LLM Reliability

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

78 papers in the last four weeks, up 105% on the four weeks before. 0.8% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 507

Jun 21, 2026cs.AI

PRIME: Evaluating Prompt Resolution Under Incompatible Instructions in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework \textit{PRIME}(\textit{Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation}) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. \textit{PRIME} purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.

Tehreem Javed, Shumaim Fatimah, Masooma Bakhtiari +2

School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Prompting LLM Reliability

Jun 21, 2026cs.CL

BabelJudge: Measuring LLM-as-a-Judge Reliability Across Languages and Agent Trajectories

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant approach to scalable evaluation in NLP pipelines, yet judges themselves carry systematic biases that raw accuracy hides: they favor responses placed in slot A (position bias), they prefer longer responses regardless of quality (verbosity bias), and their reliability degrades sharply in lower-resource languages. We introduce BabelJudge, an open-source benchmark and reliability audit framework that measures all four failure modes -- position bias, verbosity bias, order inconsistency, and cross-lingual degradation -- on any judge model, without requiring human preference labels. The key insight is gold-labelling by degradation: starting from a high-quality reference response and applying a controlled perturbation yields a pairwise item whose gold label is known by construction, eliminating annotation cost. We evaluate Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-4bit across English, Hindi, Arabic, and Swahili and find that our composite bias-penalised reliability score drops from 0.714 in Hindi to 0.550 in Swahili, a gap that raw accuracy (0.835 vs. 0.660) understates. Swahili order consistency collapses to 0.480, meaning judge verdicts are near-random under slot-order swaps -- a failure mode invisible to accuracy alone. We further extend the framework to agentic evaluation via nine trajectory-level perturbations (argument corruption, tool swaps, hallucinated calls, missing steps) and three new metrics: tool accuracy, hallucination detection rate, and trajectory-length bias. BabelJudge is released as a Python package supporting 11 judge backends. Code: https://github.com/Shreyaskc/BabelJudge

Shreyas KC

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Benchmark Auditing LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Reliability+2

Jun 19, 2026cs.CL

Denoising Iterative Self-Correction: Structured Verification Loops for Reliable LLM Reasoning

Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers. We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted. Using these signals, DISC progressively reduces errors across multiple verify-judge-correct passes, analogous to traditional iterative denoising. A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors. We evaluate this trade-off using two paired diagnostics: an improvement-to-degradation ratio (precision) and a repair rate (recall). Across three benchmarks (BIG-Bench Mistake, HotpotQA, GPQA Diamond) and four models, DISC dominates Chain-of-Verification and Self-Refine on the precision-recall trade-off, reaching 81.6% accuracy with 13x more improvements per degradation than Chain-of-Verification and 5x more than Self-Refine on BIG-Bench Mistake (Sonnet~4.5). On GPQA Diamond, we identify a capability floor below which judges acknowledge contradictions in evidence but cannot translate that recognition into a correction. We further show that cross-model role allocation -- assigning verification and judgment to a model different from the generator -- mitigates self-confirmation bias.

Shen Yin, David Ken, Joel Stremmel

Thomson Reuters Labs

LLM Self-Correction LLM Self-Refinement LLM Answer Verification LLM Reliability

Jun 19, 2026cs.CR

Evaluating LLMs for Real-World Web Vulnerability Detection

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection, yet their effectiveness on web-specific vulnerabilities remains to be explored. This work benchmarks six frontier (Claude Opus 4.6, Codex GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1-pro-preview) and open-weight models (Qwen 3.5, Qwen 3 Coder Next, MiniMax M2.5) on their ability to detect real-world web vulnerabilities using static analysis in WordPress plugins, including SQL injection, stored cross-site scripting, path traversal, and remote code execution. Using five prompt designs of varying structure, scope, and complexity across three experiment iterations, we aim to answer how model and prompt choice affects vulnerability detection. Our results show that all models are capable of detecting valid security issues, but the detection rate varies depending on the model and prompt. For example, Claude Opus 4.6 achieved the highest web vulnerability detection rate (63%), while open-weight MiniMax M2.5 performs on par with other frontier models (48%), and self-hosted Qwen 3.5 only achieved 35%. We show that scoped prompts that narrow the vulnerability scope outperform open-ended ones, whereas the prompt complexity has little impact. Surprisingly, no model achieved full reporting consistency across three experiment iterations, with some as low as 50%. Our experiments demonstrate the opportunities and limits of LLM-based vulnerability detection, as no model correctly identified one baseline vulnerability in one of the plugins. Additionally, we derive practical lessons learned for security practitioners and publish all code and data to support future research.

Sebastian Neef, Luca Jungnickel, Antonio Benjamin Buchholz +2

Technische Universität Berlin, Einsteinufer 17, 10587 Berlin, Germany · Freie Universität Berlin, Kaiserswerther Str. 16-18, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Software Vulnerability Detection LLM Reliability LLMs for Cybersecurity Prompt Engineering

Jun 18, 2026cs.CL

Peeking Inside LLMs: Leveraging Internal Artifacts of LLMs for Enhancing Reliability in Legal Classification

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted in the legal domain. However, despite their strong performance, LLMs are prone to generating incorrect or hallucinated outputs, raising serious concerns about their reliability in high-stakes domains such as law. Detecting the correctness of responses of LLM-based systems is therefore a critical challenge. In this work, we explore the potential of leveraging internal artifacts of LLM to detect the correctness of their predictions in legal-domain classification tasks. We develop approaches that utilize features derived from these internal artifacts to build downstream classifiers capable of identifying incorrect LLM outputs. We evaluate our approach on two representative legal classification tasks: bail decision prediction and statute violation prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs' internal artifacts are reliable indicators for detecting incorrect predictions in legal classification tasks, and can be applied to enhance the reliability of LLM-based classification systems.

Sudipta Santra, Debtanu Datta, Saptarshi Ghosh

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721302, West Bengal, India

Legal NLP Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability

Jun 18, 2026cs.CR

Can LLMs Reason About Brand Ownership? An Empirical Study of Domain Attribution Intelligence

When a new domain resembling a popular brand appears, defenders face a fundamental ambiguity: it may be an attacker-created squatting site for phishing, or it may be a domain the brand itself registered, either defensively, to block attackers, or legitimately, for a new product or service launch. Incorrectly flagging a brand-owned domain as malicious produces a false positive that harms end users and damages the brand's reputation. Resolving this ambiguity requires brand intelligence: the ability to determine, at scale, whether a given domain belongs to a brand. Large language models (LLMs), with their broad knowledge of brand domain relationships, offer a promising zero configuration approach to this problem, but their reliability for brand intelligence tasks remains unknown. We present the first systematic empirical evaluation of LLM brand intelligence across three tasks: domain enumeration (Q1), open ended brand attribution (Q2), and binary ownership classification (Q3). We evaluate four models, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Claude Sonnet 4.6, across four retrieval settings (in context, web search, WHOIS lookup, and combined) on 36 of the most phished brands. Our results reveal a stark dichotomy: models achieve up to 82% precision enumerating brand domains from memory alone, yet fail at ownership verification without external tools, with macro F1 at most 0.37 in ICL mode. WHOIS augmentation lifts Q3 macro F1 by up to 0.65 points, yielding near perfect precision (<= 0.99), dramatically reducing the false positive risk for defenders. We provide concrete recommendations for deploying LLMs in brand protection pipelines.

Fathima Mashood, Mohamed Nabeel

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability LLMs for Cybersecurity

Jun 18, 2026cs.CV

Confidence Calibration for Multimodal LLMs: An Empirical Study through Medical VQA

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show great potential in medical tasks, but their elicited confidence often misaligns with actual accuracy, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or overlooking correct advice. This study presents the first comprehensive analysis of the relationship between accuracy and confidence in medical MLLMs. It proposes a novel method that combines Multi-Strategy Fusion-Based Interrogation (MS-FBI) with auxiliary expert LLM assessment, aiming to improve confidence calibration in Medical Visual Question Answering (VQA). Experiments demonstrate that our method reduces the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by an average of 40% across three Medical VQA datasets, significantly enhancing MLLMs' reliability. The findings highlight the importance of domain-specific calibration for MLLMs in healthcare, offering a more trustworthy solution for AI-assisted diagnosis.

Yuetian Du, Yucheng Wang, Ming Kong +4

College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University · School of Computer Science and Technology, Xidian University · Zhihui Medical Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China +1

Multimodal QA Language Model Calibration Model Calibration LLM Reliability Medical VLMs

Jun 18, 2026cs.AI

A Systematic Evaluation of Black-Box Uncertainty Estimation Methods for Large Language Models

Although large language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities across a wide range of tasks, their outputs often remain unreliable and may contain hallucinations, making uncertainty estimation (UE) essential for building trustworthy LLMs. In practice, many mainstream LLMs are only accessible through restricted APIs, where internal signals such as logits and hidden states are unavailable, making black-box UE especially important. However, existing work on black-box UE for LLMs remains fragmented in methodology and lacks a unified empirical comparison. To address this gap, we present a systematic review of black-box UE methods and organize them into five categories: verbalization-based, sampling-based, explanation-based, multi-agent, and hybrid methods. We further build a unified evaluation framework and benchmark 24 representative methods across 4 models and 4 dataset settings. Our results show that no single method consistently dominates across all settings. Nevertheless, methods that reason over and compare candidates in the answer space are generally effective, and hybrid methods that combine multiple uncertainty signals perform well under most conditions. By releasing the benchmark data and a unified evaluation framework, we aim to facilitate reproducible comparisons and support future research, while our empirical findings provide practical guidance for developing future black-box UE methods for LLMs.

Jiayi Wang, Xu-Yao Zhang

School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China · State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

LLM Evaluation Uncertainty Quantification LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Jun 17, 2026cs.CL

Reliability without Validity: A Systematic, Large-Scale Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge Models Across Agreement, Consistency, and Bias

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for language models, but judge validation in practice relies on exact-match agreement, a metric that does not correct for chance and systematically overstates discriminative ability. We present the largest systematic evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge to date: 21 judges from nine providers across MT-Bench, JudgeBench, and RewardBench, evaluated under three protocols (agreement, consistency, bias audit) over 118 runs and approximately 541,000 individual judgments. Four findings emerge, consistent across the full cohort, including the April 2026 frontier: kappa deflation between exact match and Cohen's kappa is universal (33--41 pp on MT-Bench), judge rankings shift by up to 14 positions across benchmarks, high test--retest reliability (>0.95) coexists with severe position bias (>0.10) in two production-deployed judges (instantiating a consistency--bias paradox), and verbosity bias is small (<0.011) across our cohort under a single pairwise rubric. We distill these into a Minimum Viable Validation Protocol.

Justin D. Norman, Michael U. Rivera, D. Alex Hughes

UC Berkeley School of Information 102 South Hall Drive, Berkeley CA, 94708

Inter-Rater Reliability LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Reliability Language Model Bias Evaluation Benchmark Validity+1

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

Possible or Definite? A Benchmark for Evaluating Diagnostic Uncertainty Preservation in Clinical Text

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical text tasks such as summarization and revision. While most studies evaluate the fluency and coherence of LLM-generated text, whether LLMs correctly preserve diagnostic uncertainty remains underexplored. In clinical practice, phrases such as ``possible pneumonia'' communicate the strength of available evidence and directly guide decisions about follow-up testing and treatment. Altering these uncertainty expressions can change the clinical meaning entirely. In this paper, we systematically evaluated this problem in two steps. First, we constructed a benchmark of 1,200 clinical documents with 9,184 uncertainty annotations across five levels. Second, we evaluated three LLMs on this benchmark. Our results show that (1) LLMs preserve the original uncertainty cues poorly, often less than half the time; (2) LLMs struggle with nuanced distinctions between adjacent levels. This work reveals a failure mode not captured by standard evaluation metrics and provides implications for the safe deployment of LLMs in clinical workflows.

Hongbo Du, Zixin Lu, Jiaming Qu

Trine University · University of Michigan · Amazon

LLM Reliability Clinical Language Model Evaluation Medical LLMs

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

Security and Privacy Prompts in the Wild: What Users Ask LLMs and How LLMs Respond

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.

Hobin Kim, Xiaoyuan Wu, Omer Akgul +2

Carnegie Mellon University · RSAC Labs

LLM Auditing LLM Reliability LLMs for Cybersecurity

Jun 16, 2026cs.LG

From Drift to Coherence: Stabilizing Beliefs in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are often hypothesized to perform implicit Bayesian inference, yet a key coherence condition, the martingale property of predictive beliefs, has been shown to fail in controlled synthetic in-context learning settings. We revisit this question in a more typical usage regime: generic multiple-choice question answering. Exploiting the discrete answer space, we compute exact predictive distributions and study belief dynamics induced by autoregressive answer resampling. We introduce prompted predictive resampling (PPR), where an LLM generates a sequence of answers to the same question. Empirically, PPR reveals early-stage belief drift, indicating martingale violations. However, after sufficient resampling steps, the belief process self-stabilizes and converges to a coherent predictive distribution. Based on this observation, we further propose (i) a seed-answer prompting strategy to accelerate stabilization, and (ii) a self-consistency loss that amortizes early-stage drift into the model via fine-tuning. Experiments on multiple-choice QA benchmarks show that our methods substantially reduce belief drift and improve predictive coherence without sacrificing accuracy.

SongEun Kim, Seungyoo Lee, Edwin Fong +2

Department of Statistics, Seoul National University · Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology · The University of Hong Kong +1

LLM Fine-Tuning Bayesian Inference LLM Reliability Belief Updating in LLMs

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

Prompt Perturbation for Reliable LLM Evaluation over Comparison Graphs

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is important for understanding their capabilities, comparing competing systems, and supporting the deployment of reliable models in practice. For open-ended tasks, pairwise evaluation has become a popular paradigm, in which two responses to the same prompt are compared and the resulting judgments are aggregated into an overall ranking. A central challenge of this paradigm is intransitivity: the induced comparison outcomes may fail to support any coherent global ranking. For example, one may observe cyclic preferences such as

A \succ B \succ C \succ A

, or inconsistencies involving ties such as

A \equiv B\equiv C\neq A

. Such contradictions make the resulting leaderboard unstable and challenging to interpret. In this paper, we propose a prompt perturbation framework for improving the consistency of pairwise LLM evaluation. Our approach generates perturbed variants of each prompt, uses the resulting comparison graphs to identify and filter out structurally inconsistent comparison patterns, and then applies standard ranking methods to the filtered comparisons. A key feature of the proposed framework is that graph-level structural consistency is incorporated explicitly into the evaluation pipeline before ranking aggregation. This provides a simple and principled way to reduce cyclic inconsistencies and improve the reliability of LLM rankings.

Dong Huang, Jianbo Sun, Pengkun Yang

Department of Statistics and Data Science, Tsinghua University

LLM Evaluation Pairwise Comparison Language Model Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking LLM Reliability

Jun 16, 2026cs.SE

Understanding LLMs in Title-Abstract Screening: From Disagreements to Recommendations

Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy. However, questions of reliability remain largely unaddressed. In this study, we go beyond quantitative LLM-human agreement metrics and qualitatively investigate how and why LLMs fail. We also propose actionable recommendations. We analyzed disagreements between LLMs and researchers across six software engineering SRs and over 1,000 primary study papers. For each SR, papers were screened independently by human experts and LLMs in zero-shot mode, resulting in Kappa values ranging from 0.52 to 0.77. Qualitative analysis suggests that human-LLM disagreement results from recurring, identifiable causes, such as boundary ambiguity in key terms, keyword overemphasization, and incorrect topic inference. Based on these findings, we propose recommendations such as validating semantic understanding before deployment, running multiple LLMs, and focusing validation efforts on borderline cases. Future studies are needed to validate the impact of our recommendations, and community efforts are needed to develop normative guidelines on LLM usage in SRs.

Mika Mäntylä, Patricia Matsubara, Katia Romero Felizardo +5

University of Helsinki, Finland · UFMS, Brazil · UTFPR – Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Brazil +3

LLM Evaluation Evidence Selection LLM Reliability

Jun 16, 2026cs.LG

Learning to Refine Hidden States for Reliable LLM Reasoning

Large language models show strong reasoning ability, but their internal reasoning process can remain unstable in complex multi-step settings, where early hidden-state errors may propagate to incorrect predictions. We propose ReLAR, a reinforcement-guided latent refinement framework that iteratively updates hidden representations before decoding. ReLAR maintains a compact latent reasoning state and uses learned depth and action controllers to adaptively determine both the number and direction of refinement steps. The controllers are trained with a policy gradient objective based on step-wise likelihood improvement, enabling efficient input-dependent reasoning without explicit chain-of-thought generation. Experiments on medical, mathematical, multi-hop reasoning, and open-ended generation benchmarks show that ReLAR improves accuracy, generation quality, and reasoning stability with substantially lower inference overhead than explicit reasoning baselines.

Chia-Hsuan Hsu, Jui-Ming Yao

RL for Language Model Reasoning Efficient Language Model Reasoning LLM Reliability Implicit Reasoning in Language Models Adaptive Computation Latent Reasoning

Jun 16, 2026cs.CY

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

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

Marina Mancoridis, Zoë Hitzig

Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Harvard Society of Fellows

LLM Evaluation Reasoning Consistency in Language Models LLM Reliability Metacognition in Language Models Self-Consistency in Language Models

Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

Quantifying Consistency in LLM Logical Reasoning via Structural Uncertainty

Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning. Existing methods assess reliability primarily through output dispersion -- measuring how much sampled answers differ -- but this discards a complementary signal: whether the model can consistently rank competing reasoning candidates. We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings over sampled reasoning solutions. Given a query, we generate multiple candidate solutions and ask the model to judge pairwise preferences among its own outputs. We aggregate self-preferences into ranking distributions via Bradley-Terry modeling with PageRank, and decompose the signal into two entropy-based components: across-trial ranking instability and within-trial candidate ambiguity. Across five LLMs and eight benchmarks, structural signals provide information complementary to answer dispersion: on logical and mathematical reasoning tasks, the combination improves identification of unreliable instances, while on factual retrieval the structural signal collapses toward uniformity, diagnosing a regime boundary where reasoning-level consistency evaluation is uninformative. The two components relate differently to accuracy: within-trial ambiguity correlates positively with correctness -- consistent with settings where multiple plausible solution paths remain competitive -- while across-trial instability correlates negatively, signaling unreliable reasoning. Structural uncertainty is best understood not as a universal confidence estimator, but as a regime-sensitive evaluator of logical reasoning consistency.

Baishali Chaudhury, Mengdie Flora Wang, Hyunji Hayley Park +3

AWS Generative AI Innovation Center

Reasoning Consistency in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation LLM Mathematical Reasoning Uncertainty Decomposition LLM Reasoning

Jun 15, 2026cs.CL

Islamic Large Language Models: From Knowledge Acquisition to Trustworthy and Hallucination-Resistant AI

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.

Mohammed Amine Mouhoub

Paris Dauphine University

Question Answering LLM Reliability Legal Reasoning

Jun 15, 2026cs.HC

Using AI in engineering education: a balancing act, driven by clear purpose

Based on a questionnaire of 100 higher-education students, predominantly from engineering-related fields, and a critical review of recent literature, this chapter examines how students use and perceive Large Language Models (LLMs) in engineering education. Students primarily value LLMs for writing support, conceptual clarification, coding assistance, and brainstorming, while simultaneously expressing concerns about inaccuracies, bias, overreliance, academic integrity, and the burden of verification. Through an analysis of two dominant metaphors, namely LLMs as an "oracle" and as a "tutor," the chapter shows how these systems cultivate expectations of authority, expertise, and personalized learning that often exceed their actual capabilities. The chapter further argues that students' attachment to the promises of efficiency and personalized support reflects a form of "cruel optimism," where the perceived benefits of LLMs often depend on the very skills, vigilance, and expertise that students are still developing. Overall, the chapter argues for a purpose-driven and context-sensitive approach to AI integration in engineering education, emphasizing critical AI literacy, reflective assessment design, pedagogical caution, and consideration of broader ethical and environmental impacts.

Olya Kudina

TU Delft, The Netherlands · Optentia Unit, North-West University, South Africa

AI in Education Generative AI in Education LLM Reliability

Jun 15, 2026cs.AI

Know Your Limits : On the Faithfulness of LLMs as Solvers and Autoformalizers in Legal Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on reasoning tasks, but whether this reflects faithful logical inference or heuristic approximation remains unclear. We study this question in legal entailment by comparing three paradigms, including pure LLM classification, LLM-based Formal Reasoning, and solver-based Formal Reasoning using the Z3 SMT solver, on a re-annotated subset of ContractNLI across five LLMs. Our re-annotation reveals a systematic and measurable gap between pragmatic legal interpretation and strict formal entailment, where a substantial proportion of legally sound inferences are not formally grounded without additional unstated assumptions. While introducing formal structure improves accuracy, with LLM-based Formal Reasoning achieving the highest benchmark performance, we show that this gain does not imply faithful reasoning. We identify three recurring failure modes: scope laundering, where LLMs report solver-inconsistent classifications without executing the underlying formal reasoning, producing conclusions that appear logically grounded but are not; implicit constraint blindness, where LLMs overlook logical constraints present in formal representations; and program synthesis failures, where LLMs generate incorrect Z3 code despite structured prompting. Critically, scope laundering persists across all models, raising serious concerns about the faithfulness of LLM-based formal reasoning as a proxy for symbolic execution. These results reveal a fundamental gap between benchmark accuracy and logical faithfulness.

Olivia Peiyu Wang, Sanna Wong-Toropainen, Daneshvar Amrollahi +4

UC Santa Cruz · Univ. Helsinki · CodeX, Stanford +4

LLM Reliability Autoformalization Legal Reasoning

Jun 14, 2026cs.CL

Who Flips? Self- and Cross-Model Counterarguments Reveal Answer Instability in LLMs

Standard accuracy benchmarks evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) reach correct answers. However, they do not test whether models maintain that answer when challenged by a plausible counter-argument. We introduce a controlled protocol for evaluating answer stability: after a model answers a multiple-choice question correctly, we challenge the model's answer with a coherent argument for an incorrect option and measure whether the model flips. The setup a) isolates argumentative content from overt social pressure and b) varies argument length, self-attribution, and cross-model source. Across seven frontier models and 57 MMLU subjects, flip rates range from 17.5% to 97.3%, revealing large differences in stability that are not captured by accuracy metrics alone. We find that self-attribution consistently increases flip rates (mean 7.1pp, up to 18.7pp). Furthermore, pooling wrong-answer arguments across models and selecting the most effective one per question yields stronger adversarial challenges than relying on any single source model. From this cross-model pool, we construct MaxFlip, a curated benchmark that amplifies answer flips by up to 23.6pp over self-generated challenges. We release the protocol, challenge records, and MaxFlip to support stability evaluation alongside standard accuracy benchmarks. Materials are available at https://github.com/nafisenik/WhoFlips, https://hf.co/datasets/nafisehNik/WhoFlips.

Nafiseh Nikeghbal, Amir Hossein Kargaran, Shaghayegh Kolli +1

1Technical University of Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning · 1Technical University of Munich 2 Munich Center for Machine Learning +2

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Adversarial Robustness of Language Models

Jun 14, 2026cs.LG

Intelligence Is Not the Bottleneck: Validating an LLM First-Pass Manuscript Score Against Peer-Review Outcomes

Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns. We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score, against the public decision outcomes of a major machine learning venue. AIPR grades by prompting alone, with no fine-tuning on reviews or decisions. Across 300 ICLR submissions with public decision tiers and reviewer ratings, graded under a frozen pipeline with hypotheses pre-registered before any score met any outcome, the overall score separates rejected from accepted submissions (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.87), rises monotonically across tiers, and tracks the mean reviewer rating. The signal is strongest where we claim it: the lowest-scoring fifth is rejected far above the base rate, with oral papers absent. The validity comes mostly from the model: a one-paragraph prompt on the same model discriminates almost as well as the full pipeline (the small gap favours the pipeline but does not meet the pre-declared criterion, p = 0.09). What the engineering adds is reliability and a grounded review: AIPR's score barely moves across repeated runs (0.7 vs. 2.8 points within-paper SD) where the bare prompt swings, and the same pass returns a rubric-structured, evidence-grounded review rather than a bare number, with the human keeping the decision.

Costa Georgantas

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Automated Peer Review

Jun 14, 2026cs.CL

The Truth Stays in the Family: Enhancing Contextual Grounding via Inherited Truthful Heads in Model Lineages

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have produced many specialized multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) that share common foundational LLMs, forming distinct model lineages. It remains unclear whether a fundamental behavioral link exists between the foundational LLMs and downstream variants. We investigate this question by quantifying head-level context-truthfulness scores. Across diverse LLM and MLLM lineages, including Vicuna-, Qwen2.5-, LLaMA2-, and Mistral-based models, we find that Truth Scores are strongly preserved within model families, even after instruction tuning or multimodal adaptation. We further show that this inheritance is consistent with attention-head weight preservation, and that context-truthful heads attend to query-relevant evidence. Building on this finding, we propose TruthProbe, a soft-gating strategy that amplifies context-truthful heads while preserving other head contributions. TruthProbe improves contextual truthfulness on HaluEval and reduces multimodal hallucination on POPE and CHAIR, with base-LLM Truth Scores transferring effectively to their fine-tuned LLM and MLLM descendants. Code is available at https://github.com/miso-choi/TruthProbe.

Miso Choi, Seonga Choi, Mincheol Kwon +3

Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea · Kakao Mobility Corp., Seongnam, Republic of Korea

LLM Grounding LLM Interpretability Multimodal Large Language Models LLM Reliability VLM Hallucination Mitigation

Jun 14, 2026cs.LG

Re-feeding Is Not Replaying: Measuring Replay Noise in Counterfactual Token-Credit Estimation

Per-token counterfactual credit estimation asks which token in a language-model rollout caused the final answer to be right or wrong: cut the transcript at a pivot, substitute an alternative token, replay continuations, and compare outcomes. Published methods re-feed the transcript prefix as a fresh prompt, assuming this reproduces the state the model passed through during generation. We measure what that assumption costs on a stock inference engine, with a three-pass design: continuations resumed from the verified decode-time KV state, an identical second exact pass (a replica noise floor), and a re-feed pass. Across six configurations and three models (including a GRPO-trained checkpoint), at low-margin decision tokens, re-feeding changes the credit estimate at rates 14-28 percentage points above the replica floor (7-21pp under a treatment-independent conditioning; problem-clustered t = 2.9-6.4). Most changes are zero-boundary crossings of the quantized estimator rather than polarity reversals, and the perturbation is consistent with mean-zero, so averaged quantities are largely safe; but selection is not: a critical-token set chosen by thresholding

