arXiv:2606. 19407v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can produce fluent root cause analyses, but fluent final answers alone are insufficient evidence for accountability in high-stakes operations.
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 AI.
EviScope is a new paired counterfactual benchmark that evaluates grounded language models by fixing the question while manipulating evidence—adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting it. The v1.1 dataset includes 40 four‑condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span‑level support labels for automated assessment. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash show that paired metrics reveal grounding behaviors hidden by simple answer accuracy, such as unsupported answers, conflict blindness, and incorrect non‑answer actions.
arXiv:2606. 27154v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Root cause analysis (RCA) poses a holistic test of LLM agentic capabilities, such as long-context understanding, multi-step reasoning, and tool use.
arXiv:2607. 26929v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The same diagnostic result can support or challenge one causal claim yet fail to address another when the claims concern different populations, outcomes, estimands, pathways, or identifying assumptions.
Root cause analysis (RCA) poses a holistic test of LLM agentic capabilities, such as long-context understanding, multi-step reasoning, and tool use. However, existing datasets suffer from a fundamental gap: they label only the root cause, not the propagation path connecting it to the observed symptom, which largely simplifies the task to naive pattern matching.
Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contrad...
RGDT-Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates large language models on Rule‑Governed Decision Tasks, where models must apply external rules to facts, justify decisions, and provide checkable justifications. The benchmark offers 202.1K condition‑level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight task‑probe combinations, and it labels warrant completeness through label‑blind extraction and deterministic checks. Evaluation shows that among correct responses, 40.2% of warrants are incomplete, and existing evaluators struggle to detect this, prompting the authors to train a reward model that improves AUROC to 69.24% and outperforms outcome‑supervised baselines.