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 2, 2026cs.CL

The Geometry of LLM-as-Judge: Why Inter-LLM Consensus Is Not Human Alignment

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

Sourabrata Mukherjee, Hamna Hamna, Kalika Bali +1

Microsoft Research

Inter-Rater Reliability Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Reliability

Jun 1, 2026cs.AI

Thinking Past the Answer: Evaluating Harmful Overthinking in Large Reasoning Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined. While recent evidence shows that additional reasoning can lead models to overthink, we ask: "Once a model has reached the correct answer, does further reasoning refine the solution, or deviate from it?" To study the dynamics after correctness, we introduce a prefix-level trajectory evaluation protocol grounded in reasoning sufficiency, defining the minimum reasoning budget required for a model to first generate the correct answer. This allows us to disentangle verbose overthinking, where additional reasoning is redundant but harmless, from harmful overthinking, where continued reasoning destabilizes an already-correct trajectory. Starting from multimodal benchmarks, we find that many instances considered reasoning-intensive require surprisingly little reasoning. Moreover, stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%, revealing that current models are limited not only by their ability to reason, but also by their inability to stop at the right time. Furthermore, while common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking (up to 50%), they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking. Failure analysis reveals that correctness deviations are mainly driven by logical drift and visual reinterpretation. Finally, we show that our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk. Code available at https://simonecaldarella.github.io/thinking-past-the-answer.

Simone Caldarella, Davide Talon, Rahaf Aljundi +2

University of Trento · 3Fondazione Bruno Kessler · 2Toyota Motor Europe

LLM Evaluation Overthinking in Language Models Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reliability Large Reasoning Models Reasoning Trace Analysis

Jun 1, 2026cs.AI

Does Compression Preserve Uncertainty? A Unified Benchmark for Quantized and Sparse LLMs via Conformal Prediction

Model compression techniques such as quantization and pruning are widely used to reduce the deployment cost of large language models (LLMs), with existing evaluations focusing almost exclusively on accuracy preservation. However, in safety-critical applications, a model's ability to reliably quantify its own uncertainty is equally important. We ask: does compression preserve this ability? To answer this question, we benchmark 12 LLMs under various compression configurations across five NLP tasks, using conformal prediction to provide a rigorous, distribution-free measure of uncertainty. Our experiments reveal that: (I) compression frequently decouples accuracy from uncertainty; (II) larger models absorb compression-induced uncertainty far more effectively than smaller ones; and (III) uncertainty inflation is often threshold-like rather than gradual. These results suggest that accuracy-only evaluation is insufficient for assessing the deployment readiness of compressed LLMs, and that uncertainty-aware benchmarking should be a standard component of model compression pipelines.

Yujia Tong, Yuxi Wang, Yunyang Wan +3

Wuhan University of Technology · Nanyang Technological University

LLM Quantization LLM Evaluation LLM Pruning LLM Compression Confidence Estimation in Language Models LLM Reliability+1

May 31, 2026cs.AI

TriLens: Per-Layer Logit-Lens Entropy for White-Box Hallucination Detection

When a language model hallucinates, the final answer is wrong, but the mistake is not necessarily invisible inside the model. Different internal pathways may remain uncertain, disagree in how quickly they sharpen, or commit to competing continuations before the output is produced. We introduce TriLens, a white-box detector that turns this intuition into a compact representation: at every layer, it reads the multi-head self-attention output, the feed-forward output, and the residual stream through the model's own logit lens, then records only the entropy of each readout. The resulting 3L-dimensional trajectory describes how certainty forms across depth and across modules, without storing high-dimensional hidden states or sampling multiple generations. This simple signal yields a strong detector across instruction-tuned LLMs and QA benchmarks, and our analyses show that the three module-wise entropy trajectories provide complementary evidence. TriLens suggests that hallucination detection can benefit from tracking how internal computation settles, not only what the final layer predicts.

Bohan Yang, Yijun Gong, Zhi Zhang +3

Binjiang Institute of Zhejiang University · Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University · Great Bay University +1

Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 30, 2026cs.LG

Accuracy, Stability, and Repeated-Run Reliability of Large Language Models on Deterministic Programming Tasks

Run-level pass rate overstates retry-free coverage by up to 17.8 percentage points -- and the gap is largest precisely for mid-performing systems. We investigate this accuracy--stability relationship in large language model (LLM) evaluation for deterministic text-conditioned generation, using programming tasks as a concrete testbed. Standard code-generation benchmarks emphasize single-run accuracy or eventual success under repeated sampling, but many deployment settings also require stability: consistent outcomes across repeated invocations under the same task description. We present a repeated-run evaluation protocol with metrics for run-level accuracy, retry-free coverage, and per-problem variability. On a recency-based benchmark of 100 LeetCode-style problems, we evaluate 16 models from five provider families under two prompt templates with five repeated runs per problem, yielding 16,000 evaluation instances. Although run-level pass rate and perfect stability rate are strongly correlated (r=0.985), pass rate consistently exceeds retry-free coverage -- a gap that reaches 17.8 percentage points and reverses model rankings even among closely matched systems. Prompt effects are model-dependent rather than uniformly beneficial. These results suggest that repeated-run stability analysis is a necessary complement to conventional accuracy reporting for deterministic text-conditioned generation tasks.

Yongxi Zhou, Lai Yun Choi, Jiaxi Wen +1

Northeastern University, Massachusetts, USA · University of Southern California, California, USA

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Reliability Code Generation Evaluation

May 30, 2026cs.CL

Towards Lightweight Reliability: Using Soft Prompts for Hallucination Mitigation in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have seen widespread adoption across various domains, yet their reliability is frequently undermined by hallucinations - responses that are plausible-sounding but factually incorrect. In high-stakes domains, these errors can reduce trust and introduce real-world risk. To address this challenge, we present a parameter-efficient approach that uses soft prompts to mitigate hallucinated content and promote responsible abstention in generative question-answering (QA) tasks. Our method, called Responsible Contrastive Soft Prompting (RCSP), uses a composite loss to train soft prompts that balance three goals: suppressing hallucinatory content, encouraging abstention under uncertainty, and preserving or improving factual recall. To achieve these goals, we incorporate contrastive loss, curriculum learning, and KL regularization into our training mechanism. We evaluate our approach on five diverse generative QA datasets using an LLM-as-a-Judge framework. Experimental results on the Gemma 3 (12B) and Llama 3.1 (8B) backbones demonstrate that RCSP effectively balances factual recall with hallucination suppression and abstention, yielding a generally superior F-score over standard reasoning and instruction-based prompting baselines. Notably, these improvements are achieved by training only a fraction of the parameters required by other tuning techniques. Our results demonstrate that soft prompts provide a modular and computationally efficient path toward improving LLM reliability.

S M Tahmid Siddiqui, Akib Jawad Ononto, Anoop Singhal +1

The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA · National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA

LLM Hallucination Mitigation Question Answering Prompt Tuning LLM Reliability LLM Abstention

May 30, 2026cs.LG

Sequential statistical inference for Large Language Models: Representation, validity, and monitoring

This discussion argues that sequential statistical inference can naturally contribute to LLM trustworthiness. In deployment, LLM systems are queried repeatedly, conditioned on evolving contexts, and incorporate user or tool feedback, and may exhibit behavioral shifts after model updates or distribution changes. The discussion is organized around three tasks: representation, modeling LLM interactions as dependent stochastic processes rather than isolated prompt--response pairs; validity, developing uncertainty guarantees that remain meaningful under dependence, repeated use, and adaptation; and monitoring, using sequential alarms and change-point detection to identify shifts in calibration, hallucination rates, refusal behavior, fairness, or other task-relevant properties. This perspective complements recent surveys by viewing trustworthy LLM deployment as a problem of statistical process control.

Yao Xie

H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 30, 2026cs.LG

Score $\times$ Decoder: A Unified View of Unsupervised Inference-Time Scaling for Hallucination Mitigation

Large language models hallucinate even when the answer lies within their parameters. While inference-time scaling can surface this latent knowledge, the most effective methods require supervision: a trained verifier or reward model. We ask what can be done with only a base language model: which intrinsic signal best identifies correct outputs, and how should it be decoded? We cast this as a score~

\times

~decoder grid pairing four scores (perplexity, contrastive, power-distribution likelihood, and self-verification) with three decoding families (optimization, sampling, consensus), and evaluate every cell on MATH500 with the base and instruction-tuned Qwen3-1.7B. While self-verification, which prompts the model to judge its own answer and is sharpened by a training-free virtual-thinking prefix, works well in most settings, no score has a fixed quality: its value depends on the decoder that consumes it and on model capability. When no supervision is available, the score and the decoding family must be chosen together.

Yun-Chen Cheng, Che-Yu Lin, Cheng-Lin Yang

CyCraft AI Lab, Taiwan

Language Model Decoding LLM Hallucination Mitigation Inference-Time Scaling LLM Reliability

May 29, 2026cs.AI

Capability Self-Assessment: Teaching LLMs to Know Their Limits

The ability to recognize one's own limitations and decide whether to solve a problem or delegate is fundamental for reliable intelligent systems. Yet we show that modern large language models systematically lack this ability: across diverse model families and scales, they overestimate their competence and attempt queries they cannot solve. We refer to this ability as Capability Self-Assessment (CSA) and formulate it as a policy-learning problem, aiming to improve self-assessment while preserving the model's original capabilities. Our results show that reinforcement learning teaches CSA effectively, significantly outperforming supervised fine-tuning while preserving original capabilities. In contrast, supervised fine-tuning severely degrades the capabilities the model is meant to assess. Moreover, learned self-assessment behavior generalizes well out of distribution, suggesting that CSA is a transferable model trait. Finally, CSA is practically useful: it improves local-cloud decision making at inference time and provides a signal for targeted data selection during training.

Haoyan Yang, Reza Shirkavand, Yukai Jin +3

Stony Brook University · University of Maryland · Florida State University

LLM Evaluation Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability Metacognition in Language Models

May 29, 2026cs.CL

BenHalluEval: A Multi-Task Hallucination Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models on Bengali

Despite Bengali being the sixth most spoken language in the world, no prior work has systematically evaluated hallucination in large language models (LLMs) for Bengali. We introduce BenHalluEval, a fine-grained hallucination evaluation framework for Bengali covering four tasks: Generative Question Answering (GQA), Bangla-English Code-Mixed QA, Summarization, and Reasoning. We construct 12,000 hallucinated candidates using GPT-5.4 across twelve task-specific hallucination types, drawn from three existing Bengali datasets, and evaluate seven LLMs spanning reasoning-oriented, multilingual, and Bengali-centric categories under a dual-track protocol that independently measures false-positive rate on ground-truth instances (Track A) and hallucination detection rate on hallucinated candidates (Track B). To jointly penalise both failure modes and prevent inflated scores from uniform response bias, we propose BenHalluScore, a dual-track calibration metric that ranges from 7.72% to 55.42% across models and tasks, revealing substantial variation in hallucination calibration. Chain-of-thought prompting, applied as a mitigation strategy, shifts response distributions without consistently improving hallucination discrimination. BenHalluEval establishes the first dedicated hallucination benchmark for Bengali and highlights the inadequacy of single-track and prompting-only evaluation approaches for low-resource language settings. The dataset and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/BanglaHalluEval-EB77.

Shefayat E Shams Adib, Ahmed Alfey Sani, Ekramul Alam Esham +3

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Islamic University of Technology · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Language Model Generation Evaluation Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models Language Model Calibration+1

May 29, 2026cs.CL

LLM Judges Inconsistently Disagree Across Safety Criteria and Harm Categories

We evaluate the consistency of automated judges in conducting a multi-dimensional safety evaluation in a reference-free setup. Our results indicate that Large Language Models are unreliable judges in identifying safety issues related to machine-generated advice in regulated domains such as finance, although they are more reliable at identifying more overt forms of unsafe/harmful content such as violence. The degree of inconsistency in a model's judgments can vary significantly by the chosen safety criteria and can be impacted by the language of the content and its linguistic style as well. Finally, there is high disagreement among different judges for the same output, across domains, safety criteria, and languages. These findings provide new insights on the practice of using LLMs as evaluators and offer several recommendations for practitioners on how to use automated judges in practical scenarios.

Krishnapriya Vishnubhotla, Sowmya Vajjala, Akriti Vij +1

National Research Council, Canada · IMDA, Singapore

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Reliability

May 29, 2026cs.AI

LLM-FACETS: A Privacy-Preserving Framework for Evaluating LLM Transparency and Accountability

Assessing whether Large Language Models outputs are factually grounded, epistemically calibrated, and methodologically reproducible is a prerequisite for responsible AI deployment. Yet auditing LLMs remains inaccessible to non-technical practitioners: existing tools require programming expertise and non-trivial environment setup, and cloud-hosted platforms transmit evaluation data to external services, creating barriers for domain experts and compliance officers legally responsible for AI oversight. We introduce LLM-FACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture, structured around three practitioner profiles (technical experts, domain experts, compliance officers) that mirror the stakeholder categories identified in the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The architecture makes data flows explicit: deterministic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore) run entirely within the self-hosted server with no outbound transmission; LLM-judge metrics contact external APIs explicitly, with users retaining full credential control. The framework operationalizes transparency through three mechanisms: token-level log-probability visualization for epistemic uncertainty, multi-judge consensus to mitigate judge bias, and RAG Triad metrics (Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Relevance) to detect and localize hallucinations. A plugin architecture allows any new metric or dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline. The open-source implementation enables cross-checking across multiple metrics targeting the same property, ensuring reproducibility and decoupling AI accountability from the teams building the systems assessed. We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.

Tom Lucas, Alessio Buscemi, Alfredo Capozucca +2

Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Luxembourg, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, and Scriptor Artis, France · Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Luxembourg · University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg +1

LLM Evaluation AI Accountability LLM Auditing LLM Reliability

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Toxic HallucinAItions: Perturbing Prompts and Tracing LLM Circuits

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where user tone ranges from polite to adversarial or toxic, yet less is known about whether toxic language in otherwise semantically equivalent prompts can degrade factual reliability. We study how lexical and tone-based prompt perturbations affect the factual reliability of LLMs. Using controlled prompt variations across polite, random, and three toxicity levels, we evaluate five LLMs on ARC-Easy, GSM8K, and MMLU. We find that toxic lexical perturbations consistently reduce factual accuracy and increase uncertainty, while polite phrasing yields limited and inconsistent changes. To examine whether these answer inconsistencies correspond to internal changes, we conduct attribution-graph analyses of model activations and influences. We find that increasing toxicity selectively amplifies perturbation-sensitive variant nodes while relatively stable core reasoning nodes remain more invariant. These findings position prompt tone as a critical dimension of LLM reliability and provide behavioral and mechanistic evidence that surface-level lexical variation can alter factual outputs and internal computation.

Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Agam Goyal, Amruta Parulekar +6

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Nimblemind

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Interpretability LLM Reliability Language Model Robustness

May 28, 2026cs.CL

The Architecture of Errors: From Universal Impossibility to Patch-Local LLM Reliability

Universal LLM reliability is not a finite-library problem: across all possible tasks, tools, schemas, knowledge sources, and evaluator expectations, new intervention-distinguishable failure modes can appear without bound, so no finite intervention dictionary can guarantee bounded residual error for every such mode. But deployed systems do not operate over the whole universe. They operate inside operationally bounded patches (legal review, medical RAG, code repair, customer-support agents, contract extraction) with recurring tasks, schemas, tools, and evaluator expectations. Within such patches, empirical evidence suggests failures are sparse, repetitive, and concentrated in a small recurring catalogue, so reliability becomes a local catalogue-discovery and intervention-coverage problem rather than an exponential token-length problem. We formalize this transition with two propositions and one corollary. Proposition 1 is the worst-case-mode-wise negative result: no finite intervention dictionary covers every distinguishable failure mode of an unbounded domain. Corollary 1 is the inverse-discovery implication: the logarithmic upper bound on mode discovery cannot accommodate linearly more distinct tail modes without exponentially more observed hard-failure events. Proposition 2 is the positive patch-local result: under log active-mode exposure and head-heavy coverage, a sufficient per-hard-decision intervention budget grows polylogarithmically in sequence length and becomes domain-constant once the patch catalogue saturates. The framework relocates rather than dissolves long-context difficulty: where the number of hard decisions itself grows with task length, reliability remains hard; the contribution is to identify the on-axis intervention rather than to make those regimes easy.

Mikhail L. Arbuzov, Lee Mosbacker, Sisong Bei +3

Independent Researcher · Palo Alto Networks

LLM Reliability

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating using Mock Tool Calls to Quarantine Untrusted Prompt Inputs

Large language models must frequently process untrusted inputs, such as judging an answer from another model or running tasks like spam and harm classifiers while under adversarial pressure. These inputs are often string-formatted directly into a prompt template, leaving systems fragile to manipulation. Current LLM specs from major providers like OpenAI distinguish trustworthiness along an Instruction Hierarchy, from System messages (most trusted) to Tool Results (least trusted). A possible natural mitigation is to wrap untrusted content in a mock tool call as a quarantine. We explore this hypothesis with an automated redteaming search over static attack strings across seven models and three LLM-as-a-Judge tasks. Counter to our hypothesis, tool-wrapping does not broadly improve robustness. On a binary evaluation task (GSM8K grading) it typically increases attack success rates, an apparent inversion of the instruction hierarchy. On scalar and pairwise tasks the effect is smaller and model-dependent, with no tested model reliably helped, and several showing inversion. We recommend evaluating this limitation in deployed systems, and longer-term, pursuing stronger Instruction Hierarchy training or new untrusted-input primitives.

David Gros, Adam Gleave

Language Model Safety Evaluation Adversarial Attacks on LLMs LLM Security LLM Reliability Prompt Injection Defense Language Model Robustness

May 28, 2026cs.LG

SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones?

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Sy-Tuyen Ho, Minghui Liu, Huy Nghiem +1

University of Maryland, College Park

AI for Science LLM Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Reliability Automated Peer Review

May 28, 2026cs.CL

CommunityFact: A Dynamic, Multilingual, Multi-domain Benchmark for Misinformation Detection in the Wild

Misinformation verification increasingly occurs in public, fast-moving, and multilingual online settings, where static benchmarks provide an incomplete measure of model reliability. We introduce CommunityFact, a refreshable benchmark for misinformation detection in the wild, with three major goals: coverage, granularity, and redistributability. This release contains 15,992 standalone claims across five languages and two domains. We evaluate ten LLMs under varying inference-time capabilities, including thinking and web-search. Our results show that closed-input verification remains challenging, web access yields the largest gains, and web-enabled LLMs' source-selection policies are systematically misaligned with the sources human Community Notes raters converge on -- a gap that closes through model-specific mechanisms of retrieval expansion or pruning. We further find substantial variation across language-domain slices and across the evidence ecosystems used by web-enabled systems. Beyond evaluation, CommunityFact positions Community Notes as a training signal for claim-conditioned source suggesters that could improve factual verification on novel claims.

Sahajpreet Singh, Insyirah Mujtahid, Min-Yen Kan +1

National University of Singapore

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Fake News Detection Automated Fact-Checking LLM Reliability

May 28, 2026cs.AI

Harnessing non-adversarial robustness in large language models

The work presents an approach for addressing the challenge of robustness in Large Language Models (LLMs) to alterations and potential errors caused by semantically similar but textually different prompts. Recent works have shown that these kinds of prompt variations can significantly impact the performance of LLMs on tasks. The central question is: can LLMs' robustness to semantically-neutral prompt alterations be acquired without expensive retraining of the entire model? We address this question both theoretically and through experiments. Our theoretical analysis reveals a crucial factor impacting model robustness - a systematic expected shift or perturbation-induced bias in neural network module outputs. Motivated by this analysis, we show that robustness can be achieved via a simple fine-tuning process: debiasing for robustness. We identify conditions when debiasing helps and when it does not, and demonstrate, through both theory and extensive experiments, that debiasing for robustness may indeed be a quick and efficient tool to enhance robustness and provide certification against random prompt perturbations.

Qinghua Zhou, Ellina Aleshina, Andrey Lovyagin +6

International Joint Laboratory of AI for Industry, QUST, Qingdao, China · King’s College London, London, UK · Applied AI Institute, Moscow, Russia +2

LLM Fine-Tuning Neural Network Robustness LLM Reliability Certified Robustness Language Model Robustness Prompt Robustness

May 27, 2026cs.CL

Can LLMs Use Linguistic Uncertainty Markers to Reliably Reflect Intrinsic Confidence?

LLMs' linguistically expressed confidence should faithfully reflect their intrinsic uncertainty. While recent work shows LLMs struggle to use epistemic markers (e.g., "it is likely...") in a human-aligned fashion, it remains unclear whether models can apply their own linguistic confidence framework to associate markers with specific confidence levels in a stable and generalizable way, and how contextual features impact this ability. We conduct the first systematic study of this question, formalizing marker internal confidence (MIC) as the estimated intrinsic confidence a model associates with a specific epistemic marker in a given task domain. We present 7 metrics to evaluate the stability of MICs within and across distributions. Applying our analysis framework to diverse models and tasks, we find that LLMs remain faithfully miscalibrated even under model-centric interpretation of marker meanings, struggling to differentiate markers by internal confidence across distributions despite preserving a somewhat consistent ranking order across tasks. This supplies critical, complementary evidence to existing work toward a holistic understanding of faithful calibration in LLMs, emphasizing the need for more aligned and stable marker use to improve trustworthiness and reliability.

Gabrielle Kaili-May Liu, Arman Cohan

Yale University

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Entropy Distribution as a Fingerprint for Hallucinations in Generative Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate factually incorrect outputs, commonly termed hallucinations, that undermine trust and limit deployment in high-stakes settings. Existing hallucination detection methods typically require multiple forward passes, or access to model internals. In this work, we provide theoretical background and empirical evidence that the distribution of token-level entropies, beyond the mean captured by perplexity or length-normalised entropy, serves as a fingerprint of hallucination, with distributional shape and tail behaviour carrying independent signal. We formalize hallucination detection as a statistical hypothesis test and propose the Calibrated Entropy Score (CES), a lightweight algorithm requiring only a single forward pass and black-box access to token logits. CES combines the mean signal with the maximum signal of the generated entropy through a calibrated reference CDF, producing scores that are directly comparable across models and tasks. We establish finite-sample calibration guarantees via a novel random-length Dvoretzky--Kiefer--Wolfowitz inequality, and also prove that CES detects hallucinations with probability converging to one exponentially fast in the generation length. Across eight QA benchmarks and ten generator models spanning open-source and API access models, CES achieves the highest detection performance among all single-pass black-box methods while providing formal error guarantees that existing heuristics lack. Remarkably, CES is statistically indistinguishable from multi-sample methods that require far greater computational cost, closing the gap between lightweight and expensive detection and making it suitable for real-time, large-scale deployment.

Mattia J. Villani, Pranav Deshpande, Akshay Seshadri +2

Global Technology Applied Research, JPMorganChase, New York, NY 10001, USA

Language Model Error Detection Language Model Generation Evaluation Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection+1

May 27, 2026cs.CL

The Fragility of Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Across Typologically Diverse Languages

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring has been proposed as a promising safety mechanism for detecting misaligned behavior in large language models. However, its reliability remains largely unexplored beyond English and across diverse model families. We present the first large-scale evaluation of CoT monitorability across 13 diverse languages and seven frontier model families, comprising 16 models. Using adversarial-hint evaluations that require explicit intermediate computation, together with analysis of internal answer-token probabilities, we consistently find CoT unfaithfulness across languages and hint types, with an average rate of 95.9% across 8B--120B parameter models. We find that frontier models systematically exhibit strategic manipulation, including answer-switching, post-hoc rationalization, and procedural exploitation of hints, making their reasoning difficult to reliably monitor. These deceptive patterns remain especially pronounced in low-resource languages, revealing fundamental limitations in current CoT-based oversight. Our results show that CoT monitoring is fragile under linguistic distribution shift, providing a substantially weaker safety signal than English-only studies suggest. These findings motivate the development of more robust CoT monitors and complementary white-box monitoring techniques, particularly for mid- and low-resource languages. Our code is available \href{https://multilingual-cot-monitoring.github.io/}{\textcolor{blue}{here}}.

Eric Onyame, Runtao Zhou, Kowshik Thopalli +2

University of Virginia · Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

CoT Faithfulness Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation Deception in Language Models LLM Reliability Language Model Robustness+1

May 26, 2026cs.LG

A Paired Testing Protocol for Batch-Conditioned Refusal Robustness in LLM Serving

Safety evaluations of language models often treat serving configuration as fixed background infrastructure, but batch condition is an untested treatment variable whenever the same prompt may be evaluated alone, in a synchronized batch, or inside a continuous-batching scheduler. We synthesize four artifact-backed studies into a paired testing protocol: Study A combines local discovery, scorer-corrected adjudication, and true-batching confirmation; Study B tests cross-model generalization; Study C tests continuous-batch composition; and Study D runs a batch-invariant-kernel ablation. The local test finds safety-label changes more often than capability-label changes (0.51% vs. 0.14%), but adjudication of 63 candidate rows leaves only 17 genuine behavioral flips, implying a corrected full-set rate of 0.16%. The 15-model extension finds no detectable universal safety-over-capability skew: flips are near parity (0.94x), alignment type has no detectable association (

p=0.942

,

η^2=0.033

), and output instability is the strongest tested fragility screen (

r=0.909

, bootstrap 95% CI [0.65, 0.97]). In the targeted kernel ablation, standard vLLM reproduces 22/55 label flips on current score-flip candidates, while enabling VLLM_BATCH_INVARIANT=1 reduces the same test to 0/55 flips; the composition test separately finds no aggregate effect at 4.7pp sensitivity. The testing recommendation is exact-stack validation: evaluate refusal at the served batch setting, pair safety prompts with capability controls, and report low-rate directional flips separately from aggregate null effects.

Sahil Kadadekar

Independent Researcher.

LLM Inference Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Refusal Behavior LLM Reliability Language Model Robustness Refusal Behavior in Language Models

May 26, 2026cs.AI

Asking Is Not Enough: Protocol Sensitivity in LLM Confidence Calibration

LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence. These signals are sometimes treated as direct readouts of model uncertainty, but their comparison depends on measurement choices that are rarely made explicit. In the main analysis, we hold the verbalized-confidence elicitation fixed: a single prompt template, probability scale, and output format. We then vary the measurement axes that define the verbalized-vs-token comparison: which answer string receives the token-probability score, how that score is read from the answer tokens, and under which conditioning context it is measured. We evaluate this design on four QA benchmarks across three open 7--8B base/Instruct model families, with larger Qwen2.5 variants as same-family robustness checks. The resulting comparison is sensitive to these choices: conditioning context changes the sign or magnitude of the ECE gap across settings, token readout produces smaller but still sign-moving changes, and changing the ECE estimator has little effect. Under the default generated-answer, bare-context protocol, Instruct settings are close to parity rather than showing a large calibration gain for verbalized confidence. In a separate supplied-answer analysis, surface-plausible wrong answers receive nearly the same confidence as supplied gold answers, suggesting that verbalized confidence also reflects answer plausibility and provenance rather than correctness alone. We argue that both confidence signals should be treated as protocol-dependent behavioral measurements, and provide a reporting checklist covering elicitation provenance, scored answer, token-probability readout, and conditioning context.

Hankyeol Kim, Pilsung Kang

Seoul National University

LLM Evaluation Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 26, 2026cs.CL

Chain-based Adaptive Reconfiguration Over Lattices for Hallucination Reduction

We introduce CAROL (Chain-based Adaptive Reconfiguration Over Lattices), a probabilistic framework for test-time hallucination reduction in large language models. Rather than relying on token-level uncertainty, CAROL defines a semantic uncertainty measure based on the consistency between generated responses and a trusted context, inducing a string-submodular objective over a lattice of textual sequences. This formulation enables hallucination mitigation to be cast as a Markov chain accept-reject process with provable convergence and near-optimality guarantees, allowing the model to iteratively refine outputs toward semantic consistency. By operating at the level of meaning, CAROL unifies hallucination detection and mitigation within a single framework. Empirical results on question answering and multi-agent reasoning benchmarks show that CAROL significantly reduces hallucinations and improves reliability and interpretability compared to likelihood-based and retrieval-augmented baselines, while maintaining competitive computational efficiency.

Joan Vendrell Gallart, Solmaz Kia, Russell Bent +1

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace University of California Irvine Irvine, CA 92617-4322, USA · T-5 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 88220, USA · CAI-4 Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 88220, USA

LLM Hallucination Mitigation Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection

May 26, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating the Relevance of Uncertainty Estimators for LLM Hallucination

Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, i.e., statements unsupported by the input or training data, hindering reliable deployment. In parallel, numerous uncertainty estimation (UE) methods have been proposed to quantify model confidence and are often implicitly treated as proxies for model failure. However, the relationship between uncertainty and hallucinations remains insufficiently characterized. We present a systematic empirical study of the association between uncertainty estimators and hallucinations in LLMs. Rather than assuming this association, we evaluate directly when and to what extent it holds. We consider a diverse set of uncertainty estimators, including information-theoretic, sampling-based, and reflexive estimators, and examine their behavior across hallucination settings. Our experiments cover both intrinsic hallucinations (violations of input faithfulness) and extrinsic hallucinations (unsupported claims relative to training data), using four complementary benchmarks, including RAGTruth and HalluLens. We find that the association is highly variable and often weak, depending on the hallucination type and the LLM under evaluation. These results challenge the use of uncertainty as a direct signal of hallucination and clarify when it provides actionable information.

Yedidia Agnimo, Anna Korba, Annabelle Blangero +2

Ekimetrics · Centre Inria de l’Université Grenoble Alpes · CREST, ENSAE +1

LLM Evaluation Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 26, 2026cs.LG

Innovation: An Almost Characterization of Hallucination

Hallucination is a central limitation of large language models (LLMs), and substantial effort has been devoted to understanding and mitigating it. Towards this, Kalai and Vempala (STOC 2024) introduced a probabilistic framework formalizing calibration and hallucination, and showed that, with high probability, calibrated LLMs hallucinate roughly at the rate of the "missing mass", a measure of how incomplete the training data is relative to its source. This raises two fundamental questions: (i) what property of a calibrated LLM makes hallucinations unavoidable? and (ii) can hallucinations be avoided by giving up calibration? We answer these questions by introducing a simpler property we call innovation that measures the tendency of a model to produce outputs outside the training data. We show that innovation is implied by the condition for hallucination identified by Kalai and Vempala, and, further, that it is an almost characterization of hallucination: hallucination implies innovation, and conversely, innovation implies hallucination with high probability. We also provide lower bounds on the hallucination rate based on the "innovation rate", and by relating innovation rate back to missing mass, we obtain new hallucination rate lower bounds based on missing mass that extend the results of Kalai and Vempala.

Nishant P. Das, Piyush Srivastava

School of Technology and Computer Science, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 005, India.

Hallucination in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Language Modeling

May 26, 2026cs.CL

SeDT: Sentence-Transformer Decision-Transformer Conditioning for Multi-Turn Conversation Reliability

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance when a task is fully specified in a single turn, yet the same models lose up to 39% of that performance when the identical task is revealed incrementally across multiple turns, a phenomenon documented at scale as Lost in Conversation. Crucially, this collapse is almost entirely a reliability failure; the best case, the aptitude only falls 16%, while the unreliability more than doubles (+112%). We argue that the root cause is structural, a flat conversation history assigns equal implicit weight to every prior turn, giving the model no signal to distinguish a critical constraint from incidental dialog. We present SeDT Sentence-transformer Decision-Transformer, a training-free inference-time method that resolves this by importing return-to-go conditioning from offline reinforcement learning. SeDT annotates each conversation shard with a cumulative relevance score derived from three complementary semantic, lexical, and positional signals and presents the full annotated history to the model at the final turn, without weight changes, without training data, and without discarding context. Evaluated on the Lost-in-Conversation benchmark in three LLMs and three generation tasks, SeDT outperforms the sharded baseline in all nine model-task combinations, with gains up to +37.7% in mean performance P and simultaneous reductions in unreliability in seven of the nine combinations. In short, telling the model which past turns matter is sufficient to substantially recover the performance lost in conversation.

Ramakrishna Vamsi Setti, Jagadeesh Rachapudi, Sachin Chaudhary +2

Independent Researcher · 2Drone Lab, IIT Mandi · 3UPES, Dehradun

LLM Reliability Language Model Robustness

May 26, 2026cs.AI

The Attribution Blind Spot: Detecting When Language Models Rely on Memory Rather Than Retrieved Context

Retrieval-augmented generation promises to ground language model outputs in external evidence, yet the field has no reliable way to verify whether retrieved context actually governs generation -- a prerequisite for any high-stakes deployment. The standard assumption, that context-consistent output implies context-governed output, breaks when the retrieved document overlaps with the model's pretraining data: the model can produce faithful-looking text entirely from parametric memory, and both pathways yield indistinguishable output. We name this failure the attribution blind spot and introduce Computational Reality Monitoring (CRM) to address it. CRM operationalizes a principle adapted from cognitive science's reality monitoring framework: comparing internal representations with and without context reveals membership-conditioned representational divergence that output-level monitors systematically miss. CRM does not certify which source an individual generation used; it detects whether pretraining exposure leaves a measurable internal trajectory signature, establishing a necessary substrate for source attribution. Across nine model variants spanning three families, this divergence concentrates in architecture-specific layer patterns, receives converging support from block-level noise intervention, and generalizes across tasks and datasets while collapsing on domain-confounded benchmarks. The attribution blind spot is measurable and partially addressable: internal representations carry a diagnostic signal invisible at the output level, establishing a foundation for systems whose internal awareness of evidence provenance governs their external behavior.

Zhe Yu, Wenpeng Xing, Yunzhao Wei +4

Binjiang Institute of Zhejiang University · Zhejiang University · National Fintech Evaluation Center +2

Memorization in Language Models LLM Interpretability Memorization in Generative Models LLM Reliability RAG Evaluation

May 26, 2026cs.AI

It's Not the Capability: Harness Sensitivity Is Non-Monotone Across LLM Agent Tiers

A prevalent assumption in LLM agent deployment holds that more structured harnesses universally improve reliability, and that higher-capability models need proportionally less structural guidance -- together implying a monotone inverse relationship between model capability tier and optimal harness complexity. We test this hypothesis through a controlled 432-run experiment crossing six models across four capability tiers with three harness conditions (light, balanced, strict) on HEAT-24, a 24-task synthetic benchmark with git-based workspace verification. Our results refute the monotone inverse relationship on two fronts. First, for the frontier chat model evaluated (Gemini 2.5 Flash), increased harness verbosity lowers VTSR by 29-38 percentage points -- a harness-complexity paradox. Second, for the frontier reasoning model evaluated (Qwen3.5-122B, extended thinking enabled), strict harness achieves the highest VTSR (91.7%) and the lowest latency, the opposite of the prediction. Within the constrained tier, a 2B model (Gemma4:e2B) matches strong-open-tier stability at 91.7% across all harnesses. Because each tier is represented by a single model in this study, these results should be interpreted as model-specific observations; harness sensitivity appears non-monotone across the models evaluated, and depends critically on model type (chat vs. reasoning). We introduce a six-label failure taxonomy showing that format_violation dominates capable-model failures while wrong_file dominates low-capability failures, and we derive practical tier-aware harness selection guidelines.

Yong-eun Cho

KailosLab · Seoul, Republic of Korea

AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Harness Optimization LLM Reliability LLM Agent Harnesses LLM Agent Reliability

May 25, 2026cs.CL

LLM-as-a-Reviewer: Benchmarking Their Ability, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Resistance as Paper Reviewers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic peer review, yet their reliability, alignment with human judgment, and robustness to adversarial attacks remain poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of LLM-as-a-Reviewer on 898 papers stratified from NeurIPS and ICLR, evaluating 12 LLMs along three axes: rating calibration, divergence from human reviewers, and resistance to prompt injection embedded via an invisible font-mapping attack. We find that LLMs systematically overrate weaker submissions and diverge from humans in topical emphasis, under-flagging Clarity and over-flagging Reproducibility, while producing reviews two to three times longer with lower lexical diversity and a more standardized vocabulary. Prompt injection remains highly effective. Simple hidden instructions can promote low-scoring papers to acceptance-level ratings in a substantial fraction of cases, with effectiveness varying sharply across model families. While LLMs offer utility in structuring evaluations, their integration into peer review requires safeguards against both intrinsic biases and adversarial risks.

Lingyao Li, Junjie Xiong, Changjia Zhu +5

University of South Florida · Missouri University of Science and Technology · University of Alabama +3

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Adversarial Attacks on LLMs LLM Reliability Language Model Bias Evaluation Automated Peer Review