Evaluating Assurance Cases as Text-Attributed Graphs for Structure and Provenance Analysis

Given the current trend to employ large language models (LLMs) in almost any imaginable context, LLM-generated text detection and authorship attribution have become a pressing issue. Prior work has primarily focused on surface-level linguistic features, an approach shown to be susceptible to paraphrasing and other obfuscation techniques. In this paper, we go beyond the linguistic surface, extracting and analysing reasoning structures in LLM-generated texts with the goal of capturing more complex signals of LLM authorship. We propose a graph neural network approach that leverages reasoning graphs extracted by an argument mining pipeline, demonstrating improved robustness and generalisation over a traditional Longformer baseline. Our approach outperforms the baseline by up to 27 percentage points under the obfuscation attacks such as paraphrasing and backtranslation, and 19 percentage points when evaluated on the texts generated by the unseen model versions, simulating real-world conditions in which new LLM versions are continuously released.

Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching. We introduce clinical reasoning graphs, structured graph representations extracted from free-text LLM diagnostic traces using a domain-grounded ontology with 5 node types and 7 edge types. We apply this pipeline to 750 traces from five LLMs across 50 New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conference cases and three prompt conditions, and test whether diagnostic traces show stable structured reasoning patterns, or diagnostic schemas, for clinically similar cases. We operationalize this as higher graph similarity among clinically similar cases than among clinically dissimilar ones. Across 15 model-condition comparisons, within-cluster and between-cluster composite similarity are nearly equal, and no comparison survives multiple-testing correction; a component-level analysis finds any residual content signal far below schema scale. Graph similarity is also nearly identical for pairs of models that are both correct (0.488) and both incorrect (0.484), suggesting that graph structure captures a dimension not reflected in diagnostic accuracy. Structured reflection prompting increases explicit discriminating-feature analysis within traces (+33%) but does not increase cross-case consistency. These results show diagnostic competence without schema-scale reasoning consistency, and indicate that final-answer accuracy should be complemented by process-level evaluation. We release the ontology, extraction pipeline, validation protocol, and the extracted reasoning graphs and similarity artifacts as resources for structured evaluation of LLM clinical reasoning.

Scientific Reasoning Graph Extraction (SRGE) aims to recover explicit links among observations, evidence, intermediate claims, and paper-level conclusions. LLMs can produce graph-like scientific explanations, but their outputs often mix malformed syntax, drifting edge labels, incorrectly oriented roots, and weak source anchors. We propose PEARL (Peircean Extraction via Abstraction and Repair Layer), a training-free framework that turns noisy LLM graph responses into auditable reasoning graphs and repairs them toward strict semantic validity. PEARL first materializes explicit graph content under a closed Peircean schema, then uses matched evidence-grounded judge feedback to repair rejected edge types, local inference steps, and terminal roots while preserving an audit trail. On five 70-paper model archives from ARCHE, a benchmark for latent reasoning-chain extraction, PEARL raises strict gate passes from 0/350 for the LLM baseline to 300/350, with average REA improving from 0.339 to 0.906. The graphs provide a reliability layer for research-agent and AI scientist workflows that need inspectable reasoning traces rather than unconstrained graph regeneration. Code and audit artifacts are available at https://github.com/BohanSu/auditable-repair-reasoning-graphs/tree/300-350_workshop .