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

May 4, 2026cs.IR

Towards Dependable Retrieval-Augmented Generation Using Factual Confidence Prediction

Incorporating specific knowledge into large language models via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a widespread technique that fuels many of today's industry AI applications. A fundamental problem is to assess if the context retrieved by some similarity search provides indeed supporting facts, or instead misguides the generator with irrelevant information. It is critical to associate meaningful confidence measures about the factuality of the retrieval process with the generated answers. We present a new, two-staged approach to predict fact faithfulness of the output of retrieval-augmented generations. First, we employ conformal prediction to select only those retrieved chunks who have a high chance to come from the correct source. This approach in itself can improve answer quality by up to 6% in some of the studied datasets, however, the associated statistical guarantees do not hold generally, since the assumption of sample exchangeability depends on the retriever setup. We present diagnostic metrics to assess whether a setup is suitable. Second, we quantify confidence in the consistency of a generated final answer with a given retrieved context, using an attention-based factuality classifier. This approach can detect inconsistent answers with a chance of up to 77%. Our work helps to establish a novel type of certified RAG systems for a broad range of natural language industry applications.

Florian Geissler, Francesco Carella, Laura Fieback +1

Fraunhofer Institute for Cognitive Systems (IKS), Munich, Germany · Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany

Retrieval-Augmented Generation Factual Consistency Evaluation LLM Reliability RAG Evaluation

May 4, 2026cs.CL

HalluScan: A Systematic Benchmark for Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in Instruction-Following LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse natural language processing tasks, yet they remain susceptible to hallucinations -- generating content that is factually incorrect, unfaithful to provided context, or misaligned with user instructions. We present HalluScan, a comprehensive benchmark framework that systematically evaluates hallucination detection and mitigation across 72 configurations spanning 6 detection methods, 4 open-weight model families, and 3 diverse domains. We introduce three key contributions: (1) HalluScore, a novel composite metric that achieves a Pearson correlation of r = 0.41 with human expert judgments; (2) Adaptive Detection Routing (ADR), an intelligent routing algorithm achieving 2.0x cost reduction with only 0.1% AUROC degradation; and (3) systematic error cascade decomposition revealing substantial variation in hallucination error types across domains. Our experiments reveal that NLI Verification achieves the highest overall AUROC of 0.88, while RAV achieves the second-highest AUROC of 0.66.

Ahmed Cherif

1Sofrecom Tunisia, Orange Innovation, Tunis, 1053, Tunisia.

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

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Zero-Shot Confidence Estimation for Small LLMs: When Supervised Baselines Aren't Worth Training

How reliably can a small language model estimate its own correctness? The answer determines whether local-to-cloud routing-escalating queries a cheap local model cannot handle-can work without supervised training data. As inference costs dominate large language model (LLM) deployment budgets, routing most queries to a cheap local model while reserving expensive cloud calls for hard cases is an increasingly common cost-control strategy. We compare zero-shot confidence signals against RouteLLM-style supervised baselines across three 7-8B model families and two datasets (1,000 and 500 queries per model, respectively). Average token log-probability, which requires no training data, matches or exceeds supervised baselines in-distribution (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.650-0.714 vs. 0.644-0.676) and substantially outperforms them out-of-distribution (0.717-0.833 vs. 0.512-0.564), because it measures a property of the model's generation rather than the query distribution. This paper further proposes retrieval-conditional self-assessment, a pre-generation signal that selectively injects retrieved knowledge when similarity is high, improving over bare self-assessment by up to +0.069 AUROC at 3-10x lower latency than log-probability. A supervised baseline trained on 1,000 labeled examples never exceeds the zero-shot signal. We release all code, data, and experiment logs.

Luong N. Nguyen

Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation LLM Routing

May 3, 2026cs.CL

What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

Ranit Karmakar, Jayita Chatterjee

Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115 · Boston, MA 02134

LLM Evaluation Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Benchmark Validity Language Model Robustness Prompt Robustness

May 3, 2026cs.CL

Language models fail at extended rule following

Large language models are highly capable of answering difficult questions by retrieving, recombining, and attending to information in long contexts. For agentic tasks, an additional capability is required: the preservation of an exact state while repeatedly applying rules. We find that this reliability is absent across language models. To demonstrate, we query 126 leading model variants with the task of counting a long string of repeated characters, and we find they all cannot accurately count above a model-dependent, syntax-sensitive counting capacity threshold. Failures are abrupt and persist even with increasing model size, inference time computation, and external tool. Mechanistic probing indicates that models use a finite number of internal states to mimic counting as a rule and fail once these states are exhausted. Furthermore, such states are the basis for performing complex tasks beyond counting. These results indicate that fundamentally new model architectures are required for autonomous agents to achieve truly reliable rule following capabilities.

Tianxiang Dai, Jonathan Fan

Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability State Tracking Algorithmic Reasoning

May 3, 2026cs.CL

Only Say What You Know: Calibration-Aware Generation for Long-Form Factuality

Large Reasoning Models achieve strong performance on complex tasks but remain prone to hallucinations, particularly in long-form generation where errors compound across reasoning steps. Existing approaches to improving factuality, including abstention and factuality-driven optimization, follow a \emph{coupled exploration-commitment} paradigm, in which intermediate reasoning is unconditionally propagated to the final output, limiting fine-grained control over information selection and integration. In this paper, we propose an \textbf{Exploration-Commitment Decoupling} paradigm that disentangles knowledge exploration from final commitment, enabling models to explore with awareness while answering cautiously. We instantiate the paradigm with \textbf{Calibration-Aware Generation (CAG)}, a framework that equips models with end-to-end, calibration-aware generation capabilities, by augmenting intermediate reasoning with calibrated reliability estimates and prioritizing reliable content in final outputs. Across five long-form factuality benchmarks and multiple model families, CAG improves factuality by up to 13%, while reducing decoding time by up to 37%. Overall, our work highlights decoupling as a principled approach for more reliable long-form generation, offering directions for trustworthy and self-aware generative systems.

Wen Luo, Guangyue Peng, Liang Wang +7

State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University Research Asia · MSRA · Microsoft

Long-Form Document Generation LLM Hallucination Mitigation Hallucination in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Large Reasoning Models

May 2, 2026cs.CL

Hallucinations Undermine Trust; Metacognition is a Way Forward

Despite significant strides in factual reliability, errors -- often termed hallucinations -- remain a major concern for generative AI, especially as LLMs are increasingly expected to be helpful in more complex or nuanced setups. Yet even in the simplest setting -- factoid question-answering with clear ground truth-frontier models without external tools continue to hallucinate. We argue that most factuality gains in this domain have come from expanding the model's knowledge boundary (encoding more facts) rather than improving awareness of that boundary (distinguishing known from unknown). We conjecture that the latter is inherently difficult: models may lack the discriminative power to perfectly separate truths from errors, creating an unavoidable tradeoff between eliminating hallucinations and preserving utility. This tradeoff dissolves under a different framing. If we understand hallucinations as confident errors -- incorrect information delivered without appropriate qualification -- a third path emerges beyond the answer-or-abstain dichotomy: expressing uncertainty. We propose faithful uncertainty: aligning linguistic uncertainty with intrinsic uncertainty. This is one facet of metacognition -- the ability to be aware of one's own uncertainty and to act on it. For direct interaction, acting on uncertainty means communicating it honestly; for agentic systems, it becomes the control layer governing when to search and what to trust. Metacognition is thus essential for LLMs to be both trustworthy and capable; we conclude by highlighting open problems for progress towards this objective.

Gal Yona, Mor Geva, Yossi Matias

Google Research · Tel Aviv University

LLM Hallucination Mitigation Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Trust in AI Metacognition in Language Models+1

May 1, 2026cs.CL

CLEAR: Revealing How Noise and Ambiguity Degrade Reliability in LLMs for Medicine

Medical large language model (LLM) evaluations rely on simplified, exam-style benchmarks that rarely reflect the ambiguity of real-world medical inquiries. We introduce the CLinical Evaluation of Ambiguity and Reliability (CLEAR) framework, which assesses how decision-space presentation, ambiguity, and uncertainty affect LLMs' reasoning on medical benchmarks. CLEAR systematically perturbs (1) the number of plausible answer options, (2) the presence of a ground truth or abstention option, and (3) the semantic framing of answer options. Applying CLEAR on three benchmarks evaluated across 17 LLMs reveals three notable limitations of existing evaluation methods. First, increasing the number of plausible answers degrades a model's ability to identify the correct answer and abstain against incorrect ones. Second, this lack of caution intensifies as the framing of abstention shifts from assertive rejection like "None of the Above" to uncertainty admission like "I don't know" (IDK). Notably, just including IDK in the answer space increases incorrect answer selections. Lastly, we formalize the performance gap between identifying the correct answer and abstaining from incorrect ones as the humility deficit, which worsens with model scale. Our findings reveal limitations in standard medical benchmarks and underscore that scaling alone does not resolve LLM reliability issues.

Kevin H. Guo, Chao Yan, Avinash Baidya +5

Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA · Intuit AI Research, Mountain View, CA, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA +2

Healthcare LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Clinical Language Model Evaluation Language Model Robustness Medical LLMs+1

May 1, 2026cs.IR

"I Don't Know" -- Towards Appropriate Trust with Certainty-Aware Retrieval Augmented Generation

Achieving the right amount of trust in AI systems is important, but challenging. The problem is exacerbated with the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) as they provide human-level communication capabilities, but potentially hallucinate in the content that they generate. Moreover, they express over-confidence in their answers, making it difficult for users to judge their truthfulness. An important human value that users seek is benevolence, which can be met by LLM's self-reflection leading to reliable and honest answers. Accordingly, this paper proposes conveying appropriate levels of self-reflected certainty to build appropriate trust. Our contributions are twofold: 1) We develop CERTA (Certainty Enhanced RAG for Trustworthy Answers), a specialized Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) system that incorporates the relevance between question, context, and answer to reflect its uncertainty in answering questions; 2) We create the Certainty Benchmark with 90 question-context pairs of non-objective questions, divided over four categories (factuality, preference, sycophancy, morality) and three types of contexts (relevant, incomplete, irrelevant). We run experiments with a baseline RAG system and three CERTA settings using two LLMs. Our evaluations indicate that CERTA helps identify answers that are uncertain, decreases the cases of over-agreeing, and provides cautious behavior when prompted for moral judgments.

Daan Di Scala, Maaike de Boer, Pınar Yolum

TNO Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Department Data Science · Utrecht University, Department of Information and Computing Sciences

Retrieval-Augmented Generation LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation RAG Evaluation Trust in AI LLM Honesty

Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

Models Recall What They Violate: Constraint Adherence in Multi-Turn LLM Ideation

When researchers iteratively refine ideas with large language models, do the models preserve fidelity to the original objective? We introduce DriftBench, a benchmark for evaluating constraint adherence in multi-turn LLM-assisted scientific ideation. Across 2,146 scored benchmark runs spanning seven models from five providers (including two open-weight), four interaction conditions, and 38 research briefs from 24 scientific domains, we find that iterative pressure reliably increases structural complexity and often reduces adherence to original constraints. A restatement probe reveals a dissociation between declarative recall and behavioral adherence, as models accurately restate constraints they simultaneously violate. The knows-but-violates (KBV) rate, measuring constraint non-compliance despite preserved recall, ranges from 8% to 99% across models. Structured checkpointing partially reduces KBV rates but does not close the dissociation, and complexity inflation persists. Human validation against blind raters confirms that the LLM judge under-detects constraint violations, making reported constraint adherence scores conservative. Sensitivity analyses confirm the findings are robust to temperature (0.7 vs.\ 1.0) and pressure type (novelty vs.\ rigor). We release all briefs, prompts, rubrics, transcripts, and scores as an open benchmark.

Garvin Kruthof

Technical University of Munich

LLM Evaluation LLM Alignment Instruction Following LLM Reliability Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery

Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

Geometry-Calibrated Conformal Abstention for Language Models

When language models lack relevant knowledge for a given query, they frequently generate plausible responses that can be hallucinations, rather than admitting being agnostic about the answer. Retraining models to reward admitting ignorance can lead to overly conservative behaviors and poor generalization due to scarce evaluation benchmarks. We propose a post hoc framework, Conformal Abstention (CA), adapted from conformal prediction (CP) to determine whether to abstain from answering a query. CA provides finite-sample guarantees on both the probability of participation (i.e., not abstaining) and the probability that the generated response is correct. Importantly, the abstention decision relies on prediction confidence rather than the non-conformity scores used in CP, which are intractable for open-ended generation. To better align prediction confidence with the model's ignorance, we introduce a calibration strategy using representation geometry within the model to measure knowledge involvement in shaping the response. Experiments demonstrate that we improve selective answering significantly with 75 percent conditional correctness.

Rui Xu, Yi Chen, Sihong Xie +1

Information Hub, AI Thrust Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Uncertainty Quantification Selective Prediction Confidence Estimation in Language Models Hallucination in Language Models Conformal Prediction Language Model Calibration+3

Apr 30, 2026cs.AI

Belief-Guided Inference Control for Large Language Model Services via Verifiable Observations

In black-box large language model (LLM) services, response reliability is often only partially observable at decision time, while stronger inference pathways incur substantial computational cost, inducing a budgeted sequential decision problem: for each request, the system should decide whether the default low-cost response is sufficiently reliable or whether additional computation should be allocated to improve response quality. In this paper, we propose \textbf{Ver}ifiable \textbf{O}bservations for Risk-aware \textbf{I}nference \textbf{C}ontrol (\textsc{Veroic}), a framework for adaptive inference control in black-box LLM settings, which formulates request-time control as a \textit{partially observable Markov decision process} to capture partial observability and sequential budget coupling. It constructs a lightweight verifiable observation channel from the input-output pair by aggregating heterogeneous quality signals into a belief state over latent response reliability, which is then used by a budget-aware policy to decide whether to return the default output or trigger a higher-cost inference pathway. Experiments on diverse tasks show that \textsc{Veroic} achieves improved quality-cost trade-offs, stronger risk estimation and calibration, and more robust long-horizon inference control than competitive baselines.

Wenhao Yuan, Chenchen Lin, Jian Chen +3

The University of Hong Kong · Sun Yat-sen University

LLM Inference Cost-Aware Inference LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

Know2Guess: A Contamination-Aware Multi-Zone Benchmark for Knowledge-Boundary Evaluation in Large Language Models

Reliable evaluation of large language models should separate supported answering from unsupported guessing without conflating either with data contamination, prompt idiosyncrasy, or generic refusal behavior. We present a contamination-aware, multi-zone benchmark for measuring the transition from answerable knowledge to abstention-expected unknowns under frozen build-time labels. The benchmark contains 1,200 items across five domains, explicit abstention expectations, contamination-risk metadata, and dual parsing with an official strict parser plus a normalized robustness parser. We evaluate FLAN-T5, Qwen2.5-Instruct, and Llama-3-Instruct models under locked answer-or-abstain prompts, answer-only controls, and prompt-template variants. The benchmark is not solved by generic non-answer behavior: FLAN baselines remain weak on productive abstention, while stronger instruction-tuned models expose a selective but incomplete transition from answering to abstaining. Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct achieves the best overall reliability, but answer-expected zones remain difficult, calibration remains poor, and benign-item refusal persists. Prompt and parser robustness analyses preserve the main ranking and qualitative conclusions. The benchmark therefore provides a reproducible protocol for auditing answerability, abstention, refusal, and contamination as distinct but interacting dimensions of LLM reliability.The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/renweimeng/Know2Guess-A-Contamination-Aware-Multi-Zone-Benchmark.

Renwei Meng, Bowen Zhang, Jian Wang +4

Anhui University, Hefei, China

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing LLM Reliability Data Contamination in Language Models LLM Abstention

Apr 29, 2026cs.CL

MoRFI: Monotonic Sparse Autoencoder Feature Identification

Large language models (LLMs) acquire most of their factual knowledge during the pre-training stage, through next token prediction. Subsequent stages of post-training often introduce new facts outwith the parametric knowledge, giving rise to hallucinations. While it has been demonstrated that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on new knowledge may exacerbate the problem, the underlying mechanisms are still poorly understood. We conduct a controlled fine-tuning experiment, focusing on closed-book QA, and find latent directions that causally contribute to hallucinations. Specifically, we fine-tune Llama 3.1 8B, Gemma 2 9B and Mistral 7B v03 on seven distinct single QA datasets, controlling for the percentage of new knowledge and number of training epochs. By measuring performance on the test set, we validate that incrementally introducing new knowledge increases hallucinations, with the effect being more pronounced with prolonged training. We leverage pre-trained sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to analyze residual stream activations across various checkpoints for each model and propose Monotonic Relationship Feature Identification (MoRFI) for capturing causally relevant latents. MoRFI filters SAE features that respond monotonically to controlled fine-tuning data mixtures of a target property. Our findings show that exposure to unknown facts disrupts the model's ability to retrieve stored knowledge along a set of directions in the residual stream. Our pipeline reliably discovers them across distinct models, recovering knowledge through single-latent interventions.

Dimitris Dimakopoulos, Shay B. Cohen, Ioannis Konstas

University of Edinburgh, UK · Heriot-Watt University, UK

LLM Hallucination Mitigation LLM Interpretability LLM Fine-Tuning Hallucination in Language Models Sparse Autoencoders LLM Reliability+2

Apr 29, 2026cs.CL

From Architecture to Output: Structural Origins of Hallucination in Large Language Models and the Amplifying Role of Data

Large language models hallucinate--producing fluent, confident, factually wrong outputs--with a consistency that persists across generations and scales. Existing taxonomies classify hallucination by output type, distinguishing intrinsic from extrinsic failures and faithfulness from factuality divergence. These frameworks are descriptively rigorous but do not identify which internal mechanism produced a given instance. This paper analyses hallucination as a structural consequence of three architectural decisions that together form a compound failure system. Self-attention's co-occurrence learning substitutes statistical proximity for semantic meaning and produces entity confusion, fact misattribution, and semantic drift. The maximum likelihood estimation training objective optimises next-token probability without factual constraint, rewarding statistically plausible outputs regardless of their truth value. Autoregressive decoding's permanent left-to-right commitment under exposure bias ensures that a single wrong token cascades forward through the entire output sequence without revision. Dataset pathologies--long-tail deficiencies, training bias, and synthetic pollution--amplify these vulnerabilities but do not independently cause them. We make three contributions. First, we map each mechanism to a specific output category in the Alansari and Luqman taxonomy, locating intrinsic hallucination in self-attention, extrinsic hallucination in MLE, and logical inconsistency in autoregressive decoding. Second, we show that each commonly cited dataset pathology exploits one of these mechanisms rather than originating hallucination independently. Third, we identify the diagnostic limitation of output-type-only classification and contrast it with inference-layer mitigation approaches.

Md. Rejaul Korim Sadi, Toufiqur Rahman Tasin, Golam Mostofa Naeem

*Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Metropolitan University, Sylhet, Bangladesh

Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability Attention Mechanisms LLM Training

Apr 28, 2026cs.CL

HIVE: Hidden-Evidence Verification for Hallucination Detection in Diffusion Large Language Models

Diffusion large language models generate text through iterative denoising, exposing hidden trajectories that may contain reliability signals beyond the final output. We propose HIVE, which compresses trajectory hidden states, selects informative step-layer evidence, and conditions a verifier through continuous prefix embeddings to produce a hallucination score and structured diagnostics. Across two D-LLMs and three QA benchmarks, HIVE outperforms eight established baselines and a verifier-backbone-matched text-only control in all six settings. Relative to text-only verification, hidden-evidence conditioning improves AUROC by 1.73--4.60 points and AUPRC by 1.10--3.62 points, with average gains of 3.15 and 2.28 points, respectively. Ablations, evidence interventions, and cross-dataset transfer further support the complementary value of fine-grained hidden trajectory evidence.

Guoshenghui Zhao, Tan Yu, Weijie Zhao

Rochester Institute of Technology · NVIDIA Corporation

Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection Diffusion Language Models

Apr 28, 2026cs.CY

Large language models eroding science understanding: an empirical study of malignment

This paper is accepted and in press for AI and Ethics. This paper includes the supplementary data file at the end of the manuscript. This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

Harry Collins, Hartmut Grote, Paul Newbury +2

i · ii · iii

LLM Evaluation Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Scientific QA LLM Reliability

Apr 28, 2026cs.AI

Authority Inversion in LLM-Mediated Ubiquitous Systems: When Models Trust Users Over Sensors

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly fuse heterogeneous inputs in ubiquitous systems. Yet, how LLMs implicitly allocate authority when sensor measurements and user claims conflict remains unexamined, raising critical reliability concerns for deployments where physical sensing must retain priority. Unlike explicit traditional fusion, LLMs bury authority allocation within learned representations. We discover this allocation is severely format-dependent: numerical sensor data fails to integrate into answer-relevant model directions, allowing natural-language claims to dominate the final decision, a phenomenon we term \textbf{Authority Inversion}.To diagnose and mitigate this, we develop a geometric framework of context integration, introduce two computable audit metrics, specifically the Context Integration Ratio (CIR) and Authority Alignment Index (AAI), and propose Geometric Authority Calibration (GAC), an inference-time layer-level intervention to suppress misplaced user authority. Evaluating four models (4B to 35B parameters, three architectures) across four datasets totaling 576 conflict instances reveals extreme inversion: on numerical tasks, models exhibit near-zero sensor trust (AAI = -0.805, Cohen's d = -2.14), unaffected by model capacity. Validating our geometric framework, theory-guided causal injection flips 80.2% of incorrect decisions (vs. <0.4% for random controls). Practically, GAC improves HAR accuracy from 0 -- 1.6% to 21.9 -- 27.5%, outperforming prompting baselines. Ultimately, authority allocation in LLM-mediated systems must be explicitly audited and application-specifically configured rather than left implicit.

Long Zhang, Zi-bo Qin, Wei-neng Chen

School of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models LLM Auditing Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Causal Interventions in Language Models

Apr 27, 2026cs.AI

An Information-Geometric Framework for Stability Analysis of Large Language Models under Entropic Stress

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes and operational settings, evaluation strategies based solely on aggregate accuracy are often insucient to characterize system reliability. This study proposes a thermodynamic inspired modeling framework for analyzing the stability of LLM outputs under conditions of uncertainty and perturbation. The framework introduces a composite stability score that integrates task utility, entropy as a measure of external uncertainty, and two internal structural proxies: internal integration and aligned reective capacity. Rather than interpreting these quantities as physical variables, the formulation is intended as an interpretable abstraction that captures how internal structure may modulate the impact of disorder on model behavior. Using the IST-20 benchmarking protocol and associated metadata, we analyze 80 modelscenario observations across four contemporary LLMs. The proposed formulation consistently yields higher stability scores than a reduced utilityentropy baseline, with a mean improvement of 0.0299 (95% CI: 0.02470.0351). The observed gain is more pronounced under higher entropy conditions, suggesting that the framework captures a form of nonlinear attenuation of uncertainty. We do not claim a fundamental physical law or a complete theory of machine ethics. Instead, the contribution of this work is a compact and interpretable modeling perspective that connects uncertainty, performance, and internal structure within a unied evaluation lens. The framework is intended to complement existing benchmarking approaches and to support ongoing discussions in AI safety, reliability, and governance.

Hikmat Karimov, Rahid Zahid Alekberli

Institute of Defense Technologies and Cybersecurity„ Azerbaijan Technical University, Azerbaijan

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Language Model Robustness

Apr 27, 2026cs.CL

Distilling Self-Consistency into Verbal Confidence: A Pre-Registered Negative Result and Post-Hoc Rescue on Gemma 3 4B

Small instruct-tuned LLMs produce degenerate verbal confidence under minimal elicitation: ceiling rates above 95%, near-chance Type-2 AUROC, and Invalid validity profiles. We test whether confidence-conditioned supervised fine-tuning (CSFT) with self-consistency-derived targets can close the gap between internal information and verbal readout. A pre-registered Phase 0 protocol on Gemma 3 4B-it with a modal filter restricting training to items with correct modal answers produced a negative result: AUROC2 dropped from 0.554 to 0.509 due to label-entropy collapse in the training targets. An exploratory rescue removed the filter, training on all 2,000 calibration items. This produced a binary verbal correctness discriminator with AUROC2 = 0.774 on held-out TriviaQA, compressing a 10-sample self-consistency signal (AUROC2 = 0.999) into a single-pass readout exceeding logit entropy (0.701). The shuffled-target control showed no improvement (0.501). On MMLU, accuracy improved from 54.2% to 77.4% with the shuffled model at baseline (56.1%), supporting a target-dependent interpretation. The result is exploratory, binary rather than continuously calibrated, and observed at a single scale. It identifies two design lessons: confidence training requires label entropy, and correct targets regularise output format.

Jon-Paul Cacioli

Independent Researcher, Melbourne, Australia

Supervised Fine-Tuning Confidence Estimation in Language Models Self-Consistency Decoding Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Language Model Distillation

Apr 27, 2026cs.LG

Continual Calibration: Coverage Can Collapse Before Accuracy in Lifelong LLM Fine-Tuning

Continual learning for large language models is typically evaluated through accuracy retention under sequential fine-tuning. We argue that this perspective is incomplete, because uncertainty reliability can degrade earlier and more sharply than top-1 performance. We study this empirically by measuring conformal coverage and calibration error on sequentially fine-tuned models across three model families and eight task sequences drawn primarily from classification and multiple-choice benchmarks. Across the classification-style settings we study, coverage loss exceeds accuracy loss by a factor of roughly

3.4\times \pm 0.5\times

on average across seeds; in the most pronounced case, coverage drops from

0.92

to

0.61

, while accuracy remains within three points of baseline. Standard continual-learning methods that preserve accuracy do not automatically preserve coverage, and naive calibration baselines recover only part of the gap. We propose calibration replay, a lightweight post-hoc procedure that maintains a task-specific held-out buffer and refits a task-specific conformal threshold under the current model after each update. It adds no training-time gradient cost, uses less than one percent of the memory of ordinary experience replay, and typically restores coverage to within two points of nominal at buffer size

m = 200

. We accompany the empirical study with a drift decomposition, a finite-sample recovery theorem showing exact conformal validity under exchangeability, and a mixture-validity proposition explaining why pooled thresholds do not suffice. Our guarantees are stated for classification-style tasks with task-specific buffers; extensions to open-ended generation are exploratory.

Ibne Farabi Shihab, Sanjeda Akter, Anuj Sharma

Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University · Department of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University

Continual Learning for LLMs Conformal Prediction Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Replay-Based Continual Learning

Apr 25, 2026cs.LG

Process Supervision of Confidence Margin for Calibrated LLM Reasoning

Scaling test-time computation with reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a reliable path to improve large language models (LLM) reasoning ability. Yet, outcome-based reward often incentivizes models to be overconfident, leading to hallucinations, unreliable confidence-based control, and unnecessary compute allocation. We introduce Reinforcement Learning with Confidence Margin (\textbf{RLCM}), a calibration-aware RL framework that jointly optimizes correctness and confidence reliability via a margin-enhanced process reward over intermediate-budget completions. Rather than aligning confidence to correctness likelihoods, RLCM encourages to widen the confidence margin between correct and incorrect steps within a single reasoning trajectory. Across mathematical, code, logic and science benchmarks, our method substantially improves calibration while maintaining or improving accuracy. We further show that, with calibrated confidence signals, the resulting models enable more efficient conformal risk control and effective confidence-weighted aggregation.

Liaoyaqi Wang, Chunsheng Zuo, William Jurayj +2

Johns Hopkins University

Confidence Estimation in Language Models RL for Language Model Reasoning Language Model Calibration LLM Reliability Process Supervision LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Apr 24, 2026cs.CL

AutoPyVerifier: Learning Compact Executable Verifiers for Large Language Model Outputs

Verification is becoming central to both reinforcement-learning-based training and inference-time control of large language models (LLMs). Yet current verifiers face a fundamental trade-off: LLM-based verifiers are expressive but hard to control and prone to error, while deterministic executable verifiers are reliable and interpretable but often limited in capability. We study the following question: given a development set of LLM outputs and labels for a target objective, such as correctness, can we automatically induce a minimal set of Python verifiers whose joint satisfaction closely matches that objective? We propose AutoPyVerifier, a framework that uses an LLM to synthesize candidate verifier functions and then refines them through search over a directed acyclic graph (DAG). By navigating the DAG, AutoPyVerifier systematically explores the space of deterministic executable verifiers and selects a compact verifier set whose joint satisfaction best approximates the target objective. Across mathematical reasoning, coding, function calling, and instruction-following benchmarks for several state-of-the-art LLMs, AutoPyVerifier improves target-objective prediction by up to 55.0 F1 points over the initial LLM-generated verifier sets. Additional analyses show that the most useful verification targets vary by benchmark and model, and that the DAG-based search shifts the learned verifier sets toward more structural and semantically grounded checks. We further show that exposing the discovered verifier set to an LLM as an external tool improves downstream accuracy by up to 17.0 points. We release our code

Pouya Pezeshkpour, Estevam Hruschka

Megagon Labs

LLM Evaluation LLM Answer Verification LLM-Based Program Synthesis LLM Reliability

Apr 24, 2026cs.CL

Calibration Drift Under Reasoning: How Chain-of-Thought Budgets Induce Overconfidence in Large Language Models

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment. Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is widely used to improve accuracy and reliability, but its effect on calibration is not fully understood. We show that this picture is incomplete: in some settings, increasing the reasoning budget beyond a task-specific threshold can cause models to become systematically overconfident, assigning high confidence to incorrect answers. We call this phenomenon Calibration Drift Under Reasoning (CDUR) and study it both theoretically and empirically. We define reasoning budget B and analyze conditions under which Expected Calibration Error ECE(B) follows a non-monotonic pattern: it first decreases as reasoning corrects errors, then increases as longer reasoning produces internally consistent but incorrect explanations. We propose a Hypothesis Lock-In model based on autoregressive generation to explain this behavior. We evaluate Llama-3.1-8B and Llama-3.3-70B on 47 reasoning-trap questions across four reasoning budgets and three seeds (1,368 API calls; 574 valid responses). The 8B model shows non-monotonic calibration behavior, while results for the 70B model are limited to baseline evaluation and are inconclusive for budget-dependent effects. We introduce CABStop, a calibration-aware stopping rule that halts reasoning when confidence diverges from an auxiliary accuracy estimate. These results suggest that increasing reasoning depth does not always improve reliability and should be monitored carefully.

Prakul Sunil Hiremath, Harshit R. Hiremath

Department of Computer Science and Engineering Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi · Department of Computer Science and Business System SG Balekundri Institute of Technology, Belagavi

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

Apr 24, 2026cs.CL

Verbal Confidence Saturation in 3-9B Open-Weight Instruction-Tuned LLMs: A Pre-Registered Psychometric Validity Screen

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Jon-Paul Cacioli

Independent Researcher, Melbourne, Australia

LLM Evaluation Confidence Estimation in Language Models Psychometric Validation LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Apr 24, 2026cs.CL

How Large Language Models Balance Internal Knowledge with User and Document Assertions

Large language models (LLMs) often need to balance their internal parametric knowledge with external information, such as user beliefs and content from retrieved documents, in real-world scenarios like RAG or chat-based systems. A model's ability to reliably process these sources is key to system safety. Previous studies on knowledge conflict and sycophancy are limited to a binary conflict paradigm, primarily exploring conflicts between parametric knowledge and either a document or a user, but ignoring the interactive environment where all three sources exist simultaneously. To fill this gap, we propose a three-source interaction framework and systematically evaluate 27 LLMs from 3 families on 2 datasets. Our findings reveal general patterns: most models rely more on document assertions than user assertions, and this preference is reinforced by post-training. Furthermore, our behavioral analysis shows that most models are impressionable, unable to effectively discriminate between helpful and harmful external information. To address this, we demonstrate that fine-tuning on diverse source interaction data can significantly increase a model's discrimination abilities. In short, our work paves the way for developing trustworthy LLMs that can effectively and reliably integrate multiple sources of information. Code is available at https://github.com/shuowl/llm-source-balancing.

Shuowei Li, Haoxin Li, Wenda Chu +1

Santa Clara University · Nanyang Technological University · California Institute of Technology

LLM Sycophancy Knowledge Augmentation for Language Models Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Safety

Apr 23, 2026cs.AI

When Correct Beliefs Collapse: Epistemic Resilience of LLMs under Clinical Pressure

Despite strong medical benchmark accuracy, LLMs can exhibit severe multi-turn sycophancy in clinical dialogue, abandoning initial correct diagnosis under escalating pressure. We propose \textbf{\textsc{Med-Stress}}, a targeted stress test framework that evaluates belief stability under escalating pressure. Across nine frontier large language models (LLMs), we find a clear dissociation between medical knowledge and robustness: high initial diagnostic capability does not imply high belief stability, yielding large knowledge-robustness gaps for several LLMs. To mitigate this failure mode, we propose a lightweight inference-time defense, \textbf{\texttt{RBED}} (\textbf{R}ole-\textbf{B}ased \textbf{E}pistemic \textbf{D}efense), and \textbf{\texttt{R-FT}} (\textbf{R}esilience-oriented \textbf{F}ine-\textbf{T}uning), a training-time approach that internalizes evidence-based resistance to pressure. Experiments show that \textbf{\texttt{R-FT}} nearly eliminates belief change and substantially improves robustness.

Boyu Xiao, Xiuqi Tian, Xuwen Song +4

Research Center for Social Computing and Interactive Robotics, Harbin Institute of Technology, China

LLM Sycophancy Healthcare LLM Reliability Clinical Language Model Evaluation Language Model Robustness Medical LLMs

Apr 22, 2026cs.LG

Differentiable Conformal Training for LLM Reasoning Factuality

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate, limiting their reliability in critical applications. Conformal Prediction (CP) addresses this by calibrating error rates on held-out data to provide statistically valid confidence guarantees. Recent work extends CP to LLM factuality to filter out risky claims, ensuring that hallucination rates remain below a user-specified level (e.g., 10%). While prior methods treat claims independently, Coherent Factuality extends to multi-step reasoning by representing outputs as dependency graphs and jointly validating claims with their logical ancestors. A key limitation is that Coherent Factuality is not differentiable, requiring hand-crafted scorers that at high reliability levels remove nearly 60% of true claims. We introduce Differentiable Coherent Factuality (DCF), a fully differentiable relaxation that enables learning improved scorers while provably recovering the original algorithm's guarantees. Experiments on two benchmark reasoning datasets demonstrate DCF achieves up to 141% improvement in claim retention while maintaining reliability guarantees, representing a significant step towards reliable conformal LLM systems.

Nathan Hittesdorf, Marco Salzetta, Lu Cheng

Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States · Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States

LLM Hallucination Mitigation Conformal Prediction LLM Reliability LLM Reasoning

Apr 21, 2026cs.LG

Are LLM Uncertainty and Correctness Encoded by the Same Features? A Functional Dissociation via Sparse Autoencoders

Large language models can be uncertain yet correct, or confident yet wrong, raising the question of whether their output-level uncertainty and their actual correctness are driven by the same internal mechanisms or by distinct feature populations. We introduce a 2x2 framework that partitions model predictions along correctness and confidence axes, and uses sparse autoencoders to identify features associated with each dimension independently. Applying this to Llama-3.1-8B and Gemma-2-9B, we identify three feature populations that play fundamentally different functional roles. Pure uncertainty features are functionally essential: suppressing them severely degrades accuracy. Pure incorrectness features are functionally inert: despite showing statistically significant activation differences between correct and incorrect predictions, the majority produce near-zero change in accuracy when suppressed. Confounded features that encode both signals are detrimental to output quality, and targeted suppression of them yields a 1.1% accuracy improvement and a 75% entropy reduction, with effects transferring across the ARC-Challenge and RACE benchmarks. The feature categories are also informationally distinct: the activations of just 3 confounded features from a single mid-network layer predict model correctness (AUROC ~0.79), enabling selective abstention that raises accuracy from 62% to 81% at 53% coverage. The results demonstrate that uncertainty and correctness are distinct internal phenomena, with implications for interpretability and targeted inference-time intervention.

Het Patel, Tiejin Chen, Hua Wei +2

University of California, Riverside, CA · Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

LLM Interpretability LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Causal Interventions in Language Models

Apr 21, 2026cs.AI

CogniConsole: Externalizing Inference-Time Control as a Formal Abstraction for Reliable LLM Interactions

Reliability in large language model (LLM) systems is typically framed as a function of model capability. We challenge this by demonstrating that reliability is significantly influenced by \emph{inference-time control} -- the computational layer governing task framing and context selection. We introduce \emph{CogniConsole}, an architectural instantiation that externalizes this control into a structured interface combining programmatic coordination with bounded prompt-based reasoning. Through \emph{controllability-oriented probes} (

N=489

) in a multi-step interactive environment, we show that increasing structural scaffolding -- from unstructured to fully scaffolded -- \textbf{systematically reduces output variance and failure rates under a fixed model architecture}. Our results indicate that many observed failure modes, such as context drift and inconsistent constraint adherence, arise from under-specified control rather than insufficient capability. This work provides an empirical basis for treating inference-time control as a first-class abstraction, opening new directions for designing and evaluating LLM systems beyond scaling alone.

Vanessa Figueiredo, Wilter Franceschi

Orbital Sea Regina, SK, Canada

AI Agent Reliability Language Model-Based Control LLM Reliability LLM Context Management LLM Agent Reliability