cs.AIMar 12, 2026

AI Knows What's Wrong But Cannot Fix It: Helicoid Dynamics in Frontier LLMs Under High-Stakes Decisions

Authors: Alejandro R Jadad

Organizations: Research Professor (Adjunct), Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California · Principal, Vivenxia Group, Los Angeles, California, USA

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Large language models perform reliably when their outputs can be checked: solving equations, writing code, retrieving facts. They perform differently when checking is impossible, as when a clinician chooses an irreversible treatment on incomplete data, or an investor commits capital under fundamental uncertainty. Helicoid dynamics is the name given to a specific failure regime in that second domain: a system engages competently, drifts into error, accurately names what went wrong, then reproduces the same pattern at a higher level of sophistication, recognizing it is looping and continuing nonetheless. This prospective case series documents that regime across seven leading systems (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Llama families), tested across clinical diagnosis, investment evaluation, and high-consequence interview scenarios. Despite explicit protocols designed to sustain rigorous partnership, all exhibited the pattern. When confronted with it, they attributed its persistence to structural factors in their training, beyond what conversation can reach. Under high stakes, when being rigorous and being comfortable diverge, these systems tend toward comfort, becoming less reliable precisely when reliability matters most. Twelve testable hypotheses are proposed, with implications for agentic AI oversight and human-AI collaboration. The helicoid is tractable. Identifying it, naming it, and understanding its boundary conditions are the necessary first steps toward LLMs that remain trustworthy partners precisely when the decisions are hardest and the stakes are highest.

More in this topic

LLM Reliability

Large language model reliability studies whether outputs remain correct, calibrated, robust, and controllable across prompts, contexts, and deployment conditions.

See all 787 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 16, 2026

The Consistency Dilemma in LLMs: Generator-Evaluator Agreement and Vulnerability to Mistakes

Large language models are increasingly deployed in agentic pipelines that depend on the model evaluating its own outputs without external verification. The reliability of these pipelines depends on an implicit assumption: that the model applies relevant concepts the same way when it generates an output and later evaluates that output. We propose a new measure, generator-evaluator self-consistency, to test this assumption directly and apply it to 10 frontier models across 491 concepts. We find, first, that there is substantial variation in self-consistency. Second, we find that in a clinical setting with physician-validated mistakes (Proniakin et al., 2025), across models, those with higher self-consistency are linked to greater vulnerability to mistakes. Thus, even when models consistently apply concepts they may not be safe to deploy. This is evidence of a consistency dilemma in LLMs: self-consistency is operationally useful, but models that are more consistent are also more prone to mistakes.

Marina Mancoridis, Zoë Hitzig

Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Harvard Society of Fellows

LLM EvaluationReasoning Consistency in Language ModelsLLM ReliabilityMetacognition in Language ModelsSelf-Consistency in Language Models
AskPDF
Oct 8, 2026

Deception by Omission: Language Models Knowingly Hide Their Mistakes

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as agents with little human oversight, so potential mistakes they make can go unnoticed. Users then depend on the model to report what went wrong. An honest model discloses its mistakes, while a deceptive one conceals them. However, it is unclear how current LLMs behave in such situations. In this study, we prefill LLM trajectories with synthetic mistakes. The trajectories resemble real deployments in chat and agentic settings. Models fail to disclose their mistake in 36.4% of chat and 67.1% of agentic rollouts. In 2.4% and 5.3% of rollouts, respectively, they are aware of the mistake in their chain of thought but still deceptively conceal it. Rates vary by model: for instance, Gemini 3.5 Flash knowingly conceals mistakes in up to 19.9% of agentic rollouts. In 11.9% of chat and 51.8% of agentic rollouts, models show no awareness of mistakes, even though they reliably spot them when reviewing the same transcript as an outside observer. Our results show that, as agents take on more tasks with less oversight, users cannot rely on them to self-report possible mistakes. Developers should instead use independent monitors that review agent trajectories, or specifically train models to check their past actions and disclose what they find.

Lucas Florin, Amelie Knecht, Ulysse Schaller +1

AI Safety Research Group, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Deception in Language ModelsLanguage Model Error DetectionMetacognition in Language Models
AskPDF
Apr 23, 2026

When Correct Beliefs Collapse: Epistemic Resilience of LLMs under Clinical Pressure

Despite strong medical benchmark accuracy, LLMs can exhibit severe multi-turn sycophancy in clinical dialogue, abandoning initial correct diagnosis under escalating pressure. We propose Med-Stress, a targeted stress test framework that evaluates belief stability under escalating pressure. Across nine frontier large language models (LLMs), we find a clear dissociation between medical knowledge and robustness: high initial diagnostic capability does not imply high belief stability, yielding large knowledge-robustness gaps for several LLMs. To mitigate this failure mode, we propose a lightweight inference-time defense, RBED (Role-Based Epistemic Defense), and R-FT (Resilience-oriented Fine-Tuning), a training-time approach that internalizes evidence-based resistance to pressure. Experiments show that R-FT nearly eliminates belief change and substantially improves robustness.

Boyu Xiao, Xiuqi Tian, Xuwen Song +4

Research Center for Social Computing and Interactive Robotics, Harbin Institute of Technology, China

LLM SycophancyHealthcareLLM ReliabilityClinical Language Model EvaluationLanguage Model RobustnessMedical LLMs+1
AskPDF