The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
The study investigates the role of rationales in role‑specialized question‑answering pipelines by fixing evidence and candidate answers while varying only the rationale sent from a reasoner to a verifier. Experiments on 400 examples from MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultiHopQA show that faithful rationales add almost no answer accuracy, whereas corrupted rationales significantly alter support judgments, especially under explicit rationale‑checking prompts. Human audits reveal that many corrupted rationales lead to mistrust or rejection, highlighting the importance of evaluating rationale sharing as a verification mechanism rather than merely a means to improve accuracy.
arXiv:2609.26035v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conversational agents often express answers in a uniformly confident register. We test whether expressed uncertainty, provenance-aware assertion, and e...
arXiv:2607.23458v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations support oversight only if they are faithful: the stated reasoning must actually produce the answer. Auditing bl...
arXiv:2607.11414v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) in financial applications fail most consequentially when they are confidently wrong. Hedged, uncertain answers invite...
The paper investigates whether frozen language models can detect a corrupted reward signal by using a single verified record in a two‑option game. In the game, a payout swap and a lying reporter produce identical histories, but a single line confirming the true outcome allows the models to almost perfectly identify the liar. However, the models frequently misclassify honest reporters as liars, with error rates ranging from 26% to 58% depending on model size and wording, indicating a significant limitation in their ability to interpret verified data.
arXiv:2605. 27752v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence.