arXiv:2607. 20537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce ReliableTableQA, a framework for training an LLM to annotate the statistical reliability of tabular QA results, not whether the query is answerable, but whether the computed answer is statistically meaningful.
By Huei-Chung Hu, Hsin-Tai Wu, Koyo Kobayashi
arXiv:2609.13288v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Video-language models can answer multiple-choice questions with high confidence yet be wrong. We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be i...
By Guoxiang Ren, Rohitash Chandra
The paper investigates how AI systems that perform best‑of‑n search require different validation strategies as the search width changes. It shows that auditing only small search widths leaves a gap in reliability estimates for larger widths, and proposes retaining candidate ranks and truth labels to estimate reliability across all widths up to N. The authors derive theoretical bounds on the minimax mean‑squared error, design procedures that achieve these bounds, and demonstrate that a shared audit can significantly reduce maximum error across many widths in practical CodeRM pools.
By Ricardo Fitas
The paper introduces Counterfactual Fragility Certificates (CFC), a model‑agnostic audit protocol that maps each prediction to an evidence‑failure trajectory, summarizing it with metrics such as greedy flip budget, margin‑collapse area, degradation thresholds, and fragility dominance score. CFC is shown to identify brittle high‑confidence predictions on seven tabular benchmarks with an AUROC of 0.915, outperforming existing scalar scores by up to +0.405. The method remains effective across various perturbation and review‑budget scenarios, and can also inform fragility‑aware regularization and temperature correction.
By Filippo Cenacchi, Longbing Cao, Runze Yang
arXiv:2608. 09768v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A prediction that is both confident and wrong is a critical reliability failure because it can bypass abstention and human review precisely when the model is mistaken.
By Ange-Cl\'ement Akazan, Ineza Remy Mugenga, Abebe Geletu, Jean Medard Ngnotchouye, Issa Karambal
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein