arXiv:2605. 20098v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Claim verification is an important problem in high-stakes settings, including health and finance.
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.
arXiv:2507. 09751v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but exhibit problems with logical consistency in their output.
The paper introduces OBJECTION, an inference-time pipeline that adds an Adversarial Lawyer Agent to each of the three reasoning steps—offense, unlawfulness, and culpability—in legal judgment prediction models. By actively injecting defense arguments, the agent challenges the model’s default assumption of guilt, which is common in datasets biased toward guilty outcomes. Using a new Natural Innocent dataset of 3.4k real cases, OBJECTION reduces the False Guilty Rate from 82.93% to 16.69%, demonstrating significant improvement in substantive legal reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 04096v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current agentic workflows usually involve decomposing user requests into sequences of tool calls with correctly resolved parameters, the results of which are processed through reasoning traces in the language model's context window.
arXiv:2606. 09030v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical early warning systems built on electronic health records, in which clinical observations are recorded as irregularly sampled medical time series (ISMTS), must deliver both calibrated risk scores for patient triage and interpretable rationales that clinicians can verify.
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
The paper introduces contrastive explanations for Quantitative Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks (QBAFs), a formalism used to represent and reason with information. Unlike traditional explanations that focus on a single argument, contrastive explanations highlight the differences between two topic arguments. The authors propose a general form of contrastive attribution functions (CAFs), present CAFs based on removal, gradients, and Shapley-values, and demonstrate their applicability in healthcare and bias identification contexts.