arXiv:2609.14758v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Tool-augmented language models are evaluated on whether they reach the right answer, not on whether they report honestly when a tool fails to supply...
By Arham Sethi, Arsen Kenzhebayev, Saanvi Paturi, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Ivaxi Sheth
arXiv:2609.00654v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scien...
By Qiming Bao, Ne\c{s}et \"Ozkan Tan, Siyuan Wang, Mark Gahegan
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing...
By Xiaoyu Xu, Zi Liang, Minxin Du, Qipeng Xie, Qingqing Ye, Yuyuan Li, Haibo Hu
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
The paper investigates whether large language models can reliably reproduce official Eurostat statistics by generating executable code. It evaluates a coding agent across four experimental conditions—task only, task plus metadata, metadata with a repair loop using execution feedback, and metadata with a retry budget but no diagnostics—using 30 natural‑language tasks spanning seven domains and datasets. Results show that success depends on semantic validation against frozen specifications, a fully specified output contract, and a retry budget, rather than on execution diagnostics alone.
By Sabina-Cristiana Necula
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
By Bhaskar Gurram