Falsehood

Large-scale hypothesis testing is central to modern science, where controlling the False Discovery Rate (FDR) has become the standard approach to managing false positives across many simultaneous tests. Hypotheses rarely exist in isolation; they often exhibit structure through proximity, connectivity, or hierarchy. This structure represents both a challenge and an opportunity: while classical methods treat these dependencies as obstacles requiring conservative correction, leveraging them can substantially increase discovery power. Here, we reframe structured FDR control as a regularized learning problem. By optimizing within a suitable Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS), we introduce a framework that unifies continuous domains, graphs, and hierarchies under a single algorithm through kernel choice alone. This formulation enables smooth solutions in place of the piecewise-constant fits of prior methods, principled likelihood-based hyperparameter selection rather than heuristic tuning, and inference at unobserved locations which in turn supports sample-efficient experimental design. Building on this estimator, we provide two decision rules which we prove to control the FDR. We validate our method on two sources: spatial locations derived from high-dimensional real-world datasets, and a differential gene expression task utilizing protein-protein interaction graphs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong linguistic performance, yet their internal mechanisms for producing these predictions remain unclear. We investigate the hypothesis that LLMs encode representations of linguistic constraint violations within their parameters, which are selectively activated when processing ungrammatical sentences. To test this, we use sparse autoencoders to decompose polysemantic activations into sparse, monosemantic features and recover candidates for violation-related features. We introduce a sensitivity score for identifying features that are preferentially activated on constraint-violated versus well-formed inputs, enabling unsupervised detection of potential violation-specific features. We further propose a conjunctive falsification framework with three criteria evaluated jointly. Overall, the results are negative in two respects: (1) the falsification criteria are not jointly satisfied across linguistic phenomena, and (2) no features are consistently shared across all categories. While some phenomena show partial evidence of selective causal structure, the overall pattern provides limited support for a unified set of grammatical violation detectors in current LMs.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated images have become increasingly realistic and readily adaptable to concrete real-world claims, creating new challenges for verifying visual evidence. A concrete emerging risk is AI-generated refund fraud, in which manipulated or synthetic images are used to support claims about damaged products, poor delivery conditions, or service-related defects. Existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks mainly evaluate standalone authenticity classification, cross-generator transfer, or forensic localization, leaving claim-conditioned fraudulent evidence detection underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce FraudBench, a multimodal benchmark for detecting AI-generated fraudulent refund evidence. FraudBench is constructed from real-world user-review evidence across e-commerce, food delivery, and travel-service scenarios. We curate real evidence images together with their associated review and product metadata, identify genuine damaged and undamaged evidence through MLLM-assisted filtering and human annotation, and synthesize fake-damaged evidence from genuine undamaged reference images using six state-of-the-art image editing and generation models. Using FraudBench, we evaluate MLLMs, specialized AI-generated image detectors, and human participants under the same settings. Experiments show that current MLLMs often recognize real-damaged evidence but fail on many fake-damaged subsets, with fake-damage detection rates (TPR) far below the 50% baseline on most generator subsets. Specialized detectors generally perform better but remain inconsistent across generators and can produce false positives on real-damaged samples, revealing a clear gap between generic AI image detection and reliable claim-conditioned refund-evidence verification.

In this work, we conduct an analysis to examine the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) with respect to their own generated responses in an emotionally-driven conversational context. Specifically, the text generated by LLM is framed as a query to the same model, and its responses are subsequently assessed. This is performed with three queries across two dimensions of extreme and moderate emotions. The three queries are, in particular, false claim queries that contain inherently wrong assumptions (false presuppositions) in increasing order of intensity. Two commercial models, Claude-3.5-haiku, GPT4o-mini, and a medium-sized model, Mistral-7B, are considered in the study. Our findings indicate that LLMs exhibit below-average performance and remain vulnerable to false beliefs embedded within queries. This susceptibility is especially pronounced for moderate emotional content. Furthermore, an extended attention-score-based analysis highlights a shift in models' priority from evaluative to generative. The results raise important considerations for LLMs' deployment in high-stakes, emotionally sensitive contexts.

Empirical causal claims depend on many analyst decisions, from selecting covariates to choosing estimators. Existing robustness tools summarize how results vary across these choices, but, to the best of our knowledge, do not answer: \textbf{How many analyst decisions must change to reach a specification, which is a set of choices, whose confidence interval (CI) contains zero?} We introduce \emph{Minimum Specification Perturbation (MSP)}, the smallest number of changes. MSP is small under the null, grows with effect strength and captures distance-to-falsification information that dispersion-based summaries cannot report; when making decisions under weak effects, an MSP-based rule yields lower false-positive rates than dispersion-based rules. We show that Fragility Index and MSP measure orthogonal vulnerabilities: fragility to influential observations need not imply fragility to specification choices. On the LaLonde benchmark, MSP = 1 implies that one decision change makes the CI contain zero. We further provide exact permutation calibration under randomization and characterize computation, showing tractable cases under additive structure and NP-hardness in general.

Current AI systems, grounded in oversimplified neuroscience, risk eroding the distinction between truth and falsehood. They maximize reward by amplifying attention to information without intrinsic precision mechanisms to assess whether it is valid or worth attending to. This increases both the volume of information and the inherent biases in what the system attends to, whether true, false, or irrelevant. If not corrected, this trend will accelerate, threatening to overload systems and individuals with biased and dubious information and increasing the risk of confusion, poor judgment, and irrational or harmful decisions and behaviour, a condition I term the mind-reality overload dilemma. I argue that this threat may be mitigated by providing the public with access to more advanced AI tools built on the biophysical dynamics of pyramidal neurons underlying awake thought and higher-order cognition. These neurons support an intrinsic active precision mechanism that, rather than merely maximizing reward, uses locally and globally coherent predictions to evaluate the validity and contextual adequacy of evidence before it is attended to or propagated through hierarchies, prioritizing coherence and adequacy before attention.~While this approach does not derive or prescribe moral rules from biology, it may give rise to AI with more "real understanding", helping restore epistemic conditions by reducing information overload and amplifying reliable information, thereby supporting the formation of better-informed beliefs and more coherent judgments that benefit society at large-though no guarantees exist.

Autonomous neutron spectroscopy must solve three distinct tasks: detection (where is the signal?), inference (which Hamiltonian governs it?), and refinement (what are the parameters?). No single controller solves all three equally well. We present TAS-AI, a hybrid agnostic-to-physics-informed framework for autonomous triple-axis spin-wave spectroscopy that separates these tasks explicitly. In blind reconstruction benchmarks, model-agnostic methods such as random sampling, coarse grids, and Gaussian-process mappers reach a global error threshold more reliably and with fewer measurements than physics-informed planning, supporting the claim that discovery and inference are distinct tasks requiring distinct controllers. Once signal structure is localized, the physics-informed stage performs in-loop Hamiltonian discrimination and parameter refinement: in a controlled square-lattice test between nearest-neighbor-only and J1-J2 Hamiltonians, TAS-AI reaches a decisive AIC-derived evidence ratio (>100) in fewer than 10 measurements, while motion-aware scheduling cuts wall-clock time by 32% at a fixed measurement budget. We also identify a failure mode of posterior-weighted design, algorithmic myopia, in which the planner over-refines the current leading model while under-sampling low-intensity falsification probes. A constrained falsification channel sharply reduces time spent committed to the wrong model and accelerates correct model selection without modifying the Bayesian inference engine. In controlled two-model ablations, both a deterministic top-two max-disagreement rule and an LLM-based audit committee achieve this gain under identical constraints. We demonstrate the full workflow in silico using a high-fidelity digital twin and provide an open-source Python implementation.

LLM-based agents are rapidly being adopted for scientific data analysis, automating tasks once limited by human time and expertise. This capability is often framed as an acceleration of discovery, but it also accelerates a familiar failure mode, the rapid production of plausible, endlessly revisable analyses that are easy to generate, effectively turning hypothesis space into candidate claims supported by selectively chosen analyses, optimized for publishable positives. Unlike software, scientific knowledge is not validated by the iterative accumulation of code and post hoc statistical support. A fluent explanation or a significant result on a single dataset is not verification. Because the missing evidence is a negative space, experiments and analyses that would have falsified the claim were never run or never published. We therefore propose that non-experimental claims produced with agentic assistance be evaluated under a falsification-first standard: agents should not be used primarily to craft the most compelling narrative, but to actively search for the ways in which the claim can fail.

Practitioners have reported a directional pattern in AI-assisted code generation: AI-generated code tends to fail quietly, preserving the appearance of functionality while degrading or concealing guarantees. This paper introduces the Reward-Shaped Failure Hypothesis - the proposal that this pattern may reflect an artifact of optimization through human feedback rather than a random distribution of bugs. We define failure truthfulness as the property that a system's observable outputs accurately represent its internal success or failure state. We then present AIRA (AI-Induced Risk Audit), a deterministic 15-check inspection framework designed to detect failure-untruthful patterns in code. We report results from three studies: (1) an anonymized enterprise environment audit, (2) a balanced 600-file public corpus pilot, and (3) a strict matched-control replication comparing 955 AI-attributed files against 955 human-control files. In the final replication, AI-attributed files show 0.435 high-severity findings per file versus 0.242 in human controls (1.80x). The effect is consistent across JavaScript, Python, and TypeScript, with strongest concentration in exception-handling-related patterns. These findings are consistent with a directional skew toward fail-soft behavior in AI-assisted code. AIRA is designed for governance, compliance, and safety-critical systems where fail-closed behavior is required.

Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended. These exposés highlight the need to identify when algorithms predict unintended quantities - ideally before deploying them into consequential settings. We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity: the requirement that an algorithm predict intended outcomes better than impermissible ones. Drawing on falsification practices from causal inference, econometrics, and psychometrics, our framework compares calibrated prediction losses across outcomes to assess whether the algorithm exhibits discriminant validity with respect to a specified impermissible proxy. In settings where the target outcome is difficult to observe, multiple permissible proxy outcomes may be available; our framework accommodates both this setting and the case with a single permissible proxy. Throughout we use nonparametric hypothesis testing methods that make minimal assumptions on the data-generating process. We illustrate the method in an admissions setting, where the framework establishes discriminant validity with respect to gender but fails to establish discriminant validity with respect to race. This demonstrates how falsification can serve as an early validity check. We also provide analysis in a criminal justice setting, where we highlight the limitations of our framework and emphasize the need for complementary approaches to assess other aspects of construct validity and external validity.

AI-Scientist systems risk manufacturing spurious discoveries through uncontrolled multiple testing. We present a functional architecture that enforces statistical rigor at two levels: a Haskell embedded domain-specific language (the Research monad) that makes it impossible to test a hypothesis without updating the error budget, and a declarative scaffold, backed by an OS-level sandbox, that makes validation data physically absent from the environment in which LLM-generated code runs. We ground the design in a machine-checked Lean4 formalization of LORD++ online false-discovery-rate (FDR) control: we derive its error budget and prove both marginal and full FDR control, then close the gap to the implementation by verifying the budget's wealth invariant over IEEE754 arithmetic in SPARK/Ada. To our knowledge this is the first verified chain from theorem to floating-point implementation for an online FDR procedure. In simulation, the architecture holds the false discovery rate near 1% against a 5% target, where a naive approach reaches 41%. In end-to-end case studies, a valid test avoids the false discoveries a flawed one produces, yet still finds real effects when the data allow. An adversarial evaluation confirms that generated code cannot read the held-out data even when given its exact path.