arXiv Machine Learning By Srijith Ravikumar

Do LLM Recommenders Know When They're Hallucinating? Auditing Confidence Calibration in Catalog Faithfulness

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 10008v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM recommenders for top-$K$ item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

System Attribution in LLM Brand Recommendations: Single Responses Identify the System, Aggregated Brand Profiles Do Not Transfer

The study evaluates whether aggregated brand recommendation profiles can identify the language model that generated them. Using 6,475 responses from five deployed endpoints, a character‑n‑gram classifier accurately attributes single responses to the correct system (97.84% accuracy). However, when responses are aggregated into domain‑condition units, the classifier’s performance drops to 66.53%, and a forest model misclassifies all gift‑domain units, indicating that aggregated brand behaviour does not reliably reveal the underlying system.

By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin
arXiv AI
Aug 13

Hallucination Mitigation with Agentic AI, Nested Learning, and AI Sustainability via Semantic Caching

arXiv:2605. 29055v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper describes an approach to hallucination detection and mitigation using a HOPE-inspired Nested Learning architecture with Continuum Memory Systems (CMS) and semantic similarity caching, tested on a hybrid benchmark of 310 prompts (217 epistemic-uncertainty prompts, 93 fabrication-induction stress tests).

By Diego Gosmar, Deborah A. Dahl
arXiv AI
2d ago

On-Device Named-Entity Recognition: A Deployability Study of Accuracy, Cost, Reliability, and Confidence

The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.

By Vinay Kumar Chaganti
arXiv AI
Sep 24

Ask Which, Not How Good: Sizing Benchmarks Scored by an LLM

The study analyzes 373,019 judgments from LLM‑scored benchmarks, decomposing variance into system, item, judge, and interaction components via generalizability theory. It finds that with a single judge, generalizability converges to a ceiling determined by the system‑by‑judge variance, which is substantially lower in pairwise preference settings, allowing one judge to suffice. The research also reveals significant biases in presentation order and highlights that many published win‑rate claims fall below the measured floor of the benchmarks.

By Atul Anand
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 13

LODESTAR: Trustworthy Entropy Is Navigated, Not Merely Measured -- Reinforced Polarizer Keeps a Frozen LLM from Being Confidently Misled by the Wrong Evidence

arXiv:2608. 11922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy makes a strong selection rule in retrieval-augmented question answering: across five QA benchmarks, keeping the candidate answer that a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean answer $F_1$ from 0.

By Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Hung-Chun Hsu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang