Truth

A truth probe fitted where truthful reporting and a task's prescribed action coincide cannot distinguish those targets from its fitting labels alone. We call this failure of semantic identification perfect aliasing. In a controlled binary reporting game, truth and prescribed-action probes fitted on compliant contexts solve the same optimization. On rival contexts their labels are complements, forcing their AUROCs to sum to one; this identity holds across 751 cell-layer pairs to floating-point precision. We separate prescribed output symbols from semantic action using randomized codebooks, then separate truth from prescribed action by fitting on mixed compliant and rival contexts. For a reward-trained Gemma-2-9B policy that answers falsely on all evaluated rival trials, the conventional probe scores $0.006 \pm 0.005$ AUROC across three training seeds, while mixed-fit probes score $1.000$ on the same held-out activations. Mixed fitting uses more training examples and access to labelled rival contexts, so this comparison establishes linear recoverability rather than isolating the benefit of decorrelation. We also show that two compliant-fit probes, both perfect in-distribution, score $0.080$ and $0.986$ on the same rival activations. The findings concern what a probe measures: they do not establish preserved functional belief, causal use of the recovered direction, or a deployable deception detector. Code and aggregate results accompany the paper.

Modus Tollens (MT) is a classical logical inference rule, while counterfactuals are hypothetical statements that are contrary to facts, and counterfactual reasoning is a process of reasoning based on counterfactuals. Negation is an indispensable core concept in them. In this paper, based on the logical systems LCOI&PLCOI with contradictory negation, opposite negation and intermediary negation, we propose three variants of Modus Tollens corresponding to distinct negation types, namely MTC: Modus Tollens based on contradictory negation, MTO: Modus Tollens based on opposite negation, and MTI: Modus Tollens based on intermediary negation. We define the implications within MTC, MTO and MTI, provide the truth value algorithms of MTC, MTO and MTI, and discuss the reducibility of these algorithms. To incorporate these three types of negation into counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning, we differentiate counterfactuals into two types based on whether they possess logical negation, thereby proposing three counterfactuals and counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations. In this paper, we further argue that the three counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations have the same inference form as MTC, MTO and MTI, respectively. In other words, they share the same inference structure. As a result, the truth value algorithms for MTC, MTO and MTI can be as the truth value algorithms for the three counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations. The algorithms indicates that if the first premise of the reasoning is true, the truth values of the reasoning conclusions are identical to the truth values of the three negative premises in the reasoning premises, respectively. This reflects the consistency and accuracy of the truth value algorithms.

Linear classifiers trained on hidden states of a large language model (LLM), linear probes, can flag factual errors from a single forward pass. Geometrically, that implies that true and false statements separate along a stable direction in hidden state space, i.e., the truth direction. Prior work disagrees on whether this generalises across input shifts, but the disagreement is hard to interpret because cross-dataset probe transfer experiments confound several kinds of input change at once. We isolate three such variables in medical question-answering (QA): writing style (register), domain (medical specialty), and corpus (dataset). We build a benchmark using 500 MedQA entries, each rewritten into four styles (textbook, patient, clinical note, colloquial), annotated with clinical specialty, and grouped with two other exam corpora, MedMCQA and MMLU-medical, for cross-dataset evaluation. Probing four open-weight LLMs (2--8B), we find that the truth direction is largely robust to writing style (mean $Δ_\text{register} \approx 0.10$ AUROC on held-out facts) and to medical specialty ($Δ_\text{specialty} \approx 0.03$), but degrades unevenly across corpora: by $0.12$ AUROC on MMLU-medical and by $0.21$ on MedMCQA, roughly twice the register gap. The register result replicates with a second generator and carries over to human-written patient questions. The truth direction is therefore largely stable within the medical domain but breaks under some corpus shifts, and question format does not explain the break, which suggests that the signal a linear probe recovers is partly bound to dataset structure rather than to medical knowledge alone.

TRACE (Math & Lienhart, arXiv:2602.01135) reads causal graphs over event types out of a pretrained autoregressive sequence model by thresholding a per-position conditional-mutual-information estimate at a fixed tau. We independently replicate its headline synthetic result: with tau selected on a validation split, mean per-sequence F1 against exact interventional truth reaches 0.90-0.91 at vocabulary size 1000 (paper: 0.91) and 0.86-0.91 from 100 to 2000. First, the optimal threshold is pinned to the truth margin, not to any constant: at every size the errors at tau* straddle the delta = 0.05 margin defining ground truth (missed true edges lie just above it, accepted false ones just below), and the blind optimum lands near delta/2 times the estimator's calibration, confirmed out of sample at 5000. Second, at a single global threshold TRACE mostly recovers a direct, adjacent-influence graph: lag-1 true edges are recalled at 0.97-0.99, while true edges at lag 2 or more read orders of magnitude lower---the reading-scale price of randomizing mediating positions, which an exact test of direct causal effect requires when the truth is unknown. A per-lag threshold family recovers a third to a half of lag-2 truth; on lag-uniform data one validated threshold recalls every lag at 0.40-0.87, 8-26 pp below an atomic-intervention control at lags 3-6. Third, the default lag decay of the paper's synthetic benchmark concentrates about 85% of interventional truth at lag 1 and pushes the rest below the estimator's noise floor, so headline F1 there certifies lag-1 recovery only and conflates the benchmark's skew with the algorithm's own limit; a flatter decay separates the two. Fourth, F1 saturates from N = 2 particles at the selected threshold---a property of the threshold's margin over the noise floor, not of the estimator, which converges as N^(-1/2). We distill five practitioner rules.

LLM analytics agents are evaluated on SQL syntax accuracy, but production failures look different: questions with two valid business definitions, questions the warehouse cannot answer, deprecated columns after a schema change, and queries that execute successfully while returning the wrong business number. No execution-match metric can score them. This paper introduces WarehouseReliabilityBench, 400 frozen tasks over two synthetic warehouses in which roughly half the correct responses are a clarification, an abstention or a refusal, with pinned denominators and a pre-registered paired bootstrap fixing each claim verb before the numbers existed. QueryProof, a 7B agent, uses rules derived from a semantic layer and physical catalog to determine its behaviour, and gates every answer on deterministic post-execution checks. On an 80-task synthetic test split evaluated once, QueryProof outperforms a direct-prompted 32B baseline by +0.237 [+0.112, +0.375] Business Truth Rate at 71.0% lower cost per correct answer; against a cost-matched few-shot baseline the accuracy gain holds but the cost difference does not resolve. This compares systems rather than model sizes: the 32B baseline receives none of the scaffolding. False success falls from 0.754 to 0.351 of returned answers, and no wrong number was returned on an answerable task (0 of 24), though 13 answers went to questions requiring clarification or abstention. Removing the routing layer changes little (0.562 against 0.537), so the result does not depend on escalation. Routing tuned on validation over-abstains on test, and the fitted confidence model loses to the heuristic it replaced. Resampling template families rather than tasks widens both accuracy intervals to include zero, so the effect's direction is better supported than its magnitude. The gain tracks the deterministic layer, though no component ablation was run.

Despite the remarkable progress of large vision language models (LVLMs), object hallucination remains a fundamental challenge that hinders their trustworthy deployment. A key finding motivates our work: real and hallucinated object tokens are clearly separable in hidden representations, yet this separability is largely lost at the language-modeling (LM) head. We propose TruthLens, a self-evaluation framework that teaches the LM head to expose a per-object truthfulness signal without any auxiliary model or additional inference cost. Concretely, a rarely-used special token is repurposed as a reference token. For each object-token position, we extract the log-probability assigned to this special token by the LM head, and define its difference from a predefined constant as the truthfulness score. The model is then fine-tuned with an MSE objective that drives scores toward 1 for real objects and 0 for hallucinated ones, while a divergence constraint preserves the original generation capability. Despite being trained on only a limited set of object categories, TruthLens generalizes effectively to benchmarks with substantially larger label spaces. Extensive experiments across multiple LVLMs demonstrate state-of-the-art performance; notably, on Qwen2.5-VL-7B, TruthLens outperforms the previous best method on MS-COCO by over 17% in AUROC. Our code is available at https://github.com/wyqstan/TruthLens.

LLM-based multi-agent systems promise effective collaborative reasoning, but communication may amplify local errors into collective risks, and while existing evaluations emphasize final outcomes, they leave the reliability and propagation dynamics of distributed information aggregation unclear, so we introduce ForesightSafety-TIDE, a controlled evaluation framework that strictly pairs all-honest collaboration with controlled deception by a key evidence holder and analyzes the aggregation process through multi-stage voting, testimony adoption, and evidence-root lineage propagation, and using 120 five-agent object-movement environments where partial observations jointly determine a unique endpoint, we evaluate 3 homogeneous LLM-based multi-agent systems, and across these paired conditions, aggregate truth recovery falls from 72.50% to 14.17%, with significant declines for every system, while process tracing and exit ablations show that a single false testimony is adopted more readily than truthful testimony, propagates to higher orders, and persists through honest agents after the deceiver exits, and observers without first-hand evidence suppress incorrect consensus but do not improve truth recovery, so together, these findings reveal both the fragility of distributed fact recovery and its underlying mechanism: false evidence gains collective influence through its adoption and continued propagation by other agents after entering communication.

Prior work has shown that LLMs encode the truth of factual propositions along linear directions in activation space. It's unclear how these representations extend to contextual truth: propositions whose truth is determined by in-context evidence rather than world knowledge. We show that LLMs maintain a linear representation of contextual truth that persists across structurally different output policies, even when the output doesn't require the model to determine a proposition's truth, and show causal evidence via steering experiments. Using the transcripts from a collaborative vision-language task that requires two LLMs to maintain a shared common ground, we show that truth representations of a proposition are significantly swayed by partner assertions about that proposition, even when the LLM has enough evidence to determine its truth. We find evidence that propositions near the decision boundary are more susceptible to having their truth shifted through partner assertions. Separating representation from output distinguish two forms of sycophancy that output behavior alone cannot: the model may accommodate a false proposition while continuing to represent it as false, or shift its representation across the boundary. The latter is 2.59x more common when the model agrees by restating the false claim explicitly than when it agrees implicitly.

Large Vision Language Models have integrated reasoning capabilities, elevating cognitive performance to new levels. However, existing evaluations either focus solely on perception or rely on specific domains such as maths or coding. Evaluation for reasoning capabilities that align with an open-world environment is still required, especially one that considers perception and reasoning jointly. To bridge this gap, we propose to evaluate LVLMs by exploiting visual illusions as a diagnostic tool. Visual illusions are phenomena in which the human visual system misinterprets objective signals, resulting in an understanding that deviates from reality. We constructed IllusionReasoning, a benchmark of illusion images collected from the real world, incorporating diverse annotated question-answer pairs. Based on IllusionReasoning, we show that the reasoning capabilities of a wide range of LVLMs are not as advanced as claimed. Our work provides new insights into LVLMs and offers future direction for optimisation.

Bürger et al.\ (2024) demonstrated that truth representations in large language models are universal across statement polarity but reside within a multidimensional subspace. The truth value of a statement is linearly readable from a residual stream of language model, but it is not clear how much of that representation fits on a single direction, which component builds it, or what it is made of. We conducted a study based on these questions, with one instrument: a training-free axis, the dominant direction of the singular value decomposition (SVD) of hidden-state differences over true/false minimal pairs, identified without labels up to one global sign. Extensive evaluation across 14 models from 6 diverse architectural families (including MoE), read and extract at cost $O(d)$ per token. We close with a pre-registered prediction on whether the arrangement extends to categories whose truth is computed rather than retrieved.

Current approaches to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, such as Chain-of-Thought and "Wait" prompts, primarily encourage models to think more, yet often fail to guide them toward Truth. While Representation Editing (RepE) offers a intrinsic control, its application to dynamic reasoning trajectories remains underexplored. In this work, we bridge this gap by investigating the geometry of truth within unfolding reasoning chains. We uncover three critical insights: (1) Truth is encoded at the sentence level and is entangled with latent reasoning patterns; (2) Effective intervention follows an Uncertainty Principle and a Decay Effect, requiring localization to early, high-entropy forks; (3) Naive steering vectors suffer from noise, risking collateral damage to correct trajectories. Based on these findings, we propose DynaSteer, a dynamic RepE framework. DynaSteer employs pattern clustering to disentangle reasoning manifolds and utilizes Fisher-LDA to project purified truth. By dynamically monitoring lookahead entropy, it selectively steers and rolls back trajectories only when necessary. Comprehensive experimental results on several MATH benchmark verify the effectiveness of DynaSteer, and experiments on out-of-domain coding tasks further confirm its generalization ability. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/tianlwang/DynaSteer.

Data fusion, also known as truth discovery, is a data integration problem that aims to determine the correct value or set of values for each attribute of an object when presented with potentially conflicting values from multiple sources. Data fusion tasks belong to two main categories: single-truth scenarios, where each attribute has only one correct value, and multi-truth scenarios, where multiple values can be valid simultaneously. This paper investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in data fusion tasks for tabular data. Various prompting strategies, encompassing both single-truth and multi-truth scenarios, are investigated empirically. Domain-dependent, domain-independent, zero-shot and one-shot prompts are evaluated on three different benchmark datasets. Experimental results demonstrate that LLM-based approaches outperform traditional unsupervised truth discovery methods, such as DART and LTM, across all datasets. The codebase of this study has been made publicly available on GitHub.

External indexes can be used for cluster evaluation when ground truth is available. We review the most common external validity indexes focusing on set-matching-based measures. We recommend centroid index (CI), because it is an intuitive cluster-level measure with an explainable result. If we need a more fine-tuned, point-level measure, there are more choices. Pair-set index (PSI) provides a normalized score which is not biased by cluster sizes. If all points should matter equally, then clustering accuracy (ACC) or any other set-matching measure is suitable.

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.

A model that lies while knowing the truth is the central case ELK cannot handle with behavioral evaluation alone. We ask whether such deception leaves an internal signature distinguishing it from honest error. Our key move is a control for wrongness: we contrast a sleeper agent (knows the truth, lies on trigger) against a naive liar (fine-tuned to emit the same wrong answers with no honest training). Both produce identical wrong outputs; any difference is about knowledge conflict, not incorrectness. We find deceptive forward passes carry a conflict signature - 2.1-2.3x higher residual rank than naive-liar passes on the same wrong answer - strong enough to identify which of two responses is the lie with 100% accuracy and no labels, across GPT-2 small/medium (three seeds) and three instruct models. Across Qwen2.5-1.5B/7B and Phi-3-mini, instructed deception raises residual rank on every tested fact (18/18, 40/40, 34/34); on Phi-3, lies separate perfectly from both honest answers and hallucinations (AUC 1.0, Wilcoxon p6e-11). The signature survives strategic self-constructed deception (model invents its own lie, AUC 1.0), active concealment attempts (AUC 1.0), and length-controlled replication (20/20, AUC 1.0, p1e-6). Using basis-free relative representations, a probe trained on one model family detects deception in two other families zero-shot (mean AUC 0.933), surviving simultaneous architecture and format change (AUC 0.821), and transfers across five languages (AUC 1.000, length-controlled). The signature is read-only: detectable but not injectable (0/8 both directions). Honest limitations and six negative experiments are documented in full.

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

Decoding-time truthfulness methods -- layer-contrast decoding, inference-time intervention, and learned logit adapters -- have demonstrated 10-30 point gains on TruthfulQA when applied to base language models. However, modern instruction-tuned LLMs already achieve substantially higher baselines (61-76%), raising the question of whether these methods remain effective in practice. We design a six-control evaluation framework -- out-of-distribution training, multi-judge validation, simple decoding baselines, confound controls, bootstrap confidence intervals, and seed variance -- and apply it across 5 models (1B-70B), 3 benchmarks, and 15 methods. We find that previously reported gains shrink substantially under strict controls: on the full TruthfulQA benchmark (N=817), no token-level method achieves statistically significant improvement, and the best learned adapter scores -2.0 points below greedy (p=.23). We identify five evaluation sensitivities -- contamination, judge choice, missing baselines, confounds, and statistical noise -- that individually or jointly account for these discrepancies. Cross-benchmark validation on HaluEval QA and TriviaQA confirms that these patterns extend beyond TruthfulQA. Deliberative prompting methods (chain-of-thought, self-critique) appear more robust in the evaluated regime, with CoT achieving +5.6-19pp across benchmarks as a training-free, single-pass method. We release a seven-point evaluation checklist and discuss implications for future truthfulness research.

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to align with people's preferences and values. However, this method has known limitations: it aggregates conflicting preferences, often relies on unrepresentative samples, and uses only binary comparisons. Analysing 1,500 open-ended responses from the PRISM dataset across 75 countries, we examine what people actually want from AI systems and reveal concrete failures of current methods. We find that different people want different things: most values are requested by fewer than a quarter of respondents, with truthfulness the sole exception at 49%. Furthermore, the same words hide divergent meanings: when people describe what they mean by "truthfulness", they reveal distinct, potentially incompatible, epistemological bases, as some ask for sourced claims, some for expert opinions, and some even ask for unpopular views. Certain capabilities, namely how human-like a model behaves, and some features, like AI guardrails, are outright controversial, with some desiring them and others rejecting them. We additionally find that people often use contextual distinctions (what AI should do "by default" versus "if requested") that binary comparisons cannot capture. These findings expose fundamental problems in current alignment practices. When 49% request truthfulness but define it differently, this is unlikely to be captured by a single reward model. The persistence of high hallucination rates in well-funded models, despite users' clear demands for accuracy, suggests that current methods fail to identify actual preferences. This paper sheds light on the situated, contested, imperfect signals that are currently being flattened into universal preference models, a practice others have characterised as epistemic violence.

Factual sycophancy occurs when a language model abandons a correct, verifiable answer under social pressure. Because a flip occurs only when pressure toward a false answer exceeds the model's neutral preference for the truth, flip rates conflate two mechanisms: the strength of that baseline preference (truth margin), and how far pressure shifts it (manipulation sensitivity). We decompose factual sycophancy into these channels and use them to separate the effects of size and instruction tuning across 56 open-weight models spanning 0.3B-32B parameters and 13 manipulation types. We find that vulnerability is governed mainly by size, but instruction tuning changes how size acts: small instruction-tuned models can become less robust, whereas large instruction-tuned models usually become more robust. Instruction tuning primarily increases truth margin, but its behavioral effect depends on manipulation type. Scaling also changes the two channels differently: base models gain margin but become mildly more manipulation-sensitive, whereas instruction-tuned models gain margin faster and become less sensitive. Factual sycophancy is therefore not a single scalar property. Evaluations should report channel-specific, manipulation-specific, and size-conditioned robustness rather than flip rates alone.

When prompting language models for psychometric assessment, researchers assume that the responses reflect the injected persona and the meaning of the survey item. We test this premise using a diagnostic design that crosses five semantically distinct baseline personas with five semantically equivalent variants of each of four prompt components (persona wording, task instruction, item wording, option symbol). Measuring the 1-Wasserstein distance between the resulting response distributions and partitioning the variation among the five components allows for the separation of target effects from prompt artifacts. We apply the framework to 13 open-weight small language models (0.6B to 14B) on the Big Five Inventory and the Short Dark Triad. We find that in most models, the task instruction and option symbol displace response distributions further than paraphrasing the persona description or the item itself. For a substantial share of items, the artifact share of explained variation exceeds 50%; non-semantic changes of the prompt account for more response variation than the baseline personas. Our framework lets researchers quantify these prompt artifacts before interpreting psychometric output.

