2606. 08275v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When an LLM agent fails -- issues a refund it should not have, calls the wrong tool, leaks data -- existing tooling answers what happened (observability) or whether it passed (evaluation), but not which step caused the failure.
arXiv AI
Oct 28
Scoring-Rule Sensitivity in LLM Evaluation: Evidence from Indian Financial Regulatory Text
The paper investigates how different scoring rules affect the ranking of large language models (LLMs) on the IndiaFinBench benchmark, which contains 406 expert‑annotated items covering regulatory interpretation, numerical reasoning, contradiction detection, and temporal reasoning. Using twelve LLMs evaluated under strict string‑matching, a cross‑model judge, and a composite regime, the authors find that model rankings vary dramatically across regimes, with no significant rank correlation (Spearman ρ = -0.273). Item‑level analysis reveals that a substantial portion of items are answered identically by all models, while a higher‑discrimination band isolates more challenging cases.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 14
Can LLMs in Draft-Verify-Revise Pipelines Resolve Deictic Ambiguity?
The study investigates how deictic ambiguity—specifically the shifting reference of expressions like "previous"—affects Draft‑Verify‑Revise pipelines that use multiple large language models (LLMs). Using a synthetic dataset of 10 base examples and 21 reasoning‑effort configurations, six LLMs were evaluated for their ability to correctly resolve the ambiguous expression across the draft, verify, and revise stages. Results show wide variance in balanced accuracy, with GPT‑5.2 improving from 0.156 to 0.942 with increased reasoning effort, while Gemini 3 Pro consistently achieved high accuracy above 0.94 even at low reasoning effort, and meta‑evaluators often relied on surface cues when making errors.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
Reproducing and Stress-Testing Two Approaches to LLM Reasoning Reliability: Test-Time Probability Aggregation and Logic-Representation Editing
arXiv:2608. 08514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models).