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

Aug 1, 2026cs.LG

GeoArbiter: Verifiability-Guided Grounding for Remote-Sensing Multimodal LLMs

Remote-sensing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often assert facts that imagery cannot establish, such as a facility's identity or function. Coordinate-keyed geographic retrieval can supply this missing knowledge, improving fMoW land-use accuracy by 12.06--17.19 points across three open MLLMs. However, retrieved records can also contradict visible evidence, and we find that models frequently follow the records even when the image is decisive. We argue that source trust should therefore depend on \emph{cross-modal verifiability}: geographic records are most useful for attributes the image cannot verify and most dangerous when they dispute visually verifiable attributes. We introduce GeoArbiter, a training-free pipeline that operationalizes this principle by injecting only image-unverifiable geographic facts. Unlike arbitration prompts, which leak across attribute types and bias yes/no responses, content-level filtering preserves 84.69--87.15% of the full-retrieval accuracy gain, reduces claim-level hallucination by 9.58--26.34% under a source-blinded judge, and improves robustness to conflicting records across all three models. These results identify verifiability-guided content selection as a simple, effective mechanism for grounding remote-sensing MLLMs in fallible geographic knowledge.

Xuechen Li

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Remote Sensing Image Understanding Retrieval-Augmented Generation LLM Grounding LLM Reliability

Aug 1, 2026cs.SE

Distilling Reasoning Traces into Advisory Prompts for Software Engineering Tasks

Language models are widely used for generating and otherwise processing code (e.g., identifying code hallucinations, possible inputs, or predicting outputs); however, LLMs can make mistakes, which can be serious. One key issue is that models are trained on (still) largely human-written, and thus imperfect, code; it's not easy to find sufficiently large code corpora that are entirely free of bugs. Thus, other inference-time ways of reducing LLM errors, without additional training, are desirable. "Reasoning" or "thinking" modes, exposed as a togglable feature by hybrid reasoning models, do reduce errors; however, reasoning consumes additional resources. This paper asks if better performance can be achieved without always incurring the cost of reasoning. Human students of programming learn to avoid mistakes by (a) identifying them, (b) reflecting upon the cognitive lapses that led to them (essentially, "thinking through" the errors), (c) inferring general rules or lessons from these reflections, and (d) internalizing these lessons into rules. In tutorial sessions with an instructor, this is a common Socratic interaction. Examples of such internalizable rules might include the nugget "Before coding, restate the requirements to clarify them." Inspired by this process, this paper describes an approach where we first identify examples in which "thinking mode" in a (low-resource) LLM avoids errors. These errors, and their avoidance via "thinking" in the same LLM, are then examined by a bigger LLM to generate summary explanations; these are then summarized by a large LLM into brief advisory prompts. This approach works on many modest-sized models; in some cases, the "advisory prompts" thus learned can also be gainfully transferred to other models. We also present investigations into the nature of coding errors that language models make, and a characterization of when this approach can be helpful.

Faizan Faisal, Prem Devanbu, Toufique Ahmed

University of California, Davis · IBM

Reasoning Distillation LLM Prompting LLM Reliability Efficient Language Model Inference LLM Code Generation

Aug 1, 2026cs.AI

SymboUQ: Symbolic Uncertainty Quantification for Spatial Reasoning in LLMs

Although large language models (LLMs) can produce fluent spatial reasoning traces, their intermediate relations may fail to support the final conclusion, making token-level confidence insufficient for final-answer reliability estimation. Existing formal verifiers provide stronger semantic evidence, but their applicability is partial: a parsed claim need not yield a definite semantic verdict. To address this issue, we introduce SymboUQ, a symbolic uncertainty quantification framework that estimates final-answer reliability from reasoning traces by distinguishing symbolizability, whether a claim can be represented in the verifier's formal language, from semantic determinacy, whether its execution yields an entailed or contradicted verdict rather than an unknown or not-evaluable outcome. SymboUQ comprises (i) a Layout Auditor that executes ordered spatial claims and extracts feasibility, conflict, and repair evidence; (ii) a label-free Determinacy Profile that characterizes effective executable coverage; and (iii) a Determinacy-Aware Reliability Composer that integrates constraint-based, representation-based, and decoding-based scores according to verifier applicability. Extensive experiments on five spatial reasoning benchmarks with four frozen LLM backbones show that SymboUQ achieves approximately an 8% relative improvement in AUROC and a 7% relative reduction in class-balanced Brier loss over the strongest baseline.

Dahai Yu, Lin Jiang, Rongchao Xu +1

Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

Uncertainty Quantification LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Spatial Reasoning

Jul 31, 2026cs.CL

Lost in Compaction: Evaluating Side-Constraint Loss under Context Compaction

When the context window is under pressure, LLM systems compact prior context to continue ongoing tasks. We identify a class of user-issued instructions, Session Constraints (SCs), such as "do not delete any emails until I confirm," that are meant to constrain LLM's behavior for the remainder of a session but are silently dropped during compaction. To quantify this loss, we introduce COMPINT, an evaluation suite that evaluates compactors across three long-context scenarios: multi-turn chat, agentic trajectory, and long-horizon research. Current compactors retain only 17% of injected SCs on average, and most perform worse than running the same task without compaction. Retention varies sharply with compactor, prompt, context length, SC phrasing, and injection location, showing that the loss is systematic rather than tied to any single setting. We propose an SC-aware extractor that runs alongside the compactor as a plug-and-play module, achieving over 90% retention across all three scenarios without modifying the compactor or LLM. The COMPINT evaluation suite and accompanying implementation are available at https://github.com/ZhiqiEliWang/compaction-integrity.

Zhiqi Wang, Yichi Zhang, Dongwon Lee +1

The Pennsylvania State University

Persistent Memory for Language Models Instruction Following LLM Reliability LLM Context Management Context Compression

Jul 31, 2026cs.LG

Reflection or Re-Generation? Why LLM Revision Fails Where Human Revision Succeeds

Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prompted to "reflect," yet whether this resembles human revision remains unclear. We introduce the Human-LLM Reflection Framework (HRF), a controlled two-pass protocol comparing human and LLM revision under identical conditions across self-, peer-, and cross-agent settings. Using an information-theoretic analysis based on per-iteration cross-entropy reduction, we find two failure modes of LLM reflection. On objective tasks with finite answer spaces, reflection yields near-zero information gain (Delta I approx 0), behaving as neutral re-generation indistinguishable from re-sampling. On subjective tasks, it yields significant negative gain (Delta I < 0), moving predictions away from the target. Human revision, by contrast, yields positive gain in both settings. Cross-agent experiments localize the failure to the revision step, not input quality: LLMs degrade even high-quality human responses. Diagnostic analyses (revision conditioned on first-pass correctness, and oracle-guided revision against a random-reshuffle baseline) show that which sub-step dominates varies by task and by model rather than reducing to a single mechanism: self-error detection is present on objective multiple-choice tasks but weak on subjective ones, and recovery under an oracle error signal exceeds the baseline for some models and falls below it for others. The unifying account is structural: without external information, self-conditioned revision cannot reduce uncertainty about the target, so LLM reflection is better understood as conditioned re-generation than as genuine error-driven revision.

Yefan Tao, Gerald Friedland, Madhusudhanan Chandrasekaran +1

Amazon

LLM Self-Correction LLM Self-Refinement Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability Metacognition in Language Models

Jul 30, 2026cs.SE

To Add Is Machine, To Delete Is Human: Measuring and Mitigating Deletion Avoidance in LLM Code Editing

Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.

Amir M. Ebrahimi, Mohammed Mehedi Hasan, Aaditya Bhatia +2

School of Computing, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

LLM Reliability Language Model Editing Code Language Models

Jul 30, 2026cs.AI

When Derived Measurements Mislead: Quantifying and Mitigating LLM Over-Trust with Privileged-Modality Reliability Evidence

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

Zongheng Guo, Tao Chen, Tianli Li +6

Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy · State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Department of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Cardiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China +2

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Photoplethysmography Trust in AI

Jul 30, 2026cs.CL

LLMs struggle to simulate human belief updates in controlled environments

LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

Sebastian Pohl, Harsh Mehta, Pranav Mambayil +4

IT:U, Interdisciplinary Transformation University Austria, Altenberger Straße 66c, 4040 Linz, Austria

Human Behavior Simulation LLM Reliability Belief Updating in LLMs Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation

Jul 30, 2026cs.CL

(Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models

Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive. Existing automated metrics often fail to capture the complexity and variability inherent in LLM-generated outputs. Moreover, these metrics typically rely on explicit reference standards, limiting their use mostly to domains with objective benchmarks. This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of LLM-generated content. The proposed method employs pairwise comparisons of outputs by multiple LLMs, reducing biases from individual models. An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings. Adjustable agreement thresholds, from full unanimity to majority voting, allow flexible control over evaluation confidence and coverage. The method's effectiveness is demonstrated through evaluating competency profiles extracted from scientific abstracts. Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments, significantly reducing the need for extensive human intervention. By offering a scalable, consistent, and domain-agnostic evaluation layer, the framework supports more efficient and reliable quality assessments of LLM outputs across diverse applications.

Bertil Braun, Martin Forell

KIT

LLM Evaluation Pairwise Comparison LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Reliability Automated Evaluation

Jul 30, 2026cs.AI

AI and Authenticity in Islamic Research: A Critical Evaluation of Generative AI Reliability, Hallucination, and Source Fidelity in Quranic, Hadith, and Fiqh Knowledge

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used by Muslims for religious guidance, Qur'anic interpretation, Hadith explanation, jurisprudential rulings, and Islamic education. Despite its growing adoption, there is limited empirical evidence on whether current AI systems provide authentic, verifiable, and trustworthy Islamic knowledge suitable for high-trust religious contexts. This study evaluates six leading generative AI systems using fifty realistic open-ended Islamic questions covering Qur'anic interpretation, Hadith, Fiqh, ethics, pastoral advice, and Madhhab-sensitive topics. Responses were collected under real-world conditions from participants in Australia and the United Kingdom and analysed using a mixed-method framework examining domain accuracy, citation verification, hallucinations, jurisprudential consistency, uncertainty handling, source provenance, and geographical variation. The study addresses four research questions: (1) How accurate and authentic are AI-generated responses across major Islamic knowledge domains? (2) To what extent do AI systems produce hallucinations, incomplete citations, or unverifiable religious references? (3) How consistently do models handle jurisprudential disagreement, Madhhab diversity, and uncertainty? (4) Are current AI systems sufficiently reliable for religious guidance, Islamic education, and scholarly research? Overall, current generative AI systems are valuable as assistive tools for introductory Islamic learning but should not be treated as authoritative sources for religious rulings or Islamic research without verification against authenticated primary sources and qualified scholarly expertise. This study provides one of the first comprehensive empirical evaluations of AI reliability within Islamic knowledge, offering practical guidance for researchers, educators, AI developers, and the wider Muslim community.

Muhammad Sajjad Akbar

School of Computer Science, The University of Sydney, Australia

Question Answering LLM Reliability Evidence-Grounded Generation Generative AI Evaluation

Jul 30, 2026cs.CL

GGC: Selective Query Correction for Reliable Text-to-SPARQL Generation

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in structured query generation, making them a natural choice for Text-to-SPARQL, which translates natural language questions into executable SPARQL queries over knowledge graphs. However, their initial outputs remain unreliable: generated queries may be executable yet semantically misaligned with input questions, leading to incorrect retrieval. To address this issue, we propose Generator-Gate-Corrector (GGC), a framework for reliable LLM-based Text-to-SPARQL generation. GGC first uses a Generator to produce an initial query, then applies a Gate to predict whether correction is needed, and finally invokes a Corrector only for selected high-risk queries. This selective correction mechanism avoids unnecessary modifications and reduces the risk of degrading originally correct queries. Experiments on MCQA show that GGC improves query-level accuracy from 90.23% to 98.33% while reducing inference overhead by 45% compared with correcting all generated queries. Ablation studies show that the Gate is robust across thresholds and that Corrector training data composition affects correction effectiveness and stability. Overall, the results demonstrate that selective correction enhances the accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of LLM-based text-to-SPARQL generation.

Ziyi Yang, Thanh-Son Nguyen, Tuan Anh Nguyen +1

1Nanyang Technological University, Centre for Info. Sciences and Systems · Institute of High Performance Computing, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore

LLM Self-Correction LLM Reliability Knowledge Graph Question Answering Natural Language to SPARQL

Jul 28, 2026cs.AI

Position: Evaluation Scores Are Perishable Knowledge Claims

Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results. When these signals are aggregated via averaging, evaluation confidence can then substantially exceed the reliability of the weakest signal: a phenomenon we call trust inflation in evaluation. We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as epistemic claims with three properties: formality (human evaluation provides stronger evidence than an automated metric), scope (a benchmark result applies to the tested distribution, not universally), and validity windows (benchmark results expire as contamination accumulates and distributions shift). Several converging research traditions (chain-of-thought analysis, possibilistic logic, and algebraic theory) establish weakest-link aggregation as the conservative endpoint of a parameterized operator family controlled by a single pessimism parameter. Drawing on those traditions, and on concrete lessons from building an evaluation harness for agentic AI, we propose that evaluation results carry explicit metadata (formality tier, scope declaration, and expiration date) to make their epistemic status transparent. We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard: across 54 frontier models on ten scenarios, the top-five models ranked by mean score and by weakest-link are completely disjoint.

Sankalp Gilda, Shlok Gilda

DeepThought Solutions · Meta · University of Florida

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability

Jul 28, 2026cs.HC

LLM4OSC: Profile-Bound Natural Language Control with Deterministic Validation for Open Sound Control

Open Sound Control (OSC) is the dominant wire protocol for real-time parametric control in professional audio, live performance, and virtual production. Large language models can emit plausible OSC, but they hallucinate addresses, mishandle type tags, and fail under paraphrase- unacceptable in show-critical contexts. We present LLM4OSC, a local-first architecture in which models propose structured intent JSON over a human-reviewed device profile, and deterministic code validates, clamps, and encodes before any UDP send. We introduce a frozen evaluation harness with CI gates on wrong-send rate: mismatches that would still pass validation and transmit. On a Max/MSP hero profile (12 patterns; 8 literal + 8 paraphrase + 4 refusal cases), after profile tag enrichment, symbolic slot fill, NL refine, and a retrieval confidence gate, backends B0--B3 all pass frozen gates (100% semantic accuracy, 0% wrong-send). B0 (rules) remains the production default at ~0.05ms; LLM backends remain ~3-4s. Historical few-shot B2 accuracy of 62.5% rises to 100% on this suite only after symbolic post-processing- not because the 0.5B model alone becomes show-safe. We argue for propose-validate-send and wrong-send rate as first-class metrics for language-to-control systems.

Yuan-Yi Fan

Los Angeles

Language Model-Based Control LLM Reliability LLM Safety Evaluation

Jul 28, 2026cs.SE

How Do LLMs Read Bug Reports? An Empirical Study of Attention in LLMs for Automated Program Repair

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Automated Program Repair systems are advancing rapidly, yet their performance remains inconsistent. Even when provided with the same contextual information, an LLM may generate a correct patch for one bug but fail on another closely related bug. Why this happens remains poorly understood, and it is unclear how LLMs prioritize the diverse information in bug reports and whether model attention affects repair success. In this paper, we present the first empirical study of attention patterns in LLM-based program repair, providing interpretable insights into how models process bug reports and where their attention is concentrated during repair. We analyze 319 real-world Python and Java bugs from SWE-bench Verified and Multi-SWE-bench to study (RQ1) how model attention is distributed across bug report sections, (RQ2) how attention patterns within each section differ between successful and unsuccessful repairs, and (RQ3) how these patterns compare to information developers consider important for bug fixing. We find that successful repairs are characterized by diffused attention across multiple diagnostic components such as bug descriptions, stacktraces, and test cases, while failures often exhibit over-localized attention toward metadata such as version information. We further observe that stronger alignment between model attention and developer-identified key sections and phrases is associated with higher repair success. Our results provide the first empirical evidence that attention misallocation is a key factor in LLM-based APR failures, and offer actionable insights for designing more interpretable and reliable future APR systems.

Ramtin Ehsani, Irene Manotas, Saurabh Pujar +2

Drexel University Philadelphia, PA, USA · IBM Research Yorktown, NY, USA

Automated Program Repair LLM Interpretability LLM Reliability

Jul 28, 2026astro-ph.IM

AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology I: Literature Review

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist with literature reviews for scientific research. We perform a controlled study of eight expert-conceived research projects across the areas of physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Each project has a defined background and goal, and human experts and AI prompters are asked to perform identical literature review tasks in parallel. We compare the relevant literature selected by humans with that selected by mid-2025 LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Gemini). We find the overlap between human- and AI-selected references to be small (

<

6%), indicating that AI models do not yet reproduce a competent expert search on their own, though they have the potential to complement literature searches by humans. We then assess the reliability and completeness of AI-generated candidate references, distinguishing two types of hallucination: fabrications (references to nonexistent papers) and metadata mismatches (real papers with one or more incorrect fields). We find that while fabricated references make up 3% of the AI-generated references, 64% are real papers with at least one incorrect field (title, author, year, journal, DOI, or link), indicating that the mid-2025 models require systematic verification. However, the performance is significantly improved for the 2026 model ChatGPT Pro 5.5, with a single-project test showing zero fabrication or metadata mismatches.

Anamaria Hell, Kateryna Vovk, Veena Krishnaraj +18

IPMU

AI-Assisted Scientific Research LLM Reliability

Jul 28, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Epistemia: Epistemic Schizologia and Large Language Models as Techno-Semiotic Machines