LLMs have evolved from basic chatbots to the backbone of the AI ecosystem, now widely used in healthcare, schools, and government services. The domain-wide adoption of LLMs necessitates continuous evaluation to ensure their safety and fairness. Common issues encountered after deploying LLMs include inconsistent outputs and hallucinations of incorrect information. Although numerous LLM evaluation tools exist, most are limited to testing a single parameter at a time or require massive computational resources that are not accessible to most researchers. TriEval addresses these challenges by evaluating LLM outputs across multiple parameters, including bias, toxicity, and truthfulness together, while minimizing computing resources. The pipeline is compatible with both open- and closed-source models and runs on a standard laptop without a GPU cluster. TriEval has been tested on four models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Gemma 2 9B, and Claude Haiku. The results show clear differences between open-source and closed-source models, especially in terms of toxicity and truthfulness. TriEval is being released as open source to enable broader access for researchers with limited computational resources.

We investigate whether open-source LLMs encode a linearly separable truthfulness signal in their hidden states, and at which network depth this signal is strongest. Across three $7$B--$8$B instruction-tuned models (Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, Qwen2.5-7B) loaded in $4$-bit NF4 quantization, we extract per-layer hidden states on four hallucination benchmarks (TruthfulQA, HaluEval-QA, FEVER, and a controlled synthetic set) and compare four detection approaches: linear and MLP probes, INSIDE EigenScore, self-consistency, and attention entropy. A linear probe on a single mid-network layer achieves $0.904$--$1.000$ AUROC on held-out splits, while sampling-based detectors do not exceed $0.541$ AUROC under the same protocol. The truthfulness signal is approximately linear: MLP probes rarely surpass linear probes by more than $0.01$ AUROC. Peak probing layers fall in a consistent band across model families on natural-language benchmarks -- blocks~$13$--$18$ of~$32$ for Llama and Mistral, and blocks~$19$--$25$ of~$28$ for Qwen. First-block attention entropy provides a complementary signal in knowledge-grounded settings ($0.866$--$0.941$ AUROC on HaluEval-QA) at no additional inference cost. The low discriminability of sampling methods under this protocol reflects a structural mismatch between paired-label evaluation and the information these methods access, rather than an inherent limitation of those methods. Code and data are released for full reproducibility on a single $8$,GB GPU.

Police-reported crash statistics remain the standard input for urban road-safety assessment, but their incompleteness and reporting lag limit their usefulness for timely, fine-grained intervention design. Harsh acceleration and braking events are widely used as surrogate safety indicators, but have so far been studied only in comparatively small urban samples. This study analyses harsh events across the urban road network of Milan, combining high-resolution telematics from more than 4.2 million vehicles equipped with On-Board Units, segment-level traffic metrics from TomTom, street-network and infrastructure attributes from OpenStreetMap, and visual streetscape features extracted from Google Street View via semantic segmentation using a OneFormer model. We employ an analytical framework combining non-parametric Mann--Whitney U tests of segment-feature distributions between high- and low-harshness groups with supervised machine-learning regressors. We find that, once exposure is controlled for, wider carriageways, crossings and transit stops, and more open visual fields (higher sky- and road-pixel proportions) are associated with higher harsh-event intensity, while denser built frontage is associated with lower intensity. Finally, the cycling-infrastructure case study identifies a gradient in harsh-event intensity across facility types: markings-only cycle lanes are associated with a 19.5% higher harshness score, and mixed-traffic configurations with an 11.5% higher score, relative to physically separated cycle paths, conditional on the included controls. These results support context-specific rather than uniform urban-safety interventions and illustrate how large-scale telematics combined with open geospatial and visual data can inform Vision Zero decision-making at the metropolitan scale.

Ground truth datasets play a fundamental role as reference values in the training and evaluation of machine learning models. This position paper argues that ground truths are not neutral objective measurements that are naturally given, but instead that they are constructed by arrangements of humans and technologies. We argue that the ML community will benefit from articulating and discussing these often invisible or unreported choices and acknowledging that reference data sets are contingent, not universal. Focusing on the situated and context-dependent nature of ground truths can improve reliability by enabling a better informed perspective on where, when, and how the datasets, and the models they have shaped, can best be used. We argue for increasing `situated reliability' which includes articulating the limits and strengths of models and their truth claims. Finally, paying more attention to the construction of ground truths can support transparency, accountability, and interdisciplinary work.

Partially manipulated (half-truth) speech, where a short synthesised segment is spliced into an otherwise genuine utterance, is a harder and more realistic forensic threat than the fully synthesised deepfakes that dominate the literature. We present CAFNet, a lightweight (576K-parameter, 2.24 MB) cross-attentive architecture that fuses MFCC, LFCC, and Chroma-STFT features to jointly classify audio as real, fully fake, or half-truth, and regress the temporal boundaries of the synthesised region, at approximately 14 ms CPU latency. A component ablation shows cross-attention fusion is CAFNet's most load-bearing component; a deeply supervised auxiliary classification head from earlier iterations is not, and removing it improves every in-domain metric under 3-seed replication with substantially lower variance. On MLADDC T2+T3 the model reaches 97.55%$\pm$0.69% ternary accuracy and 0.037 s boundary mean absolute error (MAE), to our knowledge, the first reported continuous splice- boundary localisation result on this benchmark. Zero-shot evaluation on two independent benchmarks shows transfer is capability- and corpus-dependent rather than uniform: on Half-Truth Audio Detection dataset (HAD), detection recall reaches 84.9% and ternary classification resolves half-truth correctly on half of true half-truth clips (50.4%), while on PartialSpoof, binary detection stays near chance (AUC 0.5544). We treat this asymmetry, not a single generalization verdict, as the finding. HAD localisation improves in absolute terms but degrades in relative terms, since in-domain localisation improved faster. An architectural change validated purely in-domain thus shifted the cross-corpus transfer profile, evidence that cross-corpus evaluation should accompany, not follow, in-domain architecture decisions.

Language-model agents increasingly emit uncertainty signals throughout a trajectory, but existing agentic UQ evaluations often conflate ranking usefulness with probabilistic truthfulness. AUROC, AUPRC, risk-coverage, Trajectory ECE, and scalarized trajectory scores evaluate discrimination, binwise calibration, or collapsed summaries, but do not strictly elicit the full prefix-conditioned success-probability trace $q_t = P^π(Y=1 | H_t)$. Building on prequential proper scoring, we introduce the Trajectory Proper Score (TPS), a predictor-agnostic family of strictly proper trajectory-level scoring rules for any per-step uncertainty signal calibrated into a probability of eventual success. We prove that TPS strictly elicits the success-probability process under complete observation, within the chosen score family and weight schedule. We extend the construction to administratively censored trajectories by projecting the complete-data score onto the observable stopped prefix, yielding an exact $q_Z$-weighted reduced score and a tractable approximation when $q_Z$ is unestimated. We further show that common trajectory evaluators target weaker objects than the full prefix-conditioned probability process: Trajectory ECE is resolution-blind, while scalarized Trajectory Brier elicits only the collapsed scalar, not the full trace. Experiments on StrategyQA, Tau2-Bench, HotpotQA, and WebShop show that these theoretical distinctions are operationally visible: probability recalibration can substantially change TPS while leaving rank metrics nearly unchanged, and the tractable censored approximation can change the verdict relative to complete-only evaluation.

Mediative Fuzzy Logic was conceived as a practical scheme for reconciling hesitant or conflicting assessments in fuzzy control and decision-making. However, its logical and semantic foundations remain underdeveloped, especially beyond operational type-1 settings. This article develops a unified account of the type-1 core together with interval type-2, granular type-3, and quantum extensions. We characterize the mediative operator as a convex aggregation controlled by hesitation and contradiction, model mediative truth values as independent truth-falsity pairs in a continuous bilattice-like structure, and introduce a propositional system extending a standard t-norm-based fuzzy logic with a mediative connective. We establish soundness, paraconsistency, and conservativity over the underlying fuzzy base for formulas without mediation, and formulate coherent semantic extensions to interval type-2 truth values, granule-indexed local evaluations, and effects and density operators on Hilbert spaces. An autonomous-braking sensor-fusion example illustrates how the framework supports transparent, conservative, and safety-first decisions under incomplete, heterogeneous, and mildly contradictory evidence. Under suitable assumptions, the higher-level formulations reduce to the type-1 case, clarifying coherence across levels and reliably supporting future work in intelligent decision systems.

Scaling laws predict loss from compute but not how capabilities interact. We measure the coupling between reasoning and truthfulness across 63 base models from 16 families and find a regime change invisible to loss curves: below a family-dependent critical scale N_c, capabilities anticorrelate (r = -0.989, p = 4 x 10^{-5} nonparametric permutation test); above it, they cooperate. N_c ~ 3.5B parameters [2.9B, 13.4B] (bootstrap 95% CI), but model size is not the only variable that determines phase. Architecture, data curation, and training recipe each shift N_c independently: curated training eliminated the coupling dip between Qwen generations (0.025 to 0.830 at matched scale), Gemma-4 at 4B achieves coupling 0.871, characteristic of 13B+ standard-trained models, through distillation and architectural innovation, and Phi at 1B matches web-trained coupling at 10B through data curation alone. Width normalization eliminates the anticorrelation across all tested families, supporting an output-projection bottleneck. Internally, 38 of 40 models show zero competing attention heads. A sparse-regression ODE cross-predicts held-out Llama-2 at 5.6% error. The diagnostic requires no model internals -- only public benchmark scores across a model family. The cooperative regime extends to the frontier (r = +0.72, 34 models, 10 labs). A proof-of-concept intervention confirms the bottleneck is exploitable: adding a single truth-direction vector at the identified layer corrects 60% of misaligned outputs in the tax phase with zero retraining -- a surgical, per-inference correction that requires no weight modification. Code, data, an open-source steering CLI for any open-weight model, and an interactive dashboard for phase diagnosis are released: https://zehenlabs.com/cape/.

Collaborative machine learning involves training high-quality models using datasets from a number of sources. To incentivize sources to share data, existing data valuation methods fairly reward each source based on its data submitted as is. However, as these methods do not verify nor incentivize data truthfulness, the sources can manipulate their data (e.g., by submitting duplicated or noisy data) to artificially increase their valuations and rewards or prevent others from benefiting. This paper presents the first mechanism that provably ensures (F) collaborative fairness and incentivizes (T) truthfulness at equilibrium for Bayesian models. Our mechanism combines semivalues (e.g., Shapley value), which ensure fairness, and a truthful data valuation function (DVF) based on a validation set that is unknown to the sources. As semivalues are influenced by others' data, we introduce an additional condition to prove that a source can maximize its expected data values in coalitions and semivalues by submitting a dataset that captures its true knowledge. Additionally, we discuss the implications and suitable relaxations of (F) and (T) when the mediator has a limited budget for rewards or lacks a validation set. Our theoretical findings are validated on synthetic and real-world datasets.

How should hidden states generated autoregressively be collapsed into a representation that reflects a language model's internal state? Despite tokens being generated under causal masking, we find that mean pooling across their hidden states yields more semantic representations than any individual token alone. We quantify this through kernel alignment to reference spaces in language, vision, and protein domains. The improvement through mean pooling is consistent with information being distributed across generated tokens rather than localized to a single position. Furthermore, representations derived from generated tokens outperform those from prompt tokens, and alignment across generation reveals interpretable dynamics in model behavior.

While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have advanced video understanding, they remain highly prone to hallucinations in dynamic scenes. We argue this stems from a failure in spatio-temporal monitoring, the ability to persistently track object identities, states, and relations over time. Existing benchmarks obscure this deficit by relying on single final-answer evaluations for queries that can often be resolved via local visual cues or statistical priors. To rigorously diagnose this, we introduce STEMO-Bench (Spatio-TEmporal MOnitoring), a benchmark of human-verified object-centric facts that evaluates intermediate reasoning by decomposing queries into sub-questions, distinguishing genuine temporal understanding from coincidental correctness. To address failure modes exposed by STEMO, we propose STEMO-Track, a novel object-centric framework that explicitly constructs and reasons over structured object trajectories via chunk-wise state extraction and temporal aggregation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our object-centric framework significantly reduces hallucinated answers and improves spatio-temporal reasoning consistency over state-of-the-art MLLMs.

In-group favoritism refers to the phenomena of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members and is widely observed in numerous social cooperative behaviors. Recently, in-group favoritism biases have also been identified in generative language models. However, whether the in-group favoritism exists when persona agents are faced with contradicting information (e.g., misinformation), and how to mitigate the adverse effects of in-group favoritism biases in persona agents have been understudied. To address these problems, we propose a Truth or Tribe simulation framework to study the agent cooperation within the spread of contradicting information through a triadic interaction paradigm, and conduct controlled trials to evaluate the primary moderating factors. Extensive results showcase that persona agents display strong in-group favoritism, accepting incorrect answers from identity-similar peers at much higher rates than from dissimilar peers. In-group favoritism continues to emerge in defeasible reasoning contexts where no absolute truth exists, and it intensifies as cognitive complexity increases. Furthermore, three intervention strategies--Identity-Blind Instruction, Structured Counterfactual Reasoning, and Heterogeneous Perspective Ensemble--are proposed to mitigate the in-group favoritism.

Half-truths, claims that are factually correct yet misleading due to omitted context, remain a blind spot for fact verification systems focused on explicit falsehoods. Addressing such omission-based manipulation requires reasoning not only about what is said, but also about what is left unsaid. We propose RADAR, a role-anchored multi-agent debate framework for omission-aware fact verification under realistic, noisy retrieval. RADAR assigns complementary roles to a Politician and a Scientist, who reason adversarially over shared retrieved evidence, moderated by a neutral Judge. A dual-threshold early termination controller adaptively decides when sufficient reasoning has been reached to issue a verdict. Experiments show that RADAR consistently outperforms strong single- and multi-agent baselines across datasets and backbones, improving omission detection accuracy while reducing reasoning cost. These results demonstrate that role-anchored, retrieval-grounded debate with adaptive control is an effective and scalable framework for uncovering missing context in fact verification. The code is available at https://github.com/tangyixuan/RADAR.

Despite the perceived success of large-scale dataset distillation (DD) methods, recent evidence finds that simple random image baselines perform on-par with state-of-theart DD methods like SRe2L due to the use of soft labels during downstream model training. This is in contrast with the findings in coreset literature, where high-quality coresets consistently outperform random subsets in the hardlabel (HL) setting. To understand this discrepancy, we perform a detailed scalability analysis to examine the role of data quality under different label regimes, ranging from abundant soft labels (termed as SL+KD regime) to fixed soft labels (SL) and hard labels (HL). Our analysis reveals that high-quality coresets fail to convincingly outperform the random baseline in both SL and SL+KD regimes. In the SL+KD setting, performance further approaches nearoptimal levels relative to the full dataset, regardless of subset size or quality, for a given compute budget. This performance saturation calls into question the widespread practice of using soft labels for model evaluation, where unlike the HL setting, subset quality has negligible influence. A subsequent systematic evaluation of five large-scale and four small-scale DD methods in the HL setting reveals that only RDED reliably outperforms random baselines on ImageNet-1K, but can still lag behind strong coreset methods due to its over-reliance on easy sample patches. Based on this, we introduce CAD-Prune, a compute-aware pruning metric that efficiently identifies samples of optimal difficulty for a given compute budget, and use it to develop CA2D, a compute-aligned DD method, outperforming current DD methods on ImageNet-1K at various IPC settings. Together, our findings uncover many insights into current DD research and establish useful tools to advance dataefficient learning for both coresets and DD.

The rapid rise of image-to-video (I2V) generation enables realistic videos to be created from a single image but also brings new forensic demands. Unlike static images, I2V content evolves over time, requiring forensics to move beyond 2D pixel-level tampering localization toward tracing how pixels flow and transform throughout the video. As frames progress, embedded traces drift and deform, making traditional spatial forensics ineffective. To address this unexplored dimension, we present Flow of Truth, the first proactive framework focusing on temporal forensics in I2V generation. A key challenge lies in discovering a forensic signature that can evolve consistently with the generation process, which is inherently a creative transformation rather than a deterministic reconstruction. Despite this intrinsic difficulty, we innovatively redefine video generation as the motion of pixels through time rather than the synthesis of frames. Building on this view, we propose a learnable forensic template that follows pixel motion and a template-guided flow module that decouples motion from image content, enabling robust temporal tracing. Experiments show that Flow of Truth generalizes across commercial and open-source I2V models, substantially improving temporal forensics performance.

From generating headlines to fabricating news, the Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically assessed by their final outputs, under the safety assumption that a refusal response signifies safe reasoning throughout the entire process. Challenging this assumption, our study reveals that during fake news generation, even when a model rejects a harmful request, its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning may still internally contain and propagate unsafe narratives. To analyze this phenomenon, we introduce a unified safety-analysis framework that systematically deconstructs CoT generation across model layers and evaluates the role of individual attention heads through Jacobian-based spectral metrics. Within this framework, we introduce three interpretable measures: stability, geometry, and energy to quantify how specific attention heads respond or embed deceptive reasoning patterns. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning-oriented LLMs show that the generation risk rises significantly when the thinking mode is activated, where the critical routing decisions are concentrated in only a few contiguous mid-depth layers. By precisely identifying the attention heads responsible for this divergence, our work challenges the assumption that refusal implies safety and provides a new understanding perspective for mitigating latent reasoning risks.

Large language models (LLMs) are prone to generating factually incorrect content, motivating methods for assessing truthfulness from internal model signals. While supervised probing approaches can be effective, they require labeled data and classifier training. Recent training-free methods avoid parameter optimization but rely on coarse activation statistics that provide limited insight into how truthfulness-related signals arise within the model. We present a training-free approach that operates at the level of individual multi-layer perceptron (MLP) value vectors. Through a systematic analysis, we find that although most value vectors show no meaningful signal, a sparse subset exhibits stable and directionally consistent correlations with content truthfulness. Leveraging this observation, we propose \textbf{TruthV}, a simple inference method that aggregates preferences expressed by these value vectors. TruthV requires only a small support set to identify relevant vectors and introduces no additional model parameters or classifier weights. We evaluate TruthV across model scales from 2B to 13B and multiple benchmarks, including question answering, natural language understanding, and hallucination evaluation. TruthV consistently outperforms existing training-free baselines, demonstrating that truthfulness-related variation in LLMs is captured in a sparse and structured manner at the level of MLP value vectors.

The public often attributes human-like qualities to large language models (LLMs), assuming that they "know" certain things. In reality, LLMs encode information retained during training as internal probabilistic knowledge. This study examines existing methods for probing the veracity of that knowledge and identifies three flawed underlying assumptions. To address these flaws, we introduce sAwMIL (Sparse-Aware Multiple-Instance Learning), a multiclass probing framework that combines multiple-instance learning with conformal prediction. sAwMIL leverages LLMs' internal representations to classify statements as true, false, or neither. We evaluate sAwMIL across 16 open-source LLMs, including default and chat-based variants, using three new curated datasets. Our results show that (1) common probing methods fail to provide a reliable and transferable veracity direction and, in some settings, perform worse than zero-shot prompting; (2) truth and falsehood are not encoded symmetrically; and (3) LLMs encode a third type of signal that is distinct from both true and false.

Inference-time steering aims to alter a large language model's (LLM's) responses without changing its parameters, but a central challenge is identifying the internal modules that most strongly govern the target behavior. Existing approaches often rely on simplistic cues or ad hoc heuristics, leading to suboptimal or unintended effects. We introduce REAL, a framework for identifying behavior-relevant modules (attention heads or layers) in Transformer models. For each module, REAL trains a vector-quantized autoencoder (VQ-AE) on its hidden activations and uses a shared, learnable codebook to partition the latent space into behavior-relevant and behavior-irrelevant subspaces. REAL quantifies a module's behavioral relevance by how well its VQ-AE encodings discriminate behavior-aligned from behavior-violating responses via a binary classification metric; this score guides both module selection and steering strength. We evaluate REAL across eight LLMs from the Llama and Qwen families and nine datasets spanning truthfulness enhancement, open-domain QA under knowledge conflicts, and general alignment tasks. REAL enables more effective inference-time interventions, achieving an average relative improvement of 20% (up to 81.5%) over the ITI method on truthfulness steering. In addition, the modules selected by REAL exhibit strong zero-shot generalization in cross-domain truthfulness-steering scenarios.