arXiv:2606. 14530v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models encode rich information in their hidden states.
By Carlo Di Cicco
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.
By Justin Bronder
arXiv:2607. 28871v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a repair agent runs a test and sees it pass, the result is treated as evidence about the reported defect.
By Xiaonan Xu, Wenjing Wu
arXiv:2608. 16003v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated checking pipelines increasingly place one language model as the checker and another (or the same one) as the fixer.
By Parsa Mazaheri, Kasra Mazaheri
arXiv:2609.24194v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Evaluation scores used around LLM systems -- including reward models, rerankers, and LLM judges -- can track surface form instead of the quality they c...
By Daein Weon, Dongho Kang
The paper investigates in-context binding errors in language models, showing that a linear probe can recover correct entity bindings from frozen hidden states even when the model outputs incorrect bindings. Across 16 checkpoints, the probe’s accuracy on failure cases surpasses a baseline by about 0.196, and a probe‑based score improves failure detection over the model’s confidence by 0.079 AUROC. Steering the residual stream toward the probe‑decoded binding further boosts accuracy by an average of 0.168 across eight models.
By Manas Venkata Sai Ravulapalli, Samrath Singh Chadha, Abhinav M. Hari