|\hat{A}_t|

under re-feed overlaps the exact-resume selection at Jaccard 0.34-0.90, versus a 0.63-0.96 replica ceiling. A causal confirmation closes the loop: under vLLM's batch-invariant kernels all three passes are identical on every measured channel, with both disagreement rates exactly zero. Replica passes themselves disagree on 9-23% of eligible estimates: single-sample credit measurements at decision tokens are unreliable under any replay. Settings were fixed in advance; exact-pass cache hits in the second campaign are instrumented (100% hit rate, 3,434 pivots); total compute was under 10 USD. We recommend that counterfactual credit studies resume decoder state or use batch-invariant kernels, and report a replica floor.

Nils Matteson

Northeastern University

Counterfactual Evaluation Token-Level Credit Assignment Counterfactual Reasoning in Language Models LLM Reliability Causal Interventions in Language Models Counterfactual Credit Assignment

Jun 14, 2026cs.CL

LLM-Assisted Stance Detection in Scientific Discourse: A Test Case in Bayesian Cognitive Science

Qualitative coding is central to social science, but expert annotation is difficult to scale. LLMs offer a possible extension, yet require careful validation when the target construct is interpretive, theoretically loaded, and only indirectly expressed. We study this problem in a difficult case: detecting whether authors treat Bayesian models as descriptions of mental and neural mechanisms (realism) or as useful mathematical tools (instrumentalism). Our method combines a theory-driven codebook, expert-coded reference annotations, a diagnostic-gated prompt-optimization search yielding a shared zero-shot prompt for three frontier LLMs (GPT-5.1, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro Preview), and multi-rater reliability analysis. The final prompt achieved a held-out combined reliability score of 0.76 (harmonic mean of ICC = 0.79 and

α

= 0.74), with all diagnostics satisfied. Deployed on 6,858 quotes from 210 articles, the three LLMs reached substantial quote-level agreement (ICC = 0.80;

α

= 0.76; combined = 0.78) and near-perfect article-level rank stability (

r

= 0.96-0.97 across rater pairs). The corpus was predominantly weakly realist, but article-level stances were rarely uniform: only 1.4% of articles used a single band, while 59.5% spanned four or more. Low-level perception/motor articles scored 8.8 Realism points higher than high-level cognition articles (

p < .001

,

d = 0.60

), quantifying a long-held qualitative intuition. We present this as an expert-led case study; the framework is intended to generalize to similar theoretically demanding tasks, not to all qualitative analysis.

Eyup Engin Kucuk, Tarik Kelestemur, Ömer Dağlar Tanrikulu

University of New Hampshire · Department of Psychology · Independent Researcher

Stance Detection LLM-Assisted Annotation LLM Reliability

Jun 14, 2026cs.HC

If These Walls Could Talk: Critical Play with Large Language Models in Museums

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in museums to as role playing chatbots which let visitors talk to simulated versions of people and artefacts from the past. While such installations can be playful and engaging, they are also problematic because LLMs cannot be trusted to speak truthfully. I identify a fundamental dilemma for the use of LLMs in museum chatbots: LLMs cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and efforts to make them more reliable may ruin that which is attractive about the bots in the first place - their ability to engage in life-like conversation. In response, I propose designing for critical play with LLM-based bots: Designing for playful interactions with bots that are unreliable but still able to represent the past in an adequate and engaging manner - as fictional characters representing historical narratives, styles of discourse, diverse perspectives, humor and satire.

Anders Sundnes Løvlie

Large Language Model-Based Role-Play Simulation LLM Reliability Conversational Agents

Jun 12, 2026cs.AI

Metric Match: A Subset Selection Approach to Evaluating LLM Judge Reliability

LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation. However, the reliability of these judges depends critically on their alignment with human raters -- a property that itself depends on costly human annotations. In this work, we develop a method (Metric Match) for estimating correlation-based reliability metrics of LLM judges from limited annotations. Metric Match selects a subset of samples for human annotation such that the subset matches the population reliability metric with respect to acquired synthetic labels. We empirically show that Metric Match achieves a win-rate of 0.838 against random subset selection across four different correlation metrics and 15 datasets, with an 18.7% decrease in average estimation error and reduces annotation needs by 32.5%. We provide a cost model and highlight a medical case study where our method saves $1,041.67 compared to random selection for expert annotation. Further, we shift our task from reliability estimation to reliability classification of whether a given judge is above a deployment threshold, outperforming random selection with Metric Match. All project code is publicly available, and we additionally provide an installable package for ease of use.

