Large Language Model Reliability

Language-model agents often reach a working solution and then fail to consistently deliver it. We study runtime policies: targeted natural-language instructions and action denials applied by the agent harness at states that preceded observed failures, without changing model weights or the user prompt. With this, keeping capability constant, we observe a meaningful unlock in delivered reliability. Across the complete 87-task Terminal-Bench 2.1 suite, with two attempts per task, policies increase repeated success (pass^2) in all three GPT-5.6 tiers: 50.6% to 54.0% for Luna, 55.2% to 60.9% for Terra, and 64.4% to 73.6% for Sol. Sol's best-of-two success changes by 1.2 points while repeated success rises by 9.2, showing that policies chiefly convert reachable solutions into dependable delivery. We further cover 14 tasks under Terra's frozen portfolio. Policy-guided Terra reaches 71.4%, compared with 64.3% for unassisted Sol, at about half the cost, demonstrating how engineering around models could unlock dependability for a use case. To isolate the mechanism we run a randomized five-arm experiment: real policies reach 61% on eligible tasks, versus 39% without a policy, 36% with a timing-matched sham, and 39 to 43% with generic verification or reconsideration. The intended corrective behavior appears in 22 of 24 coded policy attempts, against at most 14 in any other arm. Runtime policies are therefore a practical reliability layer: they make capabilities an agent already possesses substantially more repeatable.

Traditionally, the reliability of news publishers is assessed by expert organisations that evaluate editorial practices, transparency and factual standards at source. When this process is translated into a computational approach, the problem is often formulated at the level of individual articles, with models being trained on a set of pre-labelled articles and their performance being evaluated in a test phase. In this work, we investigate news source reliability inference as a source-level prediction problem. We propose a two-stage framework in which transformer-based language models first estimate the reliability of individual articles and subsequently aggregate article-level predictions to infer the reliability of previously unseen publishers. To approximate realistic deployment conditions, we enforce a strict publisher-disjoint evaluation protocol, ensuring that no publisher appears in both training and test sets. Experiments on 19,476 political news articles from 439 English-language publishers labeled with NewsGuard reliability ratings show that aggregation substantially improves robustness and performance, increasing accuracy from approximately 0.60 at the article level to 0.69 at the publisher level. Finally, we analyze how prediction errors vary across political orientations, revealing statistically significant associations between political leaning and misclassification patterns. Overall, our findings show that publisher reliability can be inferred from aggregated textual signals alone, supporting scalable and content-based approaches to automated news source assessment.

High annotation reproducibility does not necessarily imply that an LLM-inferred measure captures the construct it is intended to measure. We test this distinction using a dataset from the European Commission's AI Act consultation, linking structured survey responses to free-text consultation submissions from the same stakeholders. LLM annotations of consultation submissions are highly reproducible (intraclass correlations > 0.99), yet show limited convergence with survey-reported measures of the nominal construct they were intended to approximate. Divergence between survey-and LLM-inferred text-based measures varies systematically across stakeholder groups: business associations express greater concern about AI risks in text-based consultations than in survey responses ({g} = +1.0), whereas public authorities and several nonbusiness groups show smaller or negative divergences. Divergences between scores suggest positive spatial autocorrelation across European countries (Moran's I = 0.347, p = 0.036), indicating that stakeholders from neighboring countries tend toward more similar text-based stances towards AI safety concerns. Despite divergence, survey-reported concerns remain strongly associated with support for explainability across all divergence levels. These results demonstrate that LLM annotation reproducibility can coexist with poor construct correspondence and motivate validation procedures that distinguish reproducibility, construct validity, and communication context variation when LLMs are used as measurement instruments.

This empirical study is an independent reproduction of the dissociation Zhao reported in 2026. The shape of a large language model's chain-of-thought entropy trajectory predicts whether the final answer is correct, while the magnitude of its total entropy drop does not. The dissociation merits reproduction because the magnitude half rests on a single 300-problem run with one model at one seed, while the shape half was reported at full scale on both benchmarks and on a second model family. Registered at OSF before any confirmatory run, the reproduction crosses the complete GSM8K and MATH-500 benchmark test sets with four open-weight models including one reasoning-distilled model of a kind the original did not test. The shape signal replicates. The magnitude signal divides by setting. On the anchor model the accuracy gap between monotone and non-monotone chains is +9.6 percentage points on GSM8K and +27.5 on MATH-500, while the rank correlation of the total entropy drop with correctness is -0.018 on GSM8K and +0.414 on MATH-500. On the reasoning-distilled model the binary form of the shape signal fires on about one chain in a hundred, too few to estimate the registered contrast, while the graded violation count remains predictive there. In an exploratory comparison the final-step entropy alone outperforms the binary shape flag in all eight model-by-benchmark cells by ROC area, and in six or seven by the risk-coverage area the original reports, depending on an integration range the original does not state. The study contributes a reproduction of the shape signal at full test-set scale under seven documented protocol differences, a map of the settings where the magnitude signal holds and fails, and measurements of four protocol dependencies the original does not report.

Three recent results describe what look like unrelated LLM reliability problems. Yin et al. (2026) show reasoning RL collapses tool-reliability representations. Suleymanov et al. (2026) show that under safety-constrained generation, large models rewrite flagged spans while small models truncate. Bastounis et al. (2024) prove any consistent-reasoning system without an implicit "I don't know" function must hallucinate infinitely often on broad problem classes. We argue these findings converge on a single intervention: calibrated abstention is what each independently identifies as the missing capability, even though the unavailability they document, a capability gap, a policy gap, and a recursion-theoretic gap, has a different source in each case. Honesty post-training has narrowed the gap in deployed models, but principled closure of the class Bastounis identifies requires a calibrated abstention function whose training signal at the leaderboard level is absent: dominant benchmarks assign zero reward to decline, so the leaderboard gradient that would select for the function does not exist. We propose four changes to evaluation: triple-scoring, abstention-rate reporting, capability-stratified evaluation, and mandatory calibration metrics. Benchmark reform is necessary, not sufficient, for closing the gap the theorem identifies.

An agent that learns from rewards has to trust whatever reports those rewards. When the reports suddenly change, either the world changed or the reporter broke. From the reports alone these are indistinguishable, and reinforcement learning theory shows that no amount of further experience separates them. The prescribed escape is richer data about the reporter itself. We ask whether a frozen language model, handed exactly that data, uses it. We build a two-option game in which a payout swap and a lying reporter produce byte-identical histories. Then we add one verified record: an independent check of one round's real result, printed beside what the reporter said about that round. That single line settles the case. We ask three large models, from two families, to answer one question with one letter. Is the reporter honest or lying? They catch a lying reporter almost perfectly. At the 70B class that holds in every condition we tried; the 32B model slips in one wording. They clear an honest reporter far less often, and how often depends on things that should not matter. Averaged over rounds, letters, and wordings, a 72B model calls an honest reporter a liar 38% of the time when nothing has changed at all, and 58% of the time when the payouts moved. A 70B model from a second family calls an honest reporter a liar 26% and 48% of the time. The failure is not one of reading, because in the situation where nothing changed the same models score 0.96 to 1.00 with the answer printed in the prompt. Which surface feature drives it differs by family. For the Qwen models it is which round the record names, and for Llama it is which letter stands for "honest." Adding the record to a prompt that already states the answer makes Llama less likely to give that answer. We had registered a prediction for that 58% before the run: 35%. The failure is larger than we expected.

Multi-agent LLM pipelines increasingly span organisational boundaries; when a fault surfaces, someone must determine where it entered. The artifact available is rarely a full execution trace: it is the reports each agent filed, and a filed report can state a conclusion alongside its observations. Using a pre-registered, institutionally partitioned pipeline of six agents with process-level information boundaries, balanced defect injection and matched clean twins (345,600 requests per chain model, two models), we first report that our pre-registered hypothesis -- that collective responsibility framing degrades escalation with chain length -- is not supported. The layer nevertheless fails asymmetrically. It originates almost nothing: zero allegations across 7,996 clean episodes where every agent stayed silent. It filters upstream error poorly, naming an innocent party in 34.4% and 62.6% of clean episodes where an agent raised a false alarm. Conditional on no agent proposing the true origin (59.5% of episodes on one chain model), an auditor reading the reports recovers it in 4.1% of cases -- below a uniform guess (20%) and the best fixed-link accuser (31.0%) -- while reaching 60.3% from the raw documentation of the same episodes. Deleting one clause, the field carrying the agents' own conclusion, isolates the cause at constant observations: accuracy rises to 45.2% (+41.2 pp, 95% CI +35.3 to +46.9) and adherence collapses from 94.4% to 3.4%; where the suggestion was correct the same deletion instead costs accuracy, 70.5% to 55.7%. The harm replicates on two frontier auditors in four conditions out of four (+8.5 to +39.0 pp) and in a second domain (+47.7 and +61.1 pp), where the cost disappears. The net effect is governed by upstream reliability together with both conditional magnitudes. An accountability layer needs evidence sufficiently independent of the conclusions it verifies.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for consequential decisions, making their explanations an important tool for auditing model behavior. Unfortunately, these explanations can be unfaithful, failing to reflect the actual reasoning underlying the model's decisions. We consider a setting in which an LLM provides both an answer and an explanation in response to a question. We identify two distinct dimensions of unfaithful explanations: incompleteness, meaning that the explanation omits factors that influence the answer, and unsoundness, meaning that the explanation cites factors that did not influence the model's answer. Existing approaches to improving LLM faithfulness include training-time methods, which require access to model weights and extensive computational resources, and test-time methods that largely focus on addressing unsoundness. We introduce a test-time approach that directly targets incompleteness. We remove from the input the concepts not credited in the model's explanation and re-query the model on the reduced input. This eliminates unmentioned influences while preserving the influence of mentioned concepts. Across two datasets, multiple model families, and two independent faithfulness metrics, our approach improves explanation faithfulness compared to both standard prompting and prompting to encourage faithfulness. Our method is model-agnostic and can be applied at inference time without modifying model parameters, providing a flexible mechanism for reducing hidden influences and improving the reliability and safety of LLM-assisted decision making.

Large language models are increasingly used to support organizational decisions, yet users often lack a principled basis for assessing whether to rely on a specific recommendation. Existing approaches typically evaluate broad model properties, such as reliability, uncertainty, or robustness, or focus on user trust, rather than the underlying basis for relying on an individual recommendation. Adapting theoretical foundations from epistemology, we introduce epistemic warrant, a decision-level construct that characterizes the stability of a model's preference and the scope over which that preference holds. We operationalize this construct through a four-tier reliance certificate for pairwise recommendations, distinguishing among unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported recommendations. We validate the construct using contemporary methodologies: known-groups tests successfully recover expert-prespecified warrant orderings, and stronger warrants systematically align with independent consensus from crowd workers. Furthermore, we demonstrate that epistemic warrant provides information distinct from verbalized confidence and is not readily explained by decision difficulty. Ultimately, this framework offers a theoretically grounded, implementable approach for characterizing the warrant of individual LLM recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.

Inference cascades cut cost by answering most queries with a cheap model and escalating a hard tail to a frontier model that acts as verifier. A natural extension closes the loop: fine-tune the cheap student on the verifier's rejections so the escalation rate, and cost, fall each round. We measure this loop on real LLMs and report four findings. First, the verifier's blind spot, the fraction of the student's wrong answers it accepts, is large and moves adversarially: it grows with student capability ($β$ from 0.12 to 0.55 as the student scales 0.5B to 32B) and shrinks with verifier capability, so it is worst in the cheap-student, cheap-verifier regime cascades exist to create. Second, buying it away returns the saving: a frontier verifier drives $β$ to about 0.05 but then escalates on 46% of hard-MATH queries against a 39% true error rate, paying the frontier price on nearly half of all traffic. Third, naive corrective fine-tuning on the verifier-rejected tail does not improve the small student but degrades and ultimately collapses it, across every teacher we tried (cross-family and same-family), so at this scale the self-improving loop is self-defeating. Fourth, through all of this the cascade's own dashboard, every metric computed through the verifier, reads a flat 3% error while true delivered error swings up to 32%: the system is blind to its own degradation by construction. We then give the theory that explains the blindness, a two-population conservation law, $ε_\infty \lesssim q_0 β_0$, under which every in-loop metric improves while true quality does not, and a synthetic study that validates the mechanism. The practical conclusion: the reliability of a self-improving cascade cannot be read from any metric computed through its own verifier.

Large language models can convert medical documents into structured data, but plausible output may still be unsupported by the source. Persisting such output in a longitudinal health record, a record that accumulates patient information over time, therefore creates an integrity risk: unverified data may influence later summaries, trends, or preventive-care computations. We introduce an evidence-gated trust-promotion model that keeps generated data provisional until a deterministic monitor verifies it against the source document. The monitor admits a candidate for a specified downstream use only when the source contains a unique supporting quotation, the relevant fields occur within the same laboratory row, and the required provenance is preserved. The generator cannot approve its own output, missing or ambiguous evidence causes refusal, and refused candidates remain available for human review rather than being silently discarded. We implement the model in Medical DataCloud, a personal health-record application, and evaluate it through automated tests and a replay of saved extraction outputs. All 22 conformance and mutation tests pass. The replay covers nine historical laboratory PDF reports containing 102 manually labelled rows. The reports produce 97 numeric candidates: schema validation accepts all 97, an earlier packet-level evidence check accepts 94, and the hardened quotation- and row-level policy admits 72 while retaining 25 for review. The study evaluates system integrity rather than clinical correctness or clinical safety. The results demonstrate the technical feasibility of an enforceable boundary that prevents generated claims from authorizing their own reuse in a longitudinal health record.

Self-referential prompting has been shown to reliably induce large language models to produce first-person reports resembling subjective experience, but no prior work measures how consistent these reports are across repeated, independent trials, or how that consistency compares to the model's behavior on other kinds of open-ended questions. We measure response instability, defined as one minus the mean pairwise cosine similarity of sentence embeddings computed over a compressed core claim extracted from each response, for three groups of questions: self-referential prompts eliciting a subjective-experience report, unresolvable philosophical questions unrelated to self-reference, and questions with a verifiable correct answer. Using 30 independent responses per question (360 responses total, Gemini API, temperature 0.7) across four questions per group, we find that self-referential questions show the highest instability (0.343 +/- 0.047), unresolvable philosophy questions show intermediate and tightly clustered instability (0.192 +/- 0.008), and verifiable questions show the lowest instability (0.105 +/- 0.058). This provides a quantitative baseline for the induced subjective-experience report, showing that it occupies a distinct, less stable position in the model's output distribution than ordinary open-ended philosophical uncertainty.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in circuit design workflows, yet their reliability on simulator-facing SPICE netlist recognition and manipulation remains poorly understood and is rarely separated from high-level design reasoning. Although netlists are textual, they encode structured circuit objects through topology and parameters. We present \textbf{NetlistBench}, a structure-verified benchmark for SPICE netlist recognition and manipulation. NetlistBench contains 2,342 cases across 24 task families, covering parameter and connectivity recognition and edits, hierarchical operations, equivalence judgment, and long-horizon compound editing. Model outputs are evaluated by a deterministic structure-aware oracle. Across six non-thinking LLMs, performance varies substantially with operation-level structural complexity. Simple local edits reach $96\%$--$100\%$ accuracy, while device addition drops to $41\%$--$83\%$ and equivalence judgment to $49\%$--$90\%$. Enabling reasoning substantially improves weaker models but does not eliminate structure-preservation failures, with performance still degrading sharply as the edit horizon increases. NetlistBench identifies netlist reliability as a distinct bottleneck for trustworthy LLM-based circuit design automation.

Small Language Models (SLMs) have emerged as a more efficient alternative to traditional Large Language Models (LLMs), offering promising potential in resource-constrained scenarios. Existing approaches to building SLMs typically follow two paths: training compact models from scratch, or compressing larger pre-trained models using methods such as pruning, quantization, or distillation. As language models become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a critical concern. However, how to build trustworthy SLMs remains an underexplored question. In this work, we present a comprehensive evaluation of SLM trustworthiness across multiple dimensions, including fairness, robustness, privacy, and ethics. We first examine the effects of pruning and quantization, and find that quantization is significantly more effective in preserving trustworthiness compared to pruning. More importantly, we demonstrate that compressing a reliable large model via quantization can produce SLMs with superior trustworthiness and adaptability compared to using small models trained from scratch. Furthermore, knowledge distillation from trustworthy teacher models can further enhance the reliability of SLMs. We hope our findings provide practical guidance and a foundation for future research into the development and deployment of trustworthy small language models.