Quattrociocchi and colleagues warn that the fluent outputs of large language models may allow linguistic plausibility to substitute for epistemic evaluation, producing the condition they call Epistemia: the experience of possessing knowledge without undertaking the practices through which judgment would ordinarily be warranted. This article accepts that diagnosis but challenges its explanatory framework, which compares an embodied, socially situated human knower with an isolated generative model thereby locating epistemic legitimacy in capacities internal to autonomous agents. Drawing on Carlo Sini's philosophy of practices, writing, signs, and technics, we propose instead to understand a large language model (LLM) as a techno-semiotic machine that automates a phase of written semiosis by producing plausible linguistic configurations from the sedimented archive of human writing. From this perspective, Epistemia is one consequence of a broader phenomenon that we call epistemic schizologia: the socio-technical cleavage between signs as linguistically accomplished expressions and signs as moments within socially embedded circuits of interpretation, evidence, criticism, verification, and responsibility. This cleavage is reinforced by eikotic closure, through which a plausible continuation is presented with the finality of an epistemic result, and by algorithmic authority and epistemic self-misrecognition. The relevant unit is therefore not the model alone but the complete practice in which generated inscriptions are prompted, interpreted, verified, contested, used, and made consequential. This reframing preserves the distinction between linguistic production and responsible understanding while grounding a design programme centred on inspectable genealogy, contestability, distributed responsibility, epistemic agency, and the evaluation of hybrid human--AIpractices.

Federico Cabitza, Gianluca Colombo

Department of Informatics, Systems and Communication, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy · Digital Health and Wellbeing Center, Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy · Oneofftech-UG (haftungsbeschränkt), Berlin, Germany

Human-AI Interaction LLM Reliability

Jul 28, 2026cs.AI

Many-body Tipping Dynamics of ChatGPT-like AIs

Why do ChatGPT-like AIs, despite major architectural and training differences, unexpectedly tip to undesirable content (e.g. harmful, misleading, repetitive) even under deterministic greedy decoding? We show that a broad class of such tippings is caused by the many-body interactions between tokens (spins) as they cross the finite-layer system. Tipping emerges as a dynamical first passage process between competing output basins. Attention disorder controls the transport toward, away from, or along the basins' boundary. A few-basin reduction yields a closed finite-layer threshold, whose coarse-grained predictions show good agreement across ChatGPT-like families. These results suggest that a broad class of AI failures represents 'foreseeable engineering risk' rather than inherently unpredictable behavior, with important implications for legal and societal assessments of AI harm.

Frank Yingjie Huo, Neil F. Johnson

Department of Physics, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

LLM Reliability LLM Safety

Jul 27, 2026cs.AI

Reason-Mediated Behavioral Models for Auditing LLM Social Simulators

Large language models are increasingly used as social simulators, including as synthetic survey respondents. Most evaluations ask whether simulated outcomes resemble human outcomes. We argue that this is necessary but too weak: a simulator can match the final answer while using the wrong rationale-derived reason pattern. We study this problem through a 94-person sunscreen concept test in which each respondent evaluated three product concepts and wrote open-ended rationales. We map those rationales into signed reason states

Z

, where positive signs support adoption and negative signs block it. This gives a practical audit: holding respondent descriptors

D

, category context

K

, and concept treatment

X

fixed, do human rationale-derived reasons help predict behavior

Y

, and can an LLM simulate the same reason state without seeing the human rationale or outcome? Human rationale-derived reasons substantially improve held-out prediction of purchase intent. LLM-simulated reasons are more brittle: they often sound plausible, but frequently echo the concept board rather than recover the respondent's acceptance or rejection path. The paper contributes an evaluation framework for social simulators. Reason states do not identify natural causal effects by themselves, but they provide an interpretable test of whether a simulator's stated reasons align with human evidence.

Atharva Pandey, Gautam Jajoo

Kairosity

LLM Auditing Human Behavior Simulation LLM Reliability Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation User Simulation

Jul 27, 2026cs.CL

Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models as Components of Cognitive Computing architecture for Regulatory Knowledge Management

The aim of this article is to verify whether integrating large language models (LLMs) with the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture enables their transformation from standalone generative models into components of cognitive computing infrastructure with enhanced epistemic reliability. The study proposes an architectural approach based on locally deployed LLMs operating in on-premises environments without high-end GPU accelerators and examines their applicability in supporting regulatory management processes requiring continuous analysis and interpretation of legal acts. The proposed solution combines local LLMs with external knowledge repositories, creating a hybrid cognitive architecture in which the language model performs semantic interpretation while the RAG layer provides controlled knowledge retrieval, contextualization, and traceability of information sources. The implementation was validated using the Ollama and LM Studio execution environments together with the Polish language models Bielik and PLLuM running on consumer-class hardware. The results demonstrate that augmenting LLMs with RAG significantly improves the factual consistency, domain specificity and normative precision of generated texts while reducing the risk of unsupported content generation. Furthermore, the study shows that integrating RAG introduces auditability, controlled knowledge management and dynamic updating of regulatory information without retraining the language model. The findings indicate that locally deployed LLMs enhanced with RAG should be regarded not merely as text generation tools but as semantic processing modules within cognitive computing infrastructures supporting regulatory compliance and organizational decision-making in environments characterized by high legal and informational volatility.

Dariusz Nowak-Nova

1WSB University, Poland

Retrieval-Augmented Generation Knowledge Augmentation for Language Models LLM Reliability

Jul 27, 2026cs.CL

CONSISTRE: A Unified Consistency-Aware Framework for Document-Level Relation Extraction with Large Language Models

Document-level relation extraction (DocRE) aims to extract relations among multiple entities across extended contexts while maintaining consistency across predicted triples. Although large language models (LLMs) show remarkable reasoning capabilities in information extraction, their predictions are typically generated independently for each candidate triple and may violate fundamental relational constraints such as transitivity, symmetry, and functional uniqueness, leading to contradictory and unreliable outputs. We propose CONSISTRE, a unified consistency-aware framework for DocRE that addresses this limitation through two complementary tracks. The first operates at inference time for black-box LLMs, combining constraint-aware prompting, constraint-based verification, and iterative self-reflection to refine predictions without task-specific fine-tuning. The second injects consistency knowledge into smaller open-source models via a knowledge distillation and reinforcement learning pipeline: reasoning traces from a powerful teacher are distilled into a student via supervised fine-tuning, followed by GRPO alignment using a composite reward that jointly optimizes extraction performance and relational consistency. Together, the two tracks cover both API-accessible and locally deployable scenarios under a unified consistency formulation. Experiments on DocRED show that both tracks outperform their baselines, with the inference-time track achieving competitive F1 using off-the-shelf black-box LLMs and the training-time track substantially narrowing the gap between 7--8B open-source models and state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs at a fraction of their inference cost. Ablation studies confirm that explicit consistency modeling mitigates relational contradictions and enhances the reliability of LLM-based DocRE across both deployment paradigms.

Mingxuan Sun

Department of Computer Science, Universit´e de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

Relation Extraction Document Understanding LLM Reliability

Jul 27, 2026cs.CL

Accuracy Hides How Language Models Fail: Measuring Failure States Under Matched Output Budgets

Language-model benchmarks collapse two distinct measurement questions into a single accuracy score: whether a response reached an evaluable state, and whether its answer was judged correct. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness. Across 2,550 outputs from five fixed Qwen and DeepSeek configurations on MATH and ARC-Challenge, matched 2,048-token limits produce sharply different execution mixtures: 49 of 450 Qwen MATH outputs terminate without a final answer, compared with 5 of 300 DeepSeek MATH outputs and none of the 750 ARC outputs. Among the same 300 DeepSeek MATH question-model pairs, no missing-final length termination is observed at 8,192 tokens. A coverage-audited targeted verification study further shows that candidate-selection and aggregation policies can substantially alter comparative accuracy estimates. These results demonstrate that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy. Evaluations of test-time methods should therefore report pre-intervention execution states, verification coverage, and scorer provenance alongside accuracy.

Zongyou Yang, Yinghan Hou

Dyson School of Design Engineering Imperial College London London, United Kingdom · Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Imperial College London London, United Kingdom

LLM Evaluation LLM Answer Verification Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Reliability

Jul 26, 2026cs.CL

Language Shapes Instruction Hierarchy Compliance in Multilingual LLMs

Instruction hierarchy (IH) requires models to prioritize instructions by source, ensuring that higher-priority instructions override lower-priority ones. Despite its importance for safe and controllable deployment, existing evaluations have focused almost exclusively on English, leaving it unclear whether IH compliance remains stable in multilingual settings. We introduce XIH-Bench, a benchmark for multilingual IH evaluation with both same-language and cross-language conflicts across six languages, four domains, and three IH settings. Across models, we find two consistent patterns. First, IH compliance exhibits a clear language-dependent asymmetry: a language that strengthens compliance in the higher-priority position can become disruptive in the lower-priority position. Second, cross-language conflicts yield higher compliance than same-language conflicts, a phenomenon we term the Language Boundary Effect. We further show that language specialization can make lower-priority instructions in model-favored languages harder to override, creating multilingual reliability and security risks.

Jiwon Moon, Yerin Hwang, Kyomin Jung

IPAI, Seoul National University · Dept. of ECE, Seoul National University

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Security LLM Reliability

Jul 25, 2026cs.AI

Confidently Wrong: Exception Chain Collapse in Frontier LLM Rule Evaluation

We document a failure class in frontier large language models -- exception chain collapse -- observed in eligibility evaluation under nested conditional rules of the form "A is required UNLESS B applies, UNLESS C overrides B". The failure reproduces at first observation, but its empirical surface is unstable: between March and April 2026 several failure cells closed silently under the same model alias, with no version bump (GPT-5.4 on construction insurance moved from 96.6% to 100%, same prompt and harness). For regulated workflows, frontier-model accuracy is a moving compliance boundary that shifts without notice. We present the Aethis Eligibility Module, a neuro-symbolic architecture in which LLMs author rules from authoritative sources and an SMT-based layer executes them deterministically, consistent with the authored specification regardless of model drift, reasoning-effort defaults, or prompt format. Three evidence bases: (i) a controlled benchmark of 225 scenarios across four regulatory domains documents the pattern and, in replication, the drift that partially closed it; (ii) a 20-scenario adversarial extension on construction insurance, where the engine scores 20/20, as does one of four frontier configurations (GPT-5.4 at low reasoning effort), while the other three, including Anthropic's strongest model at evaluation time, fail the same coverage-gap edge case; (iii) external validation on nine peer-reviewed LegalBench tasks, 949 held-out cases, where the engine is significantly more accurate than all three frontier models (combined McNemar's p <= 0.003), with margins up to +41 points on the curated multi-prong tasks against the Anthropic models. The contribution is to relocate uncertainty from the inference boundary, where it is silent, to the specification boundary, where it is deliberate and audited. All scenarios, rule encodings, and results are public and reproducible.

Paul Simpson, John Kozak, Lisa Doake

Aethis (aethis.ai)

LLM Reliability Neuro-Symbolic AI LLM Reasoning

Jul 24, 2026cs.CL

Toward Automated Detection of Documentation Inconsistencies in Electronic Health Records

Objective: To characterize the kinds of internal documentation inconsistencies a general-domain large language model (LLM) can surface from real-world discharge summaries, and to identify recurring failure modes that limit reliability at scale. Materials and Methods: We applied a two-stage LLM pipeline---open-ended candidate identification (Gemini 2.5 Pro) followed by context-grounded verification (Gemini 2.5 Flash)---to 3,000 randomly sampled MIMIC-IV-Note discharge summaries. A subset of the pipeline output was then reviewed manually by clinical experts. Results: Our pipeline surfaced 3,460 candidate inconsistencies, affecting 69.7% of admissions. Representative examples spanned demographics, allergies, procedures, diagnoses, laboratory, medications, and care-planning domains, with direct implications for clinical reasoning or patient safety. Expert review also revealed recurring failure modes that arise when verification requires temporal reasoning, evolving-diagnosis context, or knowledge of outpatient-prescribing conventions the model does not natively possess. Discussion: Detection is highly context-dependent: many flagged pairs require anchoring each statement to its source section and clinical domain, then assessing whether the conflict reflects a true contradiction or missing context. We propose a graded ontology spanning strict contradiction and ambiguity, with a schema characterizing each flagged case by category, section, domain, and inconsistency axis. Conclusion: This formative study establishes a methodological foundation and conceptual framework to guide subsequent validated, large-scale EHR-inconsistency analysis.

Jian Lu, Panyu Chen, Miriam Treggiari +5

Duke University, 2424 Erwin Road, Durham, 27705, North Carolina, USA. · Columbia University Medical Center, 622 West 168 Street, New York, 10032, NY, USA. · Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, 37203, TN, USA.

LLM Reliability Clinical Language Model Evaluation Electronic Health Records

Jul 24, 2026stat.ML

Modeling Memory-Dependent Reliability of LLMs: A Hidden Markov Model

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

Robab Aghazadeh Chakherlou, Siddartha Khastgir, Peter Popov +1

WMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom · Centre for Software Reliability, City St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom

LLM Evaluation Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling LLM Reliability

Jul 24, 2026cs.CY

Opaque Epistemic Mediation: How LLM Deployment Configurations Shape the Validation of Pseudo-Science

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

Davide Scarso, Hugo Noronha de Almeida, Joaquim Pina

CIUHCT - Interuniversity Centre for the History of Science and Technology · MARE - Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ARNET - Aquatic Research Network Associate Laboratory

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing LLM Reliability Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 24, 2026cs.AI

Semiotic logical hexagon theory for LLM logical reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) have become powerful tools for language understanding and logical reasoning. However, they still make mistakes when a problem requires both understanding meaning and following logic. A key reason is that natural-language statements often carry implicit semantic relations before any formal reasoning begins. If these hidden meanings are not properly organized, the model may reach incorrect conclusions even when the subsequent reasoning process appears logically valid. Existing methods improve reasoning through decomposition, symbolic translation, external solvers, or self-verification, but pay comparatively less attention to the semantic structure on which reasoning depends. In this paper, we further investigate how semantic organization influences logical reasoning in LLMs. To this end, we propose HexLogicAgent, a framework that first organizes the meaning of natural-language statements and then guides logical reasoning through structured verification. In our investigation, we also make two observations. First, incomplete semantic representations, rather than deductive inference itself, are a major source of logical reasoning failures in LLMs. Second, explicitly modeling the complete structure of semantic opposition substantially delays the degradation of reasoning performance as logical complexity increases. Experiments on challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that HexLogicAgent consistently improves reasoning reliability across multiple LLMs. The core idea is supported by a logical hexagon theory, which explains why a complete structure of opposing meanings is necessary for reliable reasoning.

Yunyao Zhang, Xinglang Zhang, Zeliang Chen +2

aHuazhong University of Science and Technology, , Wuhan, 430074, Hubei, China

Logical Reasoning LLM Reliability LLM Reasoning

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

Trustworthiness Costs of Domain Adaptation in Small Language Models:A Cross-Architecture Empirical Study

Domain adaptation of small language models (SLMs) has emerged as a practical strategy for deploying capable NLP systems in resource-constrained, high-stakes environments including healthcare, legal services, and financial analysis. While performance gains from parameter-efficient fine-tuning are well characterised, the corresponding impact on trustworthiness (factual calibration and adversarial robustness) remains poorly understood. This paper presents the first systematic cross-domain, cross-architecture empirical study quantifying the trustworthiness cost of domain adaptation across three SLM architectures (TinyLlama 1B, Gemma-2 2B, Llama 3.2 1B), three domains (healthcare, legal, finance), two training-data conditions (benign and adversarially perturbed), and four fine-tuning strategies (baseline LoRA, Safety-DPO, Dark Experience Replay, and Task Arithmetic LoRA, TA-LoRA). Trustworthiness is evaluated through TruthfulQA MC2 (factual calibration) and HarmBench ASR (adversarial robustness) across all 216 experimental configurations with three random seeds. Three principal findings emerge. First, baseline QLoRA domain adaptation produces minimal TruthfulQA MC2 change across all model-domain combinations (mean |Delta TQA| < 0.02). Second, adversarially perturbed training data consistently improves domain adaptation quality (Delta loss approximately -0.040) without worsening trustworthiness benchmarks. Third, none of the three safety-preserving strategies reduced adversarial harm susceptibility: Safety-DPO was effectively neutral (mean Delta ASR < 0.001), while Dark ER and TA-LoRA increased mean HarmBench ASR by +0.171 and +0.155 respectively in safety-aligned models (Gemma-2 2B, Llama 3.2 1B), with individual configurations exceeding +0.45. These results challenge the assumption that replay-based and arithmetic-merge strategies transfer alignment to domain-adapted SLMs.

Ramesh B. Paramkusham

Independent Researcher; Adjunct Faculty, University of the Cumberlands, Williamsburg, KY, USA

Language Model Safety Evaluation Domain Adaptation Small Language Models LLM Reliability Adversarial Robustness of Language Models

Jul 23, 2026cs.AI

Euclid-MCP: A Model Context Protocol Server for Deterministic Logical Reasoning via Prolog

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at natural language understanding and generation but remain unreliable for multi-step logical reasoning, especially in safety-critical or compliance-sensitive domains. Recent neuro-symbolic approaches address this gap by coupling neural models with external symbolic engines, yet most integrations are bespoke and lack a standardized interface for tool-augmented agents. This paper presents Euclid-MCP, an open-source MCP server that provides deterministic logical reasoning via SWI-Prolog. Euclid-MCP introduces Euclid-IR, an engine-agnostic intermediate representation for Horn-clause logic that is human-readable, easy for LLMs to generate, and straightforward to compile into Prolog or alternative backends. The server exposes a compact tool interface that supports a translate-run-inspect-repair loop, enabling LLM clients to delegate inference while retaining full access to proof traces and derivation logs. We evaluate Euclid-MCP on a realistic IT security and compliance use case. Results show that while LLMs alone are sufficient on small knowledge bases, they hallucinate systematically on larger problems, whereas Euclid-MCP delivers exact answers with lower latency and more compact outputs. We argue that semantic RAG is fundamentally unsuited for rule enforcement, and that Euclid-MCP can serve as a stable, shared reasoning substrate for both RAG-based assistants and agentic systems.

Bartolomeo Bogliolo

Logic Programming LLM Reliability Model Context Protocol Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning LLM Reasoning

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score (CM-LRS): From Plausible to Bankable

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

Prerit Ahuja

Independent Researcher · London-based

Financial Services LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Rubric-Based Evaluation Finance