arXiv:2607. 28641v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce the \textit{Agentic Formalism Trap} and the Evaluative Dissonance Index ($D_E$), quantifying how LLM-as-a-Judge systems conflate structural proceduralism with semantic truth under adversarial load.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 09878v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard benchmarks report aggregate accuracy, but practitioners need to know which specific capabilities a model lacks.
arXiv:2606. 24589v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scaling adversarial evaluation of large language models requires both a method for generating hard inputs and a reliable way to confirm that resulting failures are real.
arXiv:2607. 17883v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprises will not deploy AI agents they cannot trust, and the most-cited reason for distrust is hallucination: confident, fluent output that is simply not true.
arXiv:2606. 24976v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Foundation-model agents in multi-step, open-ended environments frequently suffer from compounding errors, where early mistakes contaminate long-horizon trajectories.
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.
arXiv:2604. 02923v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities but often suffer from factual inaccuracies (hallucinations) and systematic biases.