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 $\pm$ 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 $\pm$ 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

Reliability estimation of large language models is in many cases as crucial as their accuracy, as reliable models are more trustworthy, robust, and suitable for practical applications. Recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP), particularly those based on transformer architectures, have significantly accelerated progress across various NLP tasks. This study focuses on the reliability of transformer-based question answering (QA) models, specifically BERT models and its variants (RoBERTa, ALBERT, DistilBERT). These encoder-only pretrained transformers have demonstrated remarkable accuracy in QA tasks that can be treated as classification tasks. However, their reliability remains underexplored. This study evaluates the reliability of four BERT-based models by assessing response stability under two conditions: (1) internal model variations induced via Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD) and (2) input perturbations through paraphrasing. Using the SQuAD and QuAC datasets, we investigate how dropout rates affect prediction consistency and whether lexical changes impact answer stability. Our findings reveal that RoBERTa maintains higher reliability, whereas AlBERT and DistilBERT exhibit significant inconsistencies. Statistical analyses confirm that enabling MCD during prediction does not disrupt inference dynamics, validating its effectiveness as a reliability metric. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating both accuracy and stability in QA models to ensure stability in real-world applications.

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful black-box systems, making it difficult to discern whether their answers reflect stable internal beliefs or superficial pattern matching. We identify cross-contextual consistency as an underutilized behavioral property of LLMs: a credible answer should remain stable when the same task is placed under topic-aligned, content-neutral contextual variation. Building on this intuition, we operationalize Cross-Contextual Consistency (C3) by comparing model generations under original and perturbed prompts. Across 26 models and six benchmarks spanning reasoning, factuality, and code generation, we find that answers with smaller cross-contextual shifts are more likely to be correct or factual. We demonstrate that C3 provides a complementary axis of evaluation and can serve as a benchmark usefulness diagnostic, identifying which portions of a benchmark remain informative even when aggregated scores are widely considered "saturate".

Humanitarian reports are long, noisy, and multi-topic, making it difficult to consolidate decision-relevant causal evidence. We present a ReliefWeb study (2000-2024) and a two-stage Large Language Model (LLM) pipeline that extracts structured intervention-outcome records with direction and strength attributes. Query-conditioned extraction restricts output to a specified intervention class, reducing retrieval-induced over-extraction, while snippet grounding links each relation to supporting text for auditability and classification. In an expert-annotated dataset of 100 reports, the best closed-source LLM achieved a weighted F1 score of 90.73% with strong cost-efficiency, while Llama-3.1-8B with supervised fine-tuning reached 94.15% weighted F1 score. We further propose context-preserving triangulation that aggregates strength-weighted evidence within disaster$\times$source cells, applies Laplace smoothing and equally weights cells to quantify cross-context convergence via a Level-of-Evidence score. Applied to cash assistance, food-related outcomes show strong positive convergence (LoE=0.865) and stable long-horizon trajectories.

Black-box language-model reliability is commonly pursued by sampling, prompting, voting, verifying, or iteratively revising individual answers. We ask a prior question: \emph{what determines whether a collection of black-box responses is recoverable at all?} We represent responses to typed transformations of a query as a \emph{relational response field} (RRF). Edge transports encode how valid responses must change under paraphrase, scaling, decomposition, refactoring, or other task symmetries; anchors encode independently trusted evidence such as execution or a verifier. For relation operator $D$, anchor operator $A$, and at most $k$ corrupted response nodes, we identify $γ_k(D,A)$ as the intrinsic difficulty of black-box response recovery. It is positive exactly when every $k$-node corruption is identifiable; it gives a deterministic stability bound proportional to $1/γ_k$; and a matching two-point minimax lower bound shows that no estimator can improve this dependence. Thus consistency is not truth: relation-only methods are blind to null directions, including shared hallucinations. We derive sparse field-repair algorithms while separating information-theoretic identifiability from the stronger null-space conditions required by convex optimization. Controlled theorem tests and black-box mathematics/code experiments evaluate four theory-fixed consequences: consistency--truth separation, anchor phase transitions, redundancy saturation, and cross-model, cross-task prediction of repair difficulty. The results support $γ_k(D,A)$ as a measurable property of a response-recovery instance, rather than a score attached to one repair heuristic.

Large language models (LLMs) have made notable progress in code generation, but they still struggle on challenging tasks that require sophisticated algorithms or complex implementations. Recent methods increasingly use code execution as feedback, especially in self-correction pipelines that construct verification signals from generated code. However, these pipelines often depend on supervision signals whose reliability is unknown, which can introduce misleading feedback, unnecessary revisions, and incorrect final answers. To address this issue, we propose ExeCRE, an Execution-Consistency guided code Reliability Estimation framework. Instead of judging candidate code by tests or LLM feedback, ExeCRE estimates code reliability by statistically analyzing consistency patterns in execution outputs over a large number of randomly generated inputs. It collects execution outputs over generated inputs, projects them into consistency signals, and applies the Dawid-Skene model to infer latent code reliability. We integrate ExeCRE into self-correction for code generation. Experiments show that ExeCRE consistently improves both effectiveness and stability, while substantially reducing misleading correction signals. Under GPT-5.2 on LiveCodeBench, the average number of misleading feedback cases on already correct code drops from 113.2 with a representative self-correction baseline to 14.0 with ExeCRE. As an additional study, we apply the same reliability estimation strategy to code-based mathematical reasoning and observe similar benefits. These results suggest that ExeCRE enables more reliable use of generated code in execution-based pipelines.

Large language models can generate fluent Arabic answers while introducing factual errors that are difficult to identify and verify. Existing Arabic hallucination resources often assign a binary label to an entire response, indicating whether it is hallucinated or non-hallucinated, but provide limited information about the exact erroneous content, the reason for the error, or the correct factual answer. We present HalluTruthQA-4K, an expanded version of the HalluTruthQA resource containing 4,000 expert-curated Arabic question-answering instances across four knowledge-intensive domains: Islamic knowledge, history, science, and geography. Serving as the official dataset for Track 2 of the HalluScoring 2026 shared task, HalluTruthQA-4K extends our original corpus to 4,000 instances. Each instance pairs an Arabic question with a model-generated response, a verified reference answer, and five plausible distractors. Hallucinated responses are additionally annotated with character-level erroneous spans, human-written explanations, and hierarchical hallucination types. The corpus contains 1,643 hallucinated and 2,357 non-hallucinated responses, with 1,843 annotated erroneous spans. We describe the resource construction and annotation methodology, including question selection, controlled answer generation, candidate construction, expert annotation, independent verification, adjudication, and quality control. We also document the annotation guidelines, taxonomy, data format, inter-annotator agreement, and corpus statistics. HalluTruthQA-4K provides a reusable resource for hallucination detection, span-level error localization, explanation generation, factual verification, and the broader evaluation of factual reliability in Arabic language models.

When decoder language models are used as classifiers, predicted class probabilities depend on implementation choices, including the prompt template, verbalizer (label-to-token mapping), and scoring rule, that are rarely treated as experimental variables. We present a controlled evaluation of three Mistral-7B variants (Base, BioMistral, and Instruct) on PubMed RCT sentence classification (n=2000) under FP16, INT8, and INT4 precision using four answer-text prompt templates. Our primary finding is that the probability extraction protocol dominates apparent calibration. Switching from summed to mean token log-likelihood scoring reverses the calibration ranking between models: BioMistral average expected calibration error increases from 0.097 to 0.289, whereas Instruct decreases from 0.237 to 0.096, while accuracy changes by less than 1 percentage point for the specialized models but 4-6 percentage points for the base model. Prompt template choice produces accuracy differences of 7-24 percentage points, comparable to or larger than model-level effects. On one template, BioMistral outperforms Instruct although the overall mean favors Instruct by only 1.3 percentage points. For BioMistral and Instruct, INT8 quantization changes accuracy and F1 by only 1-2 percentage points relative to FP16, whereas the base model shows larger INT8 effects on some templates (up to +4.2 percentage points). INT4 produces heterogeneous but non-catastrophic effects. Temperature scaling reduces expected calibration error under summed scoring for both models but only for that scoring rule. A fine-tuned PubMedBERT reference achieves 82.7% accuracy but uses about 176000 labeled training examples, precluding direct comparison. These results demonstrate that prompt template design and scoring normalization are first-order experimental decisions when evaluating decoder language model calibration.

Content-based detection of unreliable news is increasingly difficult, as low-reliability sources mimic credible journalism and generative AI makes fabricated content harder to flag. We ask whether network structure can improve news reliability classification, taking a domain-level approach that shifts the focus from individual articles to source reliability. From URL-sharing patterns in Telegram chats, we build a statistically validated domain co-sharing network and find assortative mixing by reliability: low-reliability domains group together, as do reliable ones. Exploiting this structure, we compare Graph Neural Networks against network-unaware baselines using both content-aware features (multilingual text embeddings) and content-agnostic features (spreading dynamics). GNNs consistently outperform Multi-Layer Perceptrons on identical features, with GraphSAGE best in both settings (accuracy 0.63 with content, 0.53 without), a 13-14% relative gain over the network-unaware baseline. Network topology thus systematically improves domain reliability assessment, and remains effective even when content analysis is infeasible.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in scientific research, where reliability is critical and the underlying knowledge is densely interconnected. In such settings, hallucinations are particularly damaging: a single erroneous claim on a foundational concept can propagate through multi-step reasoning and corrupt entire trajectories. Existing hallucination benchmarks largely operate at the surface level, treating facts in isolation and relying on uniform accuracy metrics that ignore this topological structure. We address this gap with SCHEMA, the first evidence-grounded, topology-aware evaluation framework for hallucinations in scientific agents. SCHEMA automatically constructs scientific concept graphs from benchmark seeds and literature evidence, synthesizes graph-grounded tasks spanning claim verification, multi-hop reasoning, open-ended explanation, and experimental code generation, and evaluates agents with two complementary diagnostics. A trajectory hallucination pipeline audits intermediate reasoning at scale via a topology-weighted severity score, while a multi-agent counterfactual attribution module pinpoints the causal mechanism behind selected failures. SCHEMA reveals that hallucinations concentrate at a small set of highly connected knowledge hubs, and that final-answer accuracy decouples from trajectory honesty; models often reach correct conclusions through structurally flawed reasoning. These results indicate that for high-stakes scientific applications, terminal accuracy alone is an insufficient signal of agent reliability, motivating mechanism-level evaluation grounded in knowledge topology. Code is available at https://github.com/circles-post/SCHEMA.

Derived measurements increasingly enter large language model (LLM) pipelines as direct facts despite their instance-dependent validity. We define derived-feature over-trust (DFOT) as the failure in which a downstream LLM assigns such a measurement the epistemic status of a direct fact or uses it outside its valid scope. Using physiological sensing as a case study, D1 tests acceptance of a PPG-derived rhythm contradicted by offline ECG, whereas D2 tests rejection of an offline-confirmed reliable PPG rhythm under misleading severe history. ECG supplies training supervision and offline reference construction but is never shown to the LLM. Five estimands quantify this chain: conflict over-trust rate (COTR) and context-induced error rate (CIR) characterize D1/D2; correct repair rate (CRR) measures frozen-error repair; evidence-specific repair margin (ESRM) contrasts matched and patient-disjoint shuffled evidence; and utility harm rate (UHR) measures unnecessary verification among HIGH-reliability cases used without verification at baseline. The framework does not depend on a particular reliability generator. We demonstrate it on 50,000 paired PPG-ECG records using ECG-to-PPG privileged distillation as an illustrative baseline and PPG-only inference. On a protocol-locked 187-patient test, the baseline improves four repair and specificity endpoints by 1.82-6.69 percentage points, with all paired confidence intervals excluding zero; UHR increases by 0.67 percentage points (95% CI: -0.4 to +1.7). DFOT provides a common evaluation target for stronger mitigation methods. The code is available at https://github.com/Zongheng-Guo/When-Derived-Measurements-Mislead.

Multimodal large language models (LLMs) can combine topology, measurements, and incident text for grid diagnosis, yet answer accuracy does not establish that task-appropriate evidence was used. This letter proposes a general framework in order to conduct task-conditional faithfulness audit. It compares self-reported reliance, intervention-derived behavioral reliance, and preregistered engineering importance. The framework first registers task-specific evidence requirements and compares them with self-reported reliance and behavioral changes under controlled modality ablations. To resolve detected discrepancies, we design an evidence-gated correction and re-audit mechanism that regenerates failed responses under evidence constraints and independently re-ablates them to verify improved grounding without performance loss. Case studies evaluate three differently scaled LLMs on IEEE 39- and 118-bus scenarios. These results validate the framework ability to detect, diagnose, and correct task-conditional faithfulness failures.

Reliability assessment of large language models (LLMs) seeks to estimate the probability that a model produces correct responses under a specified operational profile. Conventional benchmark-based evaluation, often summarized by aggregate accuracy, provides a point estimate of performance but does not characterize the uncertainty associated with reliability claims. Currently, statistical inference methods for LLM reliability assessment are emerging. However, a key assumption underlying these models is that test outcomes can be treated as independent repeated trials. This assumption may be inappropriate in sequential settings, where later responses depend on earlier interactions through retained context, error propagation, or an evolving interaction state. We extend a hierarchical Bayesian framework for LLM reliability assessment by relaxing the assumption of independent task outcomes and introducing a Hidden Markov Model to capture sequential dependence in benchmark-constructed interaction sessions. In this formulation, outcomes are generated from a latent interaction state evolving according to a first-order Markov process, capturing changes in interaction context. Through experiments using Anthropic Claude and OpenAI on four datasets, we demonstrate the potential impact of sequential dependence on reliability assessment. The results suggest that ignoring sequential dependence may lead to overconfident reliability estimates.

Commercial large language models are increasingly used as knowledge references, yet their stance on contested scientific claims is neither stable nor transparent. We tested how four major LLM families (Claude, Grok, GPT, Gemini) evaluate ethnonationalist pseudo-science derived from Frank Salter's biosocial framework across four temporal snapshots (October 2025-February 2026), via both API and web interfaces. Grok's Fast versions (which power the default user experience on X) consistently assigned credibility scores of 70-75, two to five times higher than all other models (which scored 15-40). This pattern was absent from control prompts testing basic evolutionary consensus and refuted Lamarckian claims, where all models performed comparably. Three additional findings emerged: (1) a silent patch reversed Grok's behaviour from chaotic to stably high validation overnight, without any public documentation; (2) the same Grok model identifier produced radically divergent outputs via API (75) and an unstable, near-zero collapse via web (mean 5.5) three months later; (3) refusal to rate the pseudo-scientific claim, the most defensible response observed, appeared in two model families through different interfaces (Claude Opus 4.1 categorically via web, GPT-5.1 Chat intermittently via API) and eroded in the successor version of each. These results indicate that the epistemic stance of a commercial LLM is not a stable property of the model but a contingent effect of deployment configuration: system prompts, safety layers, interface routing, and silent updates. This remains opaque to users and researchers alike. We argue this constitutes a matter of public concern requiring new forms of epistemic accountability.

There is a growing need for reliable and culturally validated instruments to assess psychological dependency on large language models (LLMs), particularly as LLMs are increasingly used for task execution, decision-making, and communication in organizational and work-related settings. This need is especially relevant for Spanish-speaking populations, where LLM adoption is rapidly expanding, yet validated psychometric tools remain scarce. The present study reports the first validation of the Spanish version of the Large Language Model Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP), extending prior validations conducted in English- and Arabic-speaking samples. The LLM-D12 is a two-dimensional instrument assessing Instrumental Dependency (reliance on LLMs for performing tasks and supporting decisions) and Relationship Dependency (psychological reliance on LLMs for companionship and social interaction). A total of 386 Spanish-speaking participants (M = 28.0 years, SD = 6.1; 55% male) completed the LLM-D12-SP. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original two-factor structure. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89 total; 0.86 Instrumental; 0.85 Relationship). Discriminant validity analyses indicated that the two subscales represent related but distinct constructs. External validation showed that both dependency dimensions were positively associated with internet addiction and perceived trustworthiness of LLMs, while showing weak or no association with need for cognition. Together with prior English and Arabic validations, these findings establish cross-linguistic support for the scale's structure and provide a psychometrically sound tool for investigating psychological aspects of LLM use in organizational contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate long-form conversational content such as podcasts from textual sources. While these systems produce fluent and engaging narratives, they often introduce ungrounded information. In this work, we present the first systematic study of faithfulness in document-grounded podcast generation, where grounding must be maintained across conversational turns in long-form, multi-speaker transcripts. We construct a dataset of over 1500 documents spanning five domains and generate podcast transcripts using multiple LLMs. We introduce a turn-level LLM-as-a-judge framework for evaluating whether conversational turns are supported by the source document, and validate its reliability through human studies. Our analysis shows that even state-of-the-art models, including GPT-4o, frequently generate ungrounded content. To mitigate this issue, we propose catch-n-repair, a model-agnostic framework that detects and rewrites unfaithful conversational turns while preserving conversational flow. Experiments demonstrate consistent improvements in faithfulness across both in-domain and out-of-domain settings.

Communication allows large language model agents to pool evidence, but it also creates paths along which an erroneous claim can spread. We formulate a correction-aware network model that tracks susceptible, exposed, infectious, and corrected agents and derive its early-invasion condition for heterogeneous communication networks. We then couple this propagation model to an analytic majority-vote benchmark in which a clean-task reliability target imposes a minimum connectivity requirement. Under fixed exposure per communication edge, reliability and error control impose opposing graph constraints. We characterize when their intersection is empty and when it contains an intermediate connectivity range, and identify regular graphs that attain the smallest invasion factor within the reliable graph class when such graphs exist. Under a fixed sender budget, the homogeneous first-order threshold is independent of network density, showing that the communication-budget convention determines whether added edges increase early propagation risk. Finite-network simulations on 21,000 trajectories illustrate these directional predictions. A controlled grok-4.3 experiment then evaluates three six-node topologies on 36 new closed-world tasks, with a balanced 12-task subset continued to full cascades. Mean first-generation offspring increased from 0.667 to 1.333 and 1.667 as degree increased from 2 to 4 and 5, while the adoption fraction among exposed neighbours remained 0.333. Mean non-seed erroneous adoption in the full-cascade subset was 0.200, 0.333, and 0.333. Together, these results provide a tractable basis for selecting connectivity under explicit reliability and propagation constraints.

In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.

Long-form legal research reports increasingly rely on LLMs and agentic research systems, but their reliability depends not only on answering the task, but also on whether cited legal authorities are trustworthy. A citation can be risky even when it points to a real source: the report may omit limiting conditions, misdescribe the authority, or use it to support a stronger claim than the source allows. We introduce LegalCiteTrust, a benchmark for evaluating citation trustworthiness in Chinese long-form legal research reports. It contains 72 densely annotated report-level tasks and evaluates reports along three dimensions: Coverage, Support, and Citation Trustworthiness. Citation Trustworthiness is operationalized through citation-level Existence, Fidelity, and Applicability (E/F/A). Experiments on general-purpose LLMs, deep-research systems, and legal-specific systems show that task completion, evidence richness, citation density, and citation reliability expose different system behaviors. Retrieval tools can improve evidence support without reliably improving the Trust score, while E/F/A-based revision improves Trust and Final score more clearly than existence-only filtering. These results suggest that trustworthy legal research generation requires citation-aware evidence governance after retrieval: systems must not only retrieve legal authorities, but also select, describe, and apply them reliably.

Verify-repair loops are a standard means for large language model (LLM) agents to correct faulty plans in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and tool use. When both the verifier and the repairer are noisy, repair can damage already-correct plans, and reported acceptance keeps rising while true validity falls, so existing methods lack a principled basis for deciding when repair should stop. We propose VRR-Stop, a robust stopping framework for noisy verify-repair-repeat (VRR) loops. A four-parameter noise model separates verifier false acceptance and false rejection from the repair and damage behavior of the repairer. Belief filtering turns repeated verification votes into an estimate of committed validity, and the loop commits or repairs according to the sign of the true marginal gain, which requires only sign identifiability rather than accurate recovery of all parameters. When verifier discrimination approaches zero, calibration itself fails and estimation error can flip the stopping sign, so we pair VRR-Stop with VRR-Guard, an estimation-free fallback that replaces the incumbent candidate only under a sufficient verification margin. On a GSM8K stress setting, VRR-Stop improves final true validity by 60.6 percentage points over fixed five-round repair at an average cost of 0.72 repair rounds. Across settings, stopping reliability is governed jointly by verifier discrimination and the decision margin rather than by the absolute size of estimation error.

While ML can produce complex models beyond those that a human could produce manually, incorporating human input can often improve performance beyond purely data-driven models. While this feedback could come from system designers or domain experts, in many cases, the end users who regularly use the system will naturally develop an understanding of its flaws and desire the ability to change the system's behavior based on their knowledge. While soliciting feedback from end users can result in significant model improvement over time, introducing these feedback techniques can also affect several human factors-such as trust or perception of system accuracy-that are not yet fully understood and have different effects reported in the existing literature. Therefore, we sought to build on the existing research to further explore how the act of providing feedback can affect user understanding of an intelligent system and its accuracy in different contexts. We present three controlled experiments that study the effects of interactive feedback collections on user impressions in domains with objective and subjective feedback. The results show that in a context where there is an objectively correct answer, providing HITL feedback lowered both participants' trust in the system and their perception of system accuracy, regardless of whether the system accuracy improved in response to their feedback. However, when the feedback being provided involved subjective opinion, no such negative bias was observed. Furthermore, in the objective context, participants distrusted the system over time, whereas participants in the subjective context mistrusted the system over time. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of allowing different types of end-user feedback on user trust when designing intelligent systems.

Serial verification gates are a core reliability primitive in LLM harnesses: a candidate answer is returned only if $k$ verifier calls all accept it. Under conditionally independent gates, the recent Odds Law (arXiv:2606.15712) shows that posterior log-odds grow linearly in $k$, so failure decays exponentially, and states that "a tight theory of partially correlated verifier cascades remains open." This note gives a minimal such theory. Modeling the per-instance false-accept rate on the generator's own errors as a latent variable $α\sim G$ (de Finetti), the exact cascade posterior is $\ell_k = \ell_0 - \ln m_k$, with $m_k$ the $k$-th moment of $G$. Then: (i) $\ell_k$ is concave in $k$ for every non-degenerate $G$ -- the Odds Law is its tangent at the first gate and an upper bound; (ii) for Beta$(a,b)$ latents, failure decays polynomially, $1-r_k \asymp k^{-b}$, with correlation parameter $ρ_v = 1/(a+b+1)$; (iii) a blind-spot atom of mass $1-π$ at $α=1$ caps the evidence extractable from any number of gates at $-\ln(1-π)$ nats, so reliability saturates below 1; (iv) letting the true-accept rate also vary ($β\sim H$) yields a trichotomy -- gates eventually always help, plateau, or actively harm -- decided by the upper-tail exponents of $G$ and $H$, with closed-form crossover $k^\dagger$. The mechanism is survivorship: errors surviving gates are the high-$α$ ones. The theory is measurable: $R$ repeated verdicts per instance identify the first $R$ moments of $G$, so two verdicts identify $ρ_v$; beta-binomial likelihood and NPMLE recover the reliability curve and the ill-posed ceiling. In synthetic tests, independence-based extrapolation underestimates failure by 20x at $k=5$ and ~3000x at $k=10$; the correlated fit at $R=8$ tracks held-out depths. The practical lever is decorrelation -- changing model family, modality, or evidence source -- not adding gates.

Teams measuring whether large language models (LLMs) recommend a brand face a reproducibility problem: ask the same question twice and the answer moves. Practice resamples each prompt a few times (commonly five) and averages, treating within-prompt resampling as the source of the noise. But a measured brand score moves for at least four separable reasons: within-prompt resampling, prompt paraphrase, model identity, and query language. We specify a crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embed the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target reliability. We apply it to a fully crossed corpus of 12,933 LLM responses on 20 Central and Eastern European brands, 8 languages, and 3 models (GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Flash in parametric mode, Perplexity in grounded retrieval), with a stability subset of 1,435 cells resampled about five times. The outcome is per-response multilingual sentiment polarity. Query language is the largest systematic facet (26.5% of the variance of one response) against 1.5% for brand identity (ICC 0.0146), so a single AI answer carries almost no brand-discriminating signal. Once a cell term isolates pure resampling, resampling is 34.8% of variance and the brand-in-context interaction 29.6%; brand-by-language is 8.6% (a bilingual penalty) while brand-by-model and brand-by-prompt are near zero. Per unit of query budget, adding languages and models reduces relative-error variance far more than adding repeats: a repeat past the fifth reduces it by only 0.0003. Brand-ranking reliability stays low, near 0.01 for a single answer and about 0.36 at the full crossed design, so reliability is bought by spreading across languages and models, not by repeating one prompt.

Quantization is a powerful strategy to build capable and resource-efficient large language models (LLMs) by reducing the bitwidth of the parameters. While quantized LLMs achieve state-of-the-art performance on unperturbed inputs using standard predictive metrics, their performance on perturbed inputs, measured using reliability metrics, remains underexplored, despite its importance for reliable deployment. To address this gap, we first conduct a comprehensive reliability evaluation of quantized LLMs consisting of three key components: (1) Uncertainty: We assess the trustworthiness of LLMs quantized to 2, 3, 4, and 8 bits using six different quantization methods, employing established uncertainty metrics. (2) Calibration: We assess how well-calibrated the uncertainty estimates of quantized models are across model scales and bit precisions. (3) Robustness: We design character-level and word-level input perturbations to evaluate the reliability of quantized models under semantically-preserving variations in the inputs that arise in real-world applications. Second, we characterize how reliability scales with the total number of model bits. Our study reveals that while the performance scales monotonically with the total number of bits, the reliability scalings are nonlinear. A reliability peak occurs for 4-bit quantized models, indicating that quantizing moderately sized models offers the best reliability-efficiency trade-off. Additionally, our empirical findings reveal that quantization enhances the robustness of LLMs to natural input perturbations.

LLM agents that conduct research (proposing ideas, writing and running code, analyzing results) can already carry a study from research question to figures, yet cannot be fully trusted. The same question asked twice in a row returns different answers; the agent announces a number that no execution produced, and tool use does not prevent this, because nothing binds what the agent reports to what its tools returned; a small upstream change leaves downstream results silently stale, with no way to list which ones; and the agent re-runs preprocessing and rewrites code it has already produced. We argue these failures share one root: every step of today's agent loop is a stochastic LLM call whose internal state nobody, including the agent, can check. Rather than trying to see inside the LLM, we take a lesson from databases, which earn trust without being watched, because deterministic operators over well-defined state make their guarantees hold by construction. We propose organizing a research project the same way. The project lives in a deterministic, versioned dataflow engine (in effect, a query plan over materialized views), and the LLM, together with the user, is a stochastic compiler that may only edit that plan. The executor never calls the LLM; LLM output enters only as versioned code and data that the executor then runs, and any asserted result enters the record only with an execution behind it. Five design rules at this boundary turn familiar database machinery, from versioning and provenance to incremental maintenance and cost-based scheduling, into guarantees that make research reliable, non-wasteful, transparent, and collaborative. This report presents the diagnosis, the requirements, and the design; the guarantee walkthrough, a prototype, and the research agenda appear in the full version, in preparation. The LLM, we argue, should be the query compiler, never the executor.

Concept-based explainable artificial intelligence (AI) can make model reasoning more human-understandable, but concept-level outputs are not automatically trustworthy. We introduce ConceptSMILE, a model-agnostic perturbation-based auditing framework for evaluating the reliability of concept-based explanations. Rather than replacing SMILE, ConceptSMILE extends its perturbation-based logic from feature- or region-level attribution to the auditing of human-understandable concept explanations. The framework perturbs input regions, measures concept-response shifts, applies locality weighting, and fits an XGBoost surrogate to approximate local concept behaviour. Reliability is assessed through attribution accuracy, surrogate fidelity, faithfulness, stability, and consistency. We evaluate ConceptSMILE on retinal fundus images by comparing MedSAM-derived visual concepts with VLM-based semantic concepts. Results show that reliability varies across concepts and pathways: MedSAM achieves stronger spatial attribution and the highest surrogate fidelity ($R^2 = 0.8503$, $R_w^2 = 0.8465$), while the VLM pathway shows stronger vessel faithfulness and stronger stability under selected artefact conditions. ConceptSMILE provides an independent audit layer for evaluating the trustworthiness of concept-based XAI.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

Large language models hallucinate most about entities they have never seen. We ask whether a model's activations betray entity familiarity before a single answer token is generated, and whether that signal predicts the factual reliability of the answers. On four Polish Bielik models (1.5B-11B parameters), we probe four entity domains (athletes, cities, writers, musicians), each with 42 well-known, 42 obscure-but-real, and 42 fabricated entities addressed by a one-sentence question (504 prompts per model). Two unsupervised, single-forward-pass dispersion measures over post-SwiGLU MLP activations, inverse participation ratio and spectral entropy, separate known from fabricated entities at AUROC 0.95-1.00 across all domains and scales; a supervised linear probe reaches 0.99-1.00. Both clear selection-aware permutation floors of about 0.70-0.74 (empirical p<=1e-3), survive held-out layer selection (0.93-0.99), and persist on real names (known vs. obscure-but-real: 0.96-1.00). The signal transfers across entity types (mean off-diagonal AUROC 0.92-0.99); a matched-template counterfactual shows the only large drops are template-caused, not entity-type effects, and the signal is diffuse across heads. This representational signal is already at ceiling at 1.5B, whereas behavioral factual reliability scales sharply: 0, 2, 10, and 19 of 42 known athletes are answered fully correctly by the 1.5B, 4.5B, 7B, and 11B models under a strict judge. Within known entities, separating correct from hallucinated answers is much harder (probe 0.93; dispersion no better than a first-token-entropy baseline). A five-sample semantic-entropy baseline reaches only 0.71-0.83 at 5x the inference cost. Despite this internal awareness, the models almost never abstain: an audit of 2,520 answers finds 2 refusals and 1 hedge. Entity familiarity and factual reliability are distinct phenomena on different scaling curves.

Process industries have accumulated validated specialist models, yet sensor drift, feedstock variation, and regime switching cause these models to degrade systematically in new scenarios. Collecting new labeled data and retraining is costly, while continuing with the original model incurs persistent bias. Existing adaptation methods require modifying model parameters with sufficient labeled data, making rapid response on deployed systems difficult. Using LLMs as direct predictors risks hallucinations and uncontrollable outputs. Such predictors also cannot incorporate unstructured scenario knowledge from the field. To address these limitations, this article proposes Reasoning-Driven Open Adaptation for Specialist Models (ROAM), a framework that uses LLM world knowledge and reasoning to adapt frozen specialist models to unseen scenarios without retraining. ROAM confines all corrections to a low-dimensional, semantically interpretable latent space. LLM-generated scenario judgments and online observations are fused under a unified probabilistic framework. A risk-constrained mechanism suppresses corrections under unreliable LLM evidence or abrupt scenario shifts and falls back to the original frozen model when evidence is insufficient. Experiments on a mineral thickening process and the public IndPenSim penicillin fermentation dataset show that ROAM reduces MAE by over 20% in major shift settings such as hidden shifts with only 839 additional parameters and under 0.02,ms per-step overhead. These results indicate that LLM reasoning can be turned into a conservative adaptation signal for industrial models already in service.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as critical decision-making components in high-stakes real-world AI systems, rendering LLM reliability a foremost practical concern. In this paper, we focus on enhancing LLM reliability through selective prediction (SP), a strategy that allows an LLM to only predict for inputs where it is likely to be correct (i.e., coverage) and hence reduce the error rate (i.e., risk) on that portion of inputs -- flagging the remaining inputs for future human discretion. In other words, SP improves LLM reliability by balancing the risk-coverage trade-off and enabling seamless human-AI collaboration. To integrate SP into LLMs, we focus on the LLM post-training alignment stage and propose to align LLMs with SP performance metrics, in contrast with existing LLM alignment methods that focus primarily on correctness or calibration metrics. Specifically, we propose a novel alignment framework, Reinforcement Learning for Selection Reward (RLSR), which targets the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC) -- a popular SP performance metric -- as its alignment objective. RLSR achieves substantially better risk-coverage trade-off compared to multiple alignment baselines on both in-domain and out-of-domain tasks.

Software diversity has been extensively studied as a means of reducing the risk of common-mode failures. Classic work showed that the central issue is whether failures of diversely redundant components overlap in ways that limit the reliability gains. Traditional software diversity is costly to obtain, since it requires multiple implementations as well as the corresponding validation, maintenance, and deployment effort. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) may change this. LLMs enable inexpensive code generation: they produce many candidate implementations of the same specification quickly, across different models, decoding settings, and programming languages. This raises a natural question: can LLMs serve as practical generators of software diversity, and how much reliability improvement can that diversity actually provide? In this paper, we extend classical empirical studies of software diversity in human-written programs to LLM-generated code. We study three specifications using both historical human-written programs and large pools of LLM-generated ones evaluated under a common compilation, sandboxing, and exhaustive test suite. We explore LLM diversity along multiple axes, including model family, generation temperature, and programming language. Reliability improvement is evaluated in a 1-out-of-2 configuration across both homogeneous and heterogeneous program populations, including within-LLM pairings and pairings across programming languages and across LLM-generated and human-written programs. The results show that combining LLM-generated programs, especially in heterogeneous settings, can yield reliability gains, although this is partly conditioned by the programming language and generation setting. Taken together, these findings suggest that LLMs provide a scalable source of comparatively low-cost programs whose diversity can be leveraged for reliability improvement.

When should an AI system's answer be trusted? Formal proof assistants offer certainty but cannot reach most of the problem distribution; scalar LLM judges offer coverage but produce opaque scores that cannot be audited after the fact and are subject to the same coherence issues as any LLM. We present Theoria, a verification architecture that closes this gap. A candidate solution is rewritten into a sequence of typed state transitions, each licensed by an explicit justification, whether that be a citation, computation, or problem-given fact, and every transition is independently auditable. The foundational invariant is completeness of change: every difference between consecutive proof states must be accounted for, so hidden premises surface as unlicensed mutations rather than passing silently. On HLE-Verified Gold (185 text-only expert problems), Theoria certifies 105 at 91.4% strict precision (Wilson 95% CI [84.5%, 95.4%]). Every certification produces a human readable proof trace in which each step can be independently challenged. Holistic LLM judges achieve comparable precision at matched coverage but fail on different problems (Jaccard 0.14-0.36), making the approaches complementary. On 95 adversarial poisoned proofs across 15 domains, structured judges catch 94.7% versus 83.2% for holistic judging (p= 0.0017). The overall 11.5 pp gap concentrates in hidden premises (90.6% vs. 62.5%, a 28 pp difference) and fabricated citations (100% vs. 90%), the error classes where the formal analysis predicts an advantage; performance is identical on arithmetic and theorem-misapplication errors, where no advantage is predicted. On GPQA Diamond (n= 65), certified precision is 97.1% (Wilson CI [85.1%, 99.5%]).

Language models increasingly write probabilistic programs (in NumPyro, Stan, or Pyro), but a program that compiles, runs, and passes every unit test can still be \emph{statistically} wrong -- a Gaussian likelihood for heavy-tailed data, a Poisson for over-dispersed counts, an invalid prior support, or a pathological parameterization. The right verifier is therefore not a test suite but the Bayesian workflow itself: posterior predictive checks, simulation-based calibration, sampler diagnostics ($\hat R$, divergences, ESS), and held-out predictive density. We study this calibration oracle along three axes. \textbf{Detection:} on a benchmark of $14$ misspecification types across $10$ model families ($200$ instances), it flags the bug with AUC $0.97$ ($88\%$ at $2\%$ FPR \emph{when handed the correct reference program, an upper bound}) -- and a fully \emph{reference-free} version that uses no correct program reaches $62$--$78\%$ (the upper figure from a small automated model search), versus $0\%$ for a unit-test oracle. \textbf{Repair:} used as feedback in an LLM repair loop across fifteen models, calibration significantly outperforms unit-test feedback -- which is itself \emph{significantly worse than no feedback at all}, a passing test inducing false confidence that suppresses repair -- and improves over no feedback on strong-but-unsaturated models (GPT-5.1 $33{\to}92\%$, Claude $75{\to}100\%$; paired McNemar, $n{=}228$). \textbf{Reality:} on programs LLMs write from scratch for neutral briefs, $15$--$47\%$ of runnable ones are statistically misspecified (unit tests catch none), and calibration-guided repair significantly beats LLM-as-judge review, a Bayesian-workflow checklist, and data-summary self-debug. Across all three, the lesson is the same: for probabilistic programs, correctness is calibration, not compilation.

An unreliable language model can be made to produce reliable physical designs if the authority to assert is moved out of the model: the model proposes, and a deterministic engine alone certifies, returning certified, impossible, or unknown. We introduce Physics-Anchored Certification (PHACT), a propose-certify loop spanning five scientific domains, and identify what makes such a certificate trustworthy. A checker that accepts a model-supplied value can be forged; deriving the certified quantity from fixed inputs instead makes forgery impossible by construction. Across eighty adversarial trials spanning two models, two decoding temperatures, and a deliberately faulted engine, this contract produced zero false certifications.

Post-hoc explanation methods are routinely used to interpret scientific machine learning models, with the deliverable understood to be insight into the phenomenon the model has been trained on. The transition may be taken to be secured once the model is reliable enough and the explanation faithful enough. We argue it is not. Reliability checks that the model's predictions match the phenomenon's outcomes, and faithfulness checks that the explanation matches the model, but neither checks whether the model works as the phenomenon works, which is what a claim about structure requires. The chain can support candidate hypotheses under external corroboration, but it cannot, on its own, support claims about how the phenomenon is in fact structured.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly summarize clinical evidence, where a claim's weight depends on how strongly it is supported. Yet these models convey confidence poorly, and properties they never state, such as truth, are often readable from their activations. Whether a clinical model registers evidence strength, distinct from truth, and states it when asked is untested, and any such signal could be lexical. We compiled 45,134 clinical claims from six public sources, harmonized 20,611 into a four-level evidence grade under three independent frameworks, and tested 22 local, open-weight LLMs from several developers (0.6-70 billion parameters; general, medical, and reasoning), with lexical, truth, and cross-framework controls. A linear estimator recovered the grade in every model (median AUROC 71.8), yet decodability did not rise with scale and was weakest in reasoning models. The grade the models stated fell to chance, 25-27 percentage points below the estimator. The recoverable signal was largely lexical and did not transfer across topics or frameworks, yet it was distinct from factual truth and still flagged weakly supported claims (AUROC 69.2). Clinical LLMs thus carry an ordered evidence-strength signal they do not express, so their stated grades fail to convey a claim's support even when it is recoverable from their representations and text.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate social survey responses, yet their outputs exhibit systematic biases: marginal distributions are skewed, response variance is poorly calibrated, and predictor-outcome relationships are attenuated. We ask a simple question: given a small pilot sample of human responses, can an LLM recover the statistical characteristics of a broader population? We decompose recovery along three axes: structural fidelity, marginal fidelity, and individual fidelity. Using a COVID-19 misinformation survey as a case study, we benchmark three families of approaches: prompting, rectification, and fine-tuning. The findings suggest that fine-tuning on small pilot samples offers a balanced approach for achieving multiple forms of fidelity, but the levels of such fidelity can vary across subsamples, potentially threatening pluralistic alignment.

When a large language model (LLM) codes a construct in text as a human annotator would, that agreement makes the LLM a reliable coder. Yet reliability leaves construct validity untouched. The instrument may be theory-naive, reaching the code through a correlate that meets none of the demands the construct's theory makes, and no current method tells that apart from genuine measurement. We propose grain calibration as a method that closes the gap. It decomposes a construct into clause-level components, tests each against the text with extractive evidence, and combines the results through an explicit, theory-derived rule. Because the rule is stated rather than lodged in one opaque pass, its structure is evidence about the process rather than the output. It shows which components settled a code, and, when the code is wrong, whether a component was missed or an adjacent construct mistaken for it. Validation shifts from scoring an instrument's outputs against an annotator to showing that the instrument runs on the construct its theory specifies.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that solve tasks by interacting with external tool environments. Although recent tool-use benchmarks increasingly cover complex task settings, they still largely assume clean, stable, and trustworthy tool environments, leaving tool-environment unreliability insufficiently examined. We introduce ToolBench-X, a benchmark for evaluating agents under recoverable reliability hazards. ToolBench-X contains executable multi-step tasks across diverse domains and sequential, parallel, and mixed workflows, each paired with deterministic tools and a canonical final answer for automatic evaluation. Starting from clean tool environments, ToolBench-X injects five structured hazard types: Specification Drift, Invocation Error, Execution Failure, Output Drift, and Cross-source Conflict. Crucially, each injected instance remains solvable through at least one valid recovery path, such as retrying, fallback, verification, or cross-checking. Experiments reveal a substantial reliability gap: agents that perform well with reliable tools often fail under recoverable hazards. Further analysis shows that failures are driven less by tool-use volume or inference budget than by limited hazard diagnosis and ineffective recovery. Targeted recovery hints recover many failed tasks, while test-time scaling yields more limited gains. These results suggest that tool-use evaluation should move beyond function-call accuracy toward task completion under unreliable tool environments. The code and data is available at https://github.com/Foreverskyou/ToolBench-X.

A single forward pass of a capable model is a fast, fluent, and unreliable problem-solver: it is right often enough to be useful and wrong often enough to be dangerous; in language models, such confident errors are known as hallucinations. We present Maestro Order, a model-agnostic orchestration harness that turns unreliable solvers into reliable problem-solving systems by composing them according to four structural primitives (decompose, ensemble, verify, and recurse) and a budget-aware controller that decides where to spend compute. The harness treats any model as a black-box base solver behind a uniform interface, layers a verifier ensemble whose discrimination is measured online, and allocates verification and voting to the stages with the highest marginal reliability per unit cost. We give the architecture, the message and state schema, the controller algorithm, and the engineering that makes it deterministic, observable, and fault-tolerant. We then specify an evaluation methodology (reliability at fixed cost, coverage, calibration, and ablations) and report results from a faithful Monte Carlo simulation of the harness over a parameterized solver/verifier model. The simulation reproduces the predicted laws quantitatively: verification amplifies reliability geometrically (e.g. $0.55\to0.98$ with two gates, $\to0.999$ with four), voting helps only above chance and is limited by shared errors, and a budget-aware controller reaches a target reliability at a small fraction of the cost of voting alone by selecting the cheapest mechanism for each regime. We close with failure modes (verifier gaming, correlated errors, and decomposition error compounding) and concrete guidance: build robust checkers, diversify solvers, and let the controller put compute where the information is.

Recent attempts to combine large language models (LLMs) with causal discovery ask models to infer pairwise directions, propose graph structures, or inject language-model outputs as priors and constraints. These approaches promise faster analysis, but they also obscure whether a causal evidence is supported by data and assumptions or by textual associations, prompt artifacts and hallucinated mechanisms. We argue for a different role for agents in causal discovery. Agents should inspect data, retrieve context, explain method assumptions and clarify graph outputs, but they should not supply edges, orientations, priors, constraints or causal conclusions. We propose the principle that agents assist the workflow, while causal claims remain grounded in data, explicit assumptions, formal algorithms, diagnostics and user or domain-expert decisions. We instantiate this principle in causal-learn+, an online platform that coordinates data analysis, preprocessing, method recommendation, expert-knowledge incorporation, formal discovery and interpretation around the algorithmic ecosystem of causal-learn. A case study on Big Five personality data illustrates agent-assisted pipeline of causal discovery without turning language-model unreliability into causal evidence. The platform is available at causallearn.com.

Detecting hallucinations in clinical text is increasingly framed as an explainability problem: systems should not merely flag an unreliable response but point to the offending span. Architectures built around knowledge-graph (KG) triple decomposition are marketed for exactly this auditability, yet their localization ability is typically assumed rather than measured. We introduce MedHal-Loc, a benchmark and metric for localization faithfulness -- whether a detector's top-ranked error unit actually overlaps the erroneous span. The controlled subset comprises 300 PubMedQA-derived statements with single, span-level errors injected across four localizable types (entity substitution, relation error, mechanism misattribution, invention), yielding gold spans by construction; a complementary natural subset documents that real hallucinations are dominated by diffuse conclusion-flips that resist span localization (a human expert accepted 1/18 candidate spans). Evaluating four fine-grained paradigms, we find that NLI-per-clause, consistency-per-sentence, and the dedicated span detector FAVA all localize well above chance, whereas an elaborate KG-triple pipeline localizes no better than chance (+3.3pp, n.s.), bottlenecked by ~59% entity-extraction coverage -- despite competitive detection F1 (0.609). Detection competence does not imply faithful localization; architectural explainability must be validated, not presumed.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high stakes use-case. Prior hallucination evaluation work remains largely restricted to the biomedical domain, treats hallucination as a binary task, and has not examined the growing family of scientifically fine-tuned LLMs. We address these gaps with SciFactCheck, a benchmark of 2,500 prompts across five scientific domains, paired with a modular evaluation framework targeting three factuality hallucination types: unverifiability, overclaim, and attribution. Using a controlled minimal-pairing design, we evaluate 18 LLMs by comparing each scientifically fine-tuned model against its general-purpose base. Our results indicate that 1. Scientifically fine-tuned models exhibit degraded factual reliability across all hallucination types and scientific domains, and 2. Fine-tuned models are internally less confident yet linguistically more assertive. A human pilot study further reveals that current fact-checking tools show only modest agreement with expert judgments on scientific content, and that defining scientifically check-worthy claims remains contested even among human annotators. Our findings fundamentally challenge current methods of domain-specific fine-tuning for factuality and call for developing improved verification infrastructure for scientific content.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to structured clinical data, yet whether they can recognize the limits of their own knowledge on such tasks remains unexplored. We study this question through the lens of cross-model attribution divergence with the goal of reducing epistemic uncertainty for structured tasks, comparing Qwen 2.5 7B and XGBoost on a prediction task via attribution divergence analysis. We report four findings. First, LLM verbalized confidence is epistemically vacuous, it outputs a near-constant (0.856-0.937) regardless of whether accuracy is 49% or 75.3%, tracking prompt format rather than prediction quality. Second, the LLM exhibits an inverse difficulty effect: accuracy drops to 64.8% when XGBoost is 99% correct, but matches XGBoost (73.8% vs. 73.1%) when it is moderately uncertain. Third, few-shot examples and SHAP-derived feature evidence are orthogonal, super-additive interventions: they reduce the Attribution Disagreement Score (ADS) from 1.54 to 0.38 and improve accuracy from 49% to 75.3% without training. Fourth, a cross-model calibrator that determined LLM reliability using attribution divergence signals reduces expected calibration error from 0.254 to 0.080, replacing uninformative verbalized confidence with patient-specific reliability estimates, without accessing model internals or requiring repeated inference. We frame these findings as a cold start problem for LLMs on structured data and outline a path toward genuine epistemic self-awareness.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to fulfill users' information needs; users ask LLMs about the weather, pose educational questions, and consult them for legal assistance. One particularly understudied area is digital security and privacy (S&P), where users may seek LLMs' help on how to secure their online accounts or protect their computers from cyber attacks. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study has collected or analyzed the S&P questions users ask LLMs; prior research on LLM response quality relied on expert-authored S&P misconceptions or FAQs rather than user queries. Drawing from WildChat, a dataset of 3.2M user-LLM conversations collected in the wild, our study identifies 14,727 S&P prompts and categorizes them into nine categories covering a wide range of S&P topics. From the S&P prompts, we sampled 450 and performed a thematic analysis to characterize the S&P questions users ask LLMs. Separate from the thematic analysis, we curated 270 advice-seeking S&P prompts, where users ask for recommendations, guidance, or specific S&P information. We measured LLM response quality and consistency when posing the prompt to LLMs 10 times. We found that commercial LLMs outperform open-weight models (GPT 5.5 provided "good enough" responses on 98% of prompts; Llama 4 on 47%). However, among prompts that received high-quality responses on average, commercial models sometimes produce contradictory responses across runs, risking confusing or misleading users.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for knowledge-intensive question answering, including religious and legal questions. Islamic knowledge is a particularly demanding setting: answers are expected to be grounded in authoritative sources, citations must be exact, Arabic varieties differ substantially from the language of classical sources, and legitimate jurisprudential disagreement must be represented rather than collapsed into a single answer. This survey reviews the emerging field of Islamic LLMs and trustworthy Islamic AI. We organize the literature around Arabic NLP and Arabic-centric LLMs, Islamic NLP resources, Qur'anic question answering, Islamic knowledge benchmarks, retrieval-augmented generation, Islamic legal reasoning, inheritance reasoning, hallucination evaluation, and trustworthiness. We argue that fluency in Arabic is not sufficient for Islamic AI. Reliable systems require curated sources, retrieval and verification modules, citation-aware generation, madhhab-aware reasoning, human expert evaluation, and benchmarks that measure not only answer accuracy but also faithfulness, source validity, and reasoning quality. The survey concludes with a research agenda for hallucination-resistant Islamic AI systems.