Alyssa Unell, Natalie Dullerud, Naomi Boneh +4

Department of Computer Science Stanford University · Department of Medicine Stanford University

LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Human-in-the-Loop Annotation LLM Reliability

Jun 12, 2026cs.CL

CoRA: Confidence-Rationale Alignment for Reliable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can improve LLM performance, but high answer confidence may be misleading when the accompanying CoT rationale is plausible yet incomplete or poorly supported. We study confidence--rationale alignment: whether a model's confidence in its committed answer is justified by its generated rationale. We introduce a GRPO-based reinforcement learning framework that jointly rewards answer correctness, committed-answer probability, and rubric-based rationale support, where the rubric assesses grounding, coherence, task match, and connection to the selected answer without revealing the gold answer to the judge. Across MedQA, MathQA, and OpenBookQA using three open-weight LLMs, our method reduces the confidence--rationale alignment error by up to 26.51% compared with untuned checkpoints, SFT, and correctness-only GRPO, while maintaining competitive accuracy and often improving calibration. These results show that reliable CoT reasoning requires not only confident answers, but rationales that substantively support them.

Juming Xiong, Weixin Liu, Kevin Guo +9

Vanderbilt University · Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Intuit AI Research

CoT Reasoning RL for Language Model Reasoning LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Jun 12, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Perplexity: UTF-8 Validity in Byte-aware Language Models

Byte-level tokenization enables language models to handle any Unicode input, but models can generate invalid UTF-8 sequences when encountering rare or unseen characters. We investigate the relationship between training scale and UTF-8 generation reliability with a 355M parameter model trained on 80B tokens from a balanced multilingual corpus of English, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. We introduce multiple evaluation protocols that isolate UTF-8 structural validity from language modeling. UTF-8 validity convergence lags perplexity by a roughly a factor of two: perplexity stabilizes after 2.1B tokens, but UTF-8 validity requires 4.2B tokens. In context-free generation, rare characters achieve higher structural validity than common characters, suggesting over-specialization of frequent character representations. Through experiments, we observed that reliable UTF-8 generation is a distinct capability requiring evaluation beyond perplexity.

Sangwhan Moon, Daisuke Oba, Youmi Ma +2

Google LLC / Mountain View, CA, USA · Institute of Science Tokyo / Tokyo, Japan · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence / Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Byte-Level Language Model LLM Reliability Language Modeling

Jun 11, 2026cs.CL

Operadic consistency: a label-free signal for compositional reasoning failures in LLMs

Detecting LLM reasoning failures at inference time without ground-truth labels has motivated a wide range of confidence baselines, including self-consistency, semantic entropy, and P(True), built on within-question sampling and self-evaluation. Operad theory, the formalism for systems built by iterated substitution, suggests a complementary diagnostic: a model's direct answer to a compositional query should agree with the answer it produces by composing a stated decomposition of the same query. We instantiate this idea as operadic consistency (OC), a per-question signal. Across twelve instruction-tuned LLMs (4B to 671B parameters, open-weights and closed-source) on four multi-hop QA datasets, OC is strongly correlated with accuracy on every dataset (Pearson

r \in [0.86, 0.94]

, all

p \leq 0.0004

), and is the only signal we evaluate with

r \geq 0.85

uniformly across all four datasets. Chain-of-thought self-consistency (CoT-SC; Wang et al., 2023) matches OC on HotpotQA and DROP (

r = 0.93, 0.87

) but drops to

r \approx 0.45

on MuSiQue and StrategyQA. At the per-question level, OC contributes information beyond CoT-SC and semantic entropy on every dataset (cluster-robust

p \leq 10^{-16}

for the OC coefficient), and the conclusion is robust to additionally controlling for constructed decomposition-aware baselines (

p \leq 10^{-13}

). The same signal yields selective-prediction improvements (accuracy at fixed coverage) over a tuned CoT-SC baseline at the equal-cost

K = 3

budget (AUARC lifts of +0.086 to +0.096 and AUROC lifts of +0.092 to +0.164; 95% CIs exclude zero on every cell). On five frontier thinking models, where the decomposition is extracted from the model's own chain of thought, the same equal-cost comparison gives positive selective-prediction point-estimate lift on all 16 (dataset, budget, metric) cells tested, with 95% CIs excluding zero on 12 of the 16.

Nathaniel Bottman, Yinhong Liu, Kyle Richardson

Incubilate · University of Cambridge · Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Compositional Reasoning Reasoning Consistency in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation