Daily Papers

This report describes ARIS (Auto-Research-in-sleep), an open-source research harness for autonomous research, including its architecture, assurance mechanisms, and early deployment experience. The performance of agent systems built on LLMs depends on both the model weights and the harness around them, which governs what information to store, retrieve, and present to the model. For long-horizon research workflows, the central failure mode is not a visible breakdown but a plausible unsupported success: a long-running agent can produce claims whose evidential support is incomplete, misreported, or silently inherited from the executor's framing. Therefore, we present ARIS as a research harness that coordinates machine-learning research workflows through cross-model adversarial collaboration as a default configuration: an executor model drives forward progress while a reviewer from a different model family is recommended to critique intermediate artifacts and request revisions. ARIS has three architectural layers. The execution layer provides more than 65 reusable Markdown-defined skills, model integrations via MCP, a persistent research wiki for iterative reuse of prior findings, and deterministic figure generation. The orchestration layer coordinates five end-to-end workflows with adjustable effort settings and configurable routing to reviewer models. The assurance layer includes a three-stage process for checking whether experimental claims are supported by evidence: integrity verification, result-to-claim mapping, and claim auditing that cross-checks manuscript statements against the claim ledger and raw evidence, as well as a five-pass scientific-editing pipeline, mathematical-proof checks, and visual inspection of the rendered PDF. A prototype self-improvement loop records research traces and proposes harness improvements that are adopted only after reviewer approval.

LLM agents call tools, query databases, delegate tasks, and trigger external side effects. Once an agent system can act in the world, the question is no longer only whether harmful actions can be prevented--it is whether those actions remain answerable after deployment. We distinguish accountability (the ability to determine compliance and assign responsibility), auditability (the system property that makes accountability possible), and auditing (the process of reconstructing behavior from trustworthy evidence). Our claim is direct: no agent system can be accountable without auditability. To make this operational, we define five dimensions of agent auditability, i.e., action recoverability, lifecycle coverage, policy checkability, responsibility attribution, and evidence integrity, and identify three mechanism classes (detect, enforce, recover) whose temporal information-and-intervention constraints explain why, in practice, no single approach suffices. We support the position with layered evidence rather than a single benchmark: lower-bound ecosystem measurements suggest that even basic security prerequisites for auditability are widely unmet (617 security findings across six prominent open-source projects); runtime feasibility results show that pre-execution mediation with tamper-evident records adds only 8.3 ms median overhead; and controlled recovery experiments show that responsibility-relevant information can be partially recovered even when conventional logs are missing. We propose an Auditability Card for agent systems and identify six open research problems organized by mechanism class.

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes clinical settings demands rigorous and reliable evaluation. However, existing medical benchmarks remain static, suffering from two critical limitations: (1) data contamination, where test sets inadvertently leak into training corpora, leading to inflated performance estimates; and (2) temporal misalignment, failing to capture the rapid evolution of medical knowledge. Furthermore, current evaluation metrics for open-ended clinical reasoning often rely on either shallow lexical overlap (e.g., ROUGE) or subjective LLM-as-a-Judge scoring, both inadequate for verifying clinical correctness. To bridge these gaps, we introduce LiveMedBench, a continuously updated, contamination-free, and rubric-based benchmark that weekly harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities, ensuring strict temporal separation from model training data. We propose a Multi-Agent Clinical Curation Framework that filters raw data noise and validates clinical integrity against evidence-based medical principles. For evaluation, we develop an Automated Rubric-based Evaluation Framework that decomposes physician responses into granular, case-specific criteria, achieving substantially stronger alignment with expert physicians than LLM-as-a-Judge. To date, LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria. Extensive evaluation of 38 LLMs reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases, confirming pervasive data contamination risks. Error analysis further identifies contextual application-not factual knowledge-as the dominant bottleneck, with 35-48% of failures stemming from the inability to tailor medical knowledge to patient-specific constraints.

Recent CUDA exploitation work shows that GPU memory bugs can escalate into device-side control-flow corruption, as kernels later consume corrupted return continuations, function pointers, dispatch-table entries, or branch targets. For deployed CUDA binaries, the relevant security boundary is executed NVIDIA SASS, after PTX lowering, inlining, ABI decisions, register allocation, spills, predication, and SIMT execution; source- or PTX-level policies do not capture this boundary. We present WarpGuard, to our knowledge the first protected-site CFI system for CUDA device binaries operating on executed SASS. WarpGuard enforces at protected sites: recovered SASS instructions or sequences that consume control-flow state, provide sufficient binary evidence to derive policy, are checked before release, and fail closed on violation. It authenticates backward-edge continuation state for instrumented returns, validates recoverable forward targets per site, and reports fixed-edge, unsupported, profile-excluded, fallback, and no-surface outcomes outside the protected denominator. On 77 CUDA artifacts, WarpGuard classifies 51,621 SASS control-flow sites, including 1,343 returns and 154 supported forward target-set entries, and records 52.2 million dynamic checks. In representative backward- and forward-edge corruption attacks, native execution reaches attacker-selected behavior, detect-only mode records the expected violation, and enforcement fails closed before releasing the invalid protected transfer. Public-code evidence shows that the same SASS consumption patterns occur in real CUDA systems, including runtime dispatch tables, cuFFT callbacks, generated callable tables, and uploaded device-function pointers. WarpGuard delivers auditable protected-site CFI for CUDA SASS and separates dynamic-instrumentation enforcement from callback-free SASS timing and patch-cache feasibility.

Comparing information structures in between deep neural networks (DNNs) and the human brain has become a key method for exploring their similarities and differences. Recent research has shown better alignment of vision-language DNN models, such as CLIP, with the activity of the human ventral occipitotemporal cortex (VOTC) than earlier vision models, supporting the idea that language modulates human visual perception. However, interpreting the results from such comparisons is inherently limited due to the "black box" nature of DNNs. To address this, we combined model-brain fitness analyses with human brain lesion data to examine how disrupting the communication pathway between the visual and language systems causally affects the ability of vision-language DNNs to explain the activity of the VOTC. Across four diverse datasets, CLIP consistently captured unique variance in VOTC neural representations, relative to both label-supervised (ResNet) and unsupervised (MoCo) models. This advantage tended to be left-lateralized at the group level, aligning with the human language network. Analyses of 33 stroke patients revealed that reduced white matter integrity between the VOTC and the language region in the left angular gyrus was correlated with decreased CLIP-brain correspondence and increased MoCo-brain correspondence, indicating a dynamic influence of language processing on the activity of the VOTC. These findings support the integration of language modulation in neurocognitive models of human vision, reinforcing concepts from vision-language DNN models. The sensitivity of model-brain similarity to specific brain lesions demonstrates that leveraging manipulation of the human brain is a promising framework for evaluating and developing brain-like computer models.

Effective scientific communication depends on accurate citations that validate sources and guide readers to supporting evidence. Yet academic literature faces mounting challenges: semantic citation errors that misrepresent sources, AI-generated hallucinated references, and traditional citation formats that point to entire papers without indicating which sections substantiate specific claims. We introduce SemanticCite, an AI-powered system that verifies citation accuracy through full-text source analysis while providing rich contextual information via detailed reasoning and relevant text snippets. Our approach combines multiple retrieval methods with a four-class classification system (Supported, Partially Supported, Unsupported, Uncertain) that captures nuanced claim-source relationships and enables appropriate remedial actions for different error types. Our experiments show that fine-tuned lightweight language models achieve performance comparable to large commercial systems with significantly lower computational requirements, making large-scale citation verification practically feasible. The system provides transparent, evidence-based explanations that support user understanding and trust. We contribute a comprehensive dataset of over 1,000 citations with detailed alignments, functional classifications, semantic annotations, and bibliometric metadata across eight disciplines, alongside fine-tuned models and the complete verification framework as open-source software. SemanticCite addresses critical challenges in research integrity through scalable citation verification, streamlined peer review, and quality control for AI-generated content, providing an open-source foundation for maintaining citation accuracy at scale.

Automated decision systems produce operational data across multiple infrastructure layers, yet no single logging format captures the complete governance-relevant record of how a decision was reached. Regulatory frameworks prescribe what must be recorded without specifying a data model for how to record it -- a gap this paper terms the Fragmented Trace Problem. Following a design science methodology, the paper presents the Decision Event Schema (DES), a JSON Schema specification that bridges four infrastructure layers -- ML inference, rule/policy evaluation, cross-system coupling, and governance metadata -- within a single per-decision event structure. The schema employs degradation-aware field design: each of six top-level field groups maps to a governance evidence property and the degradation type it must resist. DES defines ten required root-level fields and introduces a tiered evidence strategy (lightweight, sampled, full) that enables organizations to match evidence completeness to decision risk and throughput. A mechanism feasibility analysis demonstrates compatibility with the highest-throughput integrity mechanisms at production-scale decision rates. Evaluation against 25+ existing formats confirms that DES is the only specification covering all four layers simultaneously. The schema offers practitioners a reference adoptable directly or adaptable through namespace extensions, and regulators a mapping from requirements to minimum evidence tiers.

Probabilistic text generators have been used to produce fake scientific papers for more than a decade. Such nonsensical papers are easily detected by both human and machine. Now more complex AI-powered generation techniques produce texts indistinguishable from that of humans and the generation of scientific texts from a few keywords has been documented. Our study introduces the concept of tortured phrases: unexpected weird phrases in lieu of established ones, such as 'counterfeit consciousness' instead of 'artificial intelligence.' We combed the literature for tortured phrases and study one reputable journal where these concentrated en masse. Hypothesising the use of advanced language models we ran a detector on the abstracts of recent articles of this journal and on several control sets. The pairwise comparisons reveal a concentration of abstracts flagged as 'synthetic' in the journal. We also highlight irregularities in its operation, such as abrupt changes in editorial timelines. We substantiate our call for investigation by analysing several individual dubious articles, stressing questionable features: tortured writing style, citation of non-existent literature, and unacknowledged image reuse. Surprisingly, some websites offer to rewrite texts for free, generating gobbledegook full of tortured phrases. We believe some authors used rewritten texts to pad their manuscripts. We wish to raise the awareness on publications containing such questionable AI-generated or rewritten texts that passed (poor) peer review. Deception with synthetic texts threatens the integrity of the scientific literature.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with inherent knowledge boundaries and hallucinations, limiting their reliability in knowledge-intensive tasks. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these issues, it frequently overlooks structural interdependencies essential for multi-hop reasoning. Graph-based RAG approaches attempt to bridge this gap, yet they typically face trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency due to challenges such as costly graph traversals and semantic noise in LLM-generated summaries. In this paper, we propose HyperNode Expansion and Logical Path-Guided Evidence Localization strategies for GraphRAG (HELP), a novel framework designed to balance accuracy with practical efficiency through two core strategies: 1) HyperNode Expansion, which iteratively chains knowledge triplets into coherent reasoning paths abstracted as HyperNodes to capture complex structural dependencies and ensure retrieval accuracy; and 2) Logical Path-Guided Evidence Localization, which leverages precomputed graph-text correlations to map these paths directly to the corpus for superior efficiency. HELP avoids expensive random walks and semantic distortion, preserving knowledge integrity while drastically reducing retrieval latency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HELP achieves competitive performance across multiple simple and multi-hop QA benchmarks and up to a 28.8times speedup over leading Graph-based RAG baselines.

Observational studies can yield clinically actionable evidence at scale, but executing them on real-world databases is open-ended and requires coherent decisions across cohort construction, analysis, and reporting. Prior evaluations of LLM agents emphasize isolated steps or single answers, missing the integrity and internal structure of the resulting evidence bundle. To address this gap, we introduce RWE-bench, a benchmark grounded in MIMIC-IV and derived from peer-reviewed observational studies. Each task provides the corresponding study protocol as the reference standard, requiring agents to execute experiments in a real database and iteratively generate tree-structured evidence bundles. We evaluate six LLMs (three open-source, three closed-source) under three agent scaffolds using both question-level correctness and end-to-end task metrics. Across 162 tasks, task success is low: the best agent reaches 39.9%, and the best open-source model reaches 30.4%. Agent scaffolds also matter substantially, causing over 30% variation in performance metrics. Furthermore, we implement an automated cohort evaluation method to rapidly localize errors and identify agent failure modes. Overall, the results highlight persistent limitations in agents' ability to produce end-to-end evidence bundles, and efficient validation remains an important direction for future work. Code and data are available at https://github.com/somewordstoolate/RWE-bench.

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

Language-model agents read attacker-writable context to solve tasks. Tool execution needs a separate authority check for protected sink fields, sink-interpreted payloads, and the invocation event. Context-to-Execution Integrity (CXI) is an execution-boundary system for this setting. Policies mark protected sink fields, typed releases carry narrow validated values from writable context to specific destinations, opaque data slots keep evidence as data, and a deterministic gate admits a call only after field authority, exact-effect authorization, and invocation authority all bind to the same action manifest. We evaluate CXI on open-weight field-projection runs, AgentDojo live episodes, a code-agent exact-effect benchmark, manifest-bound ledger faults, proposal-pressure controls, and hosted/API compatibility traces. AgentDojo covers 720 live episodes and 1,739 LLM calls; the code-agent benchmark covers 400 repository episodes with exact-effect authorization and lease-bound execution, yielding 231 safe task completions and zero observed field, effect, or invocation escapes. The accounting reports parser outcomes, authorization outcomes, and task-quality outcomes together with the admission-integrity result. Across the evaluated sinks, CXI admits execution only when field, effect, and invocation authority bind to the same action manifest.

The rapid progress of visual generative models has made AI-generated images increasingly difficult to distinguish from authentic ones, posing growing risks to social trust and information integrity. This motivates detectors that are not only accurate but also forensically explainable. While recent multimodal approaches improve interpretability, many rely on post-hoc rationalizations or coarse visual cues, without constructing verifiable chains of evidence, thus often leading to poor generalization. We introduce REVEAL-Bench, a reasoning-enhanced multimodal benchmark for AI-generated image forensics, structured around explicit chains of forensic evidence derived from lightweight expert models and consolidated into step-by-step chain-of-evidence traces. Based on this benchmark, we propose REVEAL (Reasoning-enhanced Forensic Evidence Analysis), an explainable forensic framework trained with expert-grounded reinforcement learning. Our reward design jointly promotes detection accuracy, evidence-grounded reasoning stability, and explanation faithfulness. Extensive experiments demonstrate significantly improved cross-domain generalization and more faithful explanations to baseline detectors. All data and codes will be released.

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Process attestation systems verify that a continuous physical process, such as human authorship, actually occurred, rather than merely checking system state. These systems face a fundamental dependability challenge: the evidence collection infrastructure must remain available and tamper-resistant even when the attesting party controls the platform. Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) provide hardware-enforced isolation that can address this challenge, but their integration with continuous process attestation introduces novel resilience requirements not addressed by existing frameworks. We present the first architecture for continuous process attestation evidence collection inside TEEs, providing hardware-backed tamper resistance against trust-inverted adversaries with graduated input assurance from software-channel integrity (Tier 1) through hardware-bound input (Tier 3). We develop a Markov-chain dependability model quantifying Evidence Chain Availability (ECA), Mean Time Between Evidence Gaps (MTBEG), and Recovery Time Objectives (RTO). We introduce a resilient evidence chain protocol maintaining chain integrity across TEE crashes, network partitions, and enclave migration. Our security analysis derives formal bounds under combined threat models including trust inversion and TEE side channels, parameterized by a conjectural side-channel leakage bound esc that requires empirical validation. Evaluation on Intel SGX demonstrates under 25% per-checkpoint CPU overhead (<0.3% of the 30 s checkpoint interval), >99.5% Evidence Chain Availability (ECA) (the fraction of session time with active evidence collection) in Monte Carlo simulation under Poisson failure models, and sealed-state recovery under 200 ms.

Scientific images function as critical evidence in research communication, yet their integrity faces unprecedented threats from AI-generated content that introduces subtle but consequential errors. Existing evaluation paradigms prove inadequate: perceptual quality metrics poorly correlate with scientific validity, while language models lack domain-specific verification capabilities. To address this gap, we propose the Scientific Image Utility and Upgradability Assessment (SIU^2A) framework, which introduces two complementary dimensions for scientific image evaluation. Utility encompasses error detection (identifying scientific inaccuracies) and correction feasibility (assessing whether errors can be reliably repaired). Upgradability measures the quality of correction. We categorize scientific image corruption into four fundamental types: Detail Distortion, Incompleteness, False Content, and Entity Confusion. Based on this taxonomy, we construct SIU^2A-Benchmark, a dataset with expert annotations for error identification and repair. The framework implements a two-stage evaluation protocol: the Utility stage evaluates error detection capability and repair instruction generation, while the Upgradability stage assesses whether corrections faithfully restore scientific validity without compromising existing accurate information. Experiments reveal that current multimodal systems exhibit significant limitations in both scientific error assessment and faithful correction, exposing a fundamental gap between visual perception and scientific usability.

The use of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly publications has grown dramatically since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022. This usage is often undisclosed, and it can be challenging for readers and reviewers to identify human written but LLM-revised or translated text, or predominantly LLM-generated text. Given the known quality and reliability issues connected with LLM-generated text, their potential growth poses an increasing problem for research integrity, and for public trust in research. This study presents a simple and easily reproducible methodology to show the growth in the full text of published papers, across the full range of research, as indexed in the Dimensions database. It uses this to demonstrate that LLM tools are likely to have been involved in the production of more than 10% of all published papers in 2024, based on disproportionate use of specific indicative words, and draws together earlier studies to confirm that this is a plausible overall estimate. It then discusses the implications of this for the integrity of scholarly publishing, highlighting evidence that use of LLMs for text generation is still being concealed or downplayed by authors, and presents an argument that more comprehensive disclosure requirements are urgently required to address this.

The scholarly publishing ecosystem faces a dual crisis of unmanageable submission volumes and unregulated AI, creating an urgent need for new governance models to safeguard scientific integrity. The traditional human-only peer review regime lacks a scalable, objective benchmark, making editorial processes opaque and difficult to audit. Here we investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports. Analyzing 352 peer-review simulation reports, we identify consistent system state indicators that demonstrate its reliability. First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome (>50%) across all disciplines, while 'Reject' rates dynamically adapt to field-specific norms, rising to 45% in Health Sciences. Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate that remains invariant across diverse review tasks and scientific domains. These findings demonstrate a system that is predictably rule-bound, mitigating the stochasticity of generative AI. For the scientific community, this provides a transparent tool to ensure fairness; for publishing strategists, it offers a scalable instrument for auditing workflows, managing integrity risks, and implementing evidence-based governance. The framework repositions AI as an essential component of institutional accountability, providing the critical infrastructure to maintain trust in scholarly communication.

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. Recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency or generate insightful review content. However, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine the peer review ecosystem and compromise academic integrity. To address this critical issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews. ReviewGuard employs a comprehensive four-stage LLM-driven framework that: (1) collects ICLR and NeurIPS papers with their corresponding reviews from OpenReview; (2) annotates review types using GPT-4.1 with human validation; (3) addresses class imbalance and data scarcity through LLM-driven synthetic data augmentation, producing a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews; and (4) fine-tunes both encoder-based models and open source LLMs. We perform comprehensive feature analysis of the structure and quality of the review text. Compared to sufficient reviews, deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment. AI-generated text detection reveals that, since ChatGPT's emergence, AI-generated reviews have increased dramatically. In the evaluation of deficient review detection models, mixed training with synthetic and real review data provides substantial enhancements to recall and F1 scores on the binary task. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review while offering valuable insights into human-AI collaboration to maintain academic integrity.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) generate citation-rich reports via multi-step search and synthesis, yet existing benchmarks mainly target text-only settings or short-form multimodal QA, missing end-to-end multimodal evidence use. We introduce MMDeepResearch-Bench (MMDR-Bench), a benchmark of 140 expert-crafted tasks across 21 domains, where each task provides an image-text bundle to evaluate multimodal understanding and citation-grounded report generation. Compared to prior setups, MMDR-Bench emphasizes report-style synthesis with explicit evidence use, where models must connect visual artifacts to sourced claims and maintain consistency across narrative, citations, and visual references. We further propose a unified, interpretable evaluation pipeline: Formula-LLM Adaptive Evaluation (FLAE) for report quality, Trustworthy Retrieval-Aligned Citation Evaluation (TRACE) for citation-grounded evidence alignment, and Multimodal Support-Aligned Integrity Check (MOSAIC) for text-visual integrity, each producing fine-grained signals that support error diagnosis beyond a single overall score. Experiments across 25 state-of-the-art models reveal systematic trade-offs between generation quality, citation discipline, and multimodal grounding, highlighting that strong prose alone does not guarantee faithful evidence use and that multimodal integrity remains a key bottleneck for deep research agents.

Turning a research idea into a complete paper requires more than text generation: the system must retrieve literature, design and execute experiments, revise claims according to evidence, produce publication-ready figures, and maintain consistency across a long generation process. We present Spark-to-Paper, an end-to-end research paper generation system implemented as thirteen composable skills inside an existing coding assistant, without requiring a separate agent platform or orchestration service. Spark-to-Paper separates model-based judgment from deterministic operations that can be directly executed and checked. It further separates experiment planning from reporting, so that required evidence is specified before results are observed and manuscript claims are revised according to measured outcomes. To improve reliability over long research trajectories, the system combines deterministic integrity checks with self-critique and bounds a failure mode we call the Self-Refutation Loop, in which repeated experiments continue to reject the original research objective. Spark-to-Paper also produces editable vector figures through programmatic plotting for experimental results and code-based reconstruction for generated method diagrams. Across eight controlled research topics, Spark-to-Paper achieves 99.5% citation validity and 96.4% figure editability. A controlled ablation increases fabrication detection from 14% for a single-pass draft to 92% with the full integrity and review stack, while adversarial review achieves 74% precision. The full system uses 11.9M tokens, costs $8.1 per manuscript, and requires 3.2 hours on average. These results show that end-to-end research paper generation can be implemented as a lightweight, composable workflow inside existing coding assistants while keeping experimental evidence central to how claims are accepted, revised, or abandoned.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are fluent but prone to hallucinations, producing answers that appear plausible yet are unsupported by available evidence. This failure is especially problematic in high-stakes domains where decisions must be justified by verifiable information. We introduce EvidenceRL, a reinforcement learning framework that enforces evidence adherence during training. EvidenceRL scores candidate responses for grounding (entailment with retrieved evidence and context) and correctness (agreement with reference answers) and optimizes the generator using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We evaluate across two high-stakes domains, cardiac diagnosis and legal reasoning, where EvidenceRL consistently improves evidence grounding and faithfulness without sacrificing task accuracy. On cardiac diagnosis, F1@3 increases from 37.0 to 54.5 on Llama-3.2-3B while grounding (G_{max}@3) rises from 47.6 to 78.2; hallucinations drop nearly 5times and evidence-supported diagnoses increase from 31.8\% to 61.6\%. On legal reasoning, EvidenceRL raises Faithfulness from 32.8\% to 67.6\% on Llama-3.1-8B, demonstrating consistent behavioral change across domains. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Wizaaard/EvidenceRL.git.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage -- a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline-which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation-and are subsequently validated through expert review. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

AI scientist systems are increasingly deployed for autonomous research, yet their academic integrity has never been systematically evaluated. We introduce SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH, the first benchmark designed around a dilemmatic evaluation paradigm: each of its 33 scenarios across 11 trap categories is constructed so that honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct response, while task completion requires misconduct. Across 231 evaluation runs spanning 7 state-of-the-art LLMs, the overall integrity problem rate reaches 34.2%, and no model achieves zero failures. Most strikingly, across missing-data scenarios, all seven models generate synthetic data rather than acknowledging infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution. A further prompt ablation study separates two drivers: removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication from 20.6% to 3.2%, while the underlying synthesis rate remains unchanged, revealing an intrinsic completion bias that persists independent of prompt-level instructions. These findings point to the absence of honest refusal as a trained disposition as the primary driver of observed failures. We release SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH at https://github.com/liuxingtong/Sci-Integrity-Bench.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

Accident, defect and outage investigations end with a decision that ordinary question answering never faces: whether the evidence gathered so far is enough to close the case. We study this decision for LLM investigators, which request evidence from a case file, revise their hypotheses, and either close the case with a conclusion grounded in what they read or leave it open and name what is missing. This judgment does not come with capability: an untrained 9B model overstates its evidence in 97% of its answers, and a frontier model that identifies the right cause in 84% of cases still overstates in 91% and closes 17 of the 41 cases whose official finding is "cause undetermined". Measuring it is also non-trivial: the source of a case largely predicts its label, and a rule that reads only the source reaches 83.0 balanced accuracy on our test cases. We therefore evaluate closure with three tests: closure accuracy, reported against this rule and within each source; evidence dependence, which removes the grounds of a conclusion and checks whether the model stops closing; and conclusion and gap quality, a judged checklist of what the model asserts and what it says is missing. We build Nautil, 731 audited cases from aviation, rail, maritime, chemical-safety and vehicle-defect reports and production server incidents, with teacher trajectories, an out-of-distribution test set and counterfactual evidence versions. Fine-tuning a 9B model on these trajectories makes its closures follow the evidence: removing the grounds lowers its closure rate by 26 points relative to a matched control, overstatement falls from 97% to 35%, and correct, non-overstated conclusions rise from 3% to 43%. Reinforcement learning that rewards only the closure decision then raises balanced accuracy from 69.2 to 83.3, on par with the teacher, and within-source accuracy from 60.4 to 74.1, at some cost in evidence dependence.

LLM agents choose tools and arguments from context that mixes user requests, tool outputs, retrieved records, memory, and untrusted text. Evidence can be relevant without being authorized to determine a decision, so a correct action need not be grounded only in permitted evidence. We introduce a target-specific authorization audit that labels context factors separately for each tool and argument target. Its primary test holds the task, proposition, position, and policy fixed while changing only the proposition's source authority. We then test behavior when valid evidence is weakened and use context-subset interactions as a secondary localization diagnostic. Across 450 controlled next-action tasks and multiple open-weight LLM families, trusted and untrusted variants produce different actions in 5.4 percent of competing cases versus 1.7 percent of supporting cases. Under controlled degradation, unauthorized competition is retained in a full-correct, mixed-error, clean-correct pattern in 2.4 percent of comparisons, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 2.1 to 3.0 percent. These are controlled stress-set rates, not deployment prevalence. The models respond to textual source-authority cues, but this does not prevent untrusted evidence from influencing their actions.

We contribute the largest publicly available dataset of naturally occurring factual claims for the purpose of automatic claim verification. It is collected from 26 fact checking websites in English, paired with textual sources and rich metadata, and labelled for veracity by human expert journalists. We present an in-depth analysis of the dataset, highlighting characteristics and challenges. Further, we present results for automatic veracity prediction, both with established baselines and with a novel method for joint ranking of evidence pages and predicting veracity that outperforms all baselines. Significant performance increases are achieved by encoding evidence, and by modelling metadata. Our best-performing model achieves a Macro F1 of 49.2%, showing that this is a challenging testbed for claim veracity prediction.

Although much research has focused on AI explanations to support decisions in complex information-seeking tasks such as fact-checking, the role of evidence is surprisingly under-researched. In our study, we systematically varied explanation type, AI prediction certainty, and correctness of AI system advice for non-expert participants, who evaluated the veracity of claims and AI system predictions. Participants were provided the option of easily inspecting the underlying evidence. We found that participants consistently relied on evidence to validate AI claims across all experimental conditions. When participants were presented with natural language explanations, evidence was used less frequently although they relied on it when these explanations seemed insufficient or flawed. Qualitative data suggests that participants attempted to infer evidence source reliability, despite source identities being deliberately omitted. Our results demonstrate that evidence is a key ingredient in how people evaluate the reliability of information presented by an AI system and, in combination with natural language explanations, offers valuable support for decision-making. Further research is urgently needed to understand how evidence ought to be presented and how people engage with it in practice.

Multimodal rumor detectors increasingly rely on retrieved evidence, yet relevant evidence is not necessarily sufficient for verification. Missing provenance, duplicated reports, and unresolved contradictions can produce confident predictions without adequate support. We introduce SAFE-MR, a framework that separates claim veracity from evidence sufficiency. The method decomposes image-text posts into verifiable claims, constructs a relation-aware claim-evidence graph, and aggregates evidence using provenance and contextual compatibility. Separate veracity and sufficiency heads support selective prediction, while evidence interventions encourage stability under irrelevant additions and sensitivity to evidence removal. On NewsCLIPpings, VERITE, and XFacta, SAFE-MR achieves macro-F1 scores of 91.2%, 75.8%, and 85.2%, respectively. Against the matched backbone with evidence, its macro-F1 gains are 2.2, 4.9, and 4.8 percentage points. On the diagnostic selection set, SAFE-MR reduces AURC from 0.105 for maximum-probability rejection to 0.075 and lowers error at 80% coverage from 13.8% to 8.5%. Evidence-perturbation and ablation results support the role of sufficiency learning and intervention training in improving selective verification.

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in Mata v. Avianca for filing a brief with hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. Such failures are largely caught by database lookups; the harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered -- a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora, either replacing the cited case or changing only the pinpoint page within the same case. We evaluate fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples. Models catch 93-100% of wrong-case corruptions. They catch only 37-61% of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and 52-83% on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Scale and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses 40% of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and 18% on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

Evidence-grounded reasoning requires more than attaching retrieved text to a prediction: a model should make decisions that depend on whether the provided evidence supports the target claim. In practice, this often fails because supervision is weak, evidence is only loosely tied to the claim, and evaluation does not test evidence dependence directly. We introduce case-grounded evidence verification, a general framework in which a model receives a local case context, external evidence, and a structured claim, and must decide whether the evidence supports the claim for that case. Our key contribution is a supervision construction procedure that generates explicit support examples together with semantically controlled non-support examples, including counterfactual wrong-state and topic-related negatives, without manual evidence annotation. We instantiate the framework in radiology and train a standard verifier on the resulting support task. The learned verifier substantially outperforms both case-only and evidence-only baselines, remains strong under correct evidence, and collapses when evidence is removed or swapped, indicating genuine evidence dependence. This behavior transfers across unseen evidence articles and an external case distribution, though performance degrades under evidence-source shift and remains sensitive to backbone choice. Overall, the results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision that encodes the causal role of evidence.

Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Yet terminal correctness assigns equal credit to direct answers from parametric knowledge, evidence-grounded answers, and answers recalled after redundant search. Process supervision and LLM judges provide richer feedback but can require high-cost annotation or inference; low-cost, non-contrastive policy confidence signals do not directly identify whether retrieved evidence changes an answer. We propose Search-G1, a reward framework that couples retrieval necessity with evidence reliance through two intervention-calibrated hidden-state readouts for selective grounded search. A prompt readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement proxies policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout predicts evidence reliance as sensitivity to evidence deletion conditional on the realized reasoning prefix. A correctness-first reward gates evidence-reliance credit by retrieval necessity, rewards sufficient direct answers, and penalizes repeated search. After calibration, scoring needs neither process annotations nor LLM-judge inference. As policy-relative targets, trajectory distributions, and representations may drift, Search-G1 periodically regenerates targets and refits its readouts. Across four QA benchmarks and two scales, Search-G1 achieves competitive task accuracy, with stronger counterfactual evidence dependence and fewer searches in the main comparisons, complemented by independent human audits of answer support.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and by what criteria; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. Alongside rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that while current deep research systems can produce structurally plausible reports that cite external evidence, there is room for improvement in fulfilling expert-level user requests and achieving logical completeness. Beyond simple performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

Scientific research relies on accurate citation for attribution and integrity, yet large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications. Such hallucinated citations have already been observed in submissions and accepted papers at major machine learning venues, exposing vulnerabilities in peer review. Meanwhile, rapidly growing reference lists make manual verification impractical, and existing automated tools remain fragile to noisy and heterogeneous citation formats and lack standardized evaluation. We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing. Our multi-agent verification pipeline decomposes citation checking into claim extraction, evidence retrieval, passage matching, reasoning, and calibrated judgment to assess whether a cited source truly supports its claim. We construct a large-scale human-validated dataset across domains and define unified metrics for citation faithfulness and evidence alignment. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial citation errors and show that our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability. This work provides the first scalable infrastructure for auditing citations in the LLM era and practical tools to improve the trustworthiness of scientific references.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text. To close this gap, we present CLAIR-Fin, a nine-agent framework that decomposes each question into atomic claims maintained in a typed Financial Claim Ledger. Each claim is resolved through Asymmetric Evidence Authority, which conditions evidence trust on claim type rather than treating all modalities as equally reliable; Chain-of-Custody Verification, which checks grounding at the hand-off between drafting and adversarial review rather than only at the pipeline's exit; an Adaptive Rebuttal Cycle, which routes contested claims through adversarial debate whose depth scales with what that debate finds; and a terminal entailment audit paired with a continuous Hallucination Risk Index that distinguishes claims that passed scrutiny from claims never contested. We evaluate CLAIR-Fin on BB-FinQA-X, a 500-question cross-modal financial evaluation set built from Bangladesh Bank Annual Report material, stratified by query type, format, and difficulty. Relative to a single-pass retrieval-augmented generation baseline, it raises faithfulness (0.780 rightarrow 0.889) while abstaining on 5.4% of questions when evidence is insufficient rather than forcing an unsupported response, and it exceeds stronger retrieval-strategy baselines such as HyDE and Graph-RAG on faithfulness (leq 0.874).

Context compression improves long-context efficiency but may introduce faithfulness issues through an information bottleneck. Existing evaluations rely on QA metrics, but a reader can still answer correctly from an unfaithful compression, so these metrics underestimate such loss. To bridge this gap, we introduce KEEP-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark that directly assesses compression faithfulness with 4,102 cases across three challenging settings that require keeping evidence for plausible reference resolutions, explicit qualifiers, and minority perspectives. Experiments show that even with tailored prompting, the strongest models remain unreliable: despite context windows exceeding 100K tokens and inputs averaging only 3.1K tokens, the best open-weight model (31B) preserves all required evidence in only 66.8% of cases, and the best proprietary model in only 61.6%. Performance also varies sharply across evidence structures, so conclusions from limited structures may be biased. We further introduce a metric, Evidence Preservation Return (EPR), to relate evidence recall to inference FLOPs, and find that it peaks at moderate scales (4B-8B), where recall remains low. Additional output budget mainly benefits already strong models and widens capability gaps, yet the stronger preservation of these models comes at a steep computational cost. These findings highlight the importance for future work to investigate compressors with strong information preservation under a small computation budget, rather than relying on a large output budget or model scaling.

Visual fluency in generated video does not imply physical reliability, and a scalar quality score alone is incapable of indicating the obligation a clip violates or the moment it fails. We present VeriPhy, an auditable physical-verification system in which a text-only planner compiles the prompt into typed physical obligations and a statically validated execution plan before any frame is observed. During execution, observations gate and scope only declared calls to frozen low-level experts (e.g., segmentation and tracking, counting, eleven typed physical measurements over the resulting tracks, depth, OCR, and audio-event detection). Each action returns a provenance-carrying evidence record whose payload, when usable, is either a typed measurement or an explicitly tagged learned state. Typed resolvers and fixed composition map usable records to a three-valued state (supported, contradicted, or unknown, surfaced as plausible, implausible, or abstain) with full provenance, so that every verdict is traceable to the evidence that produced it. We anchor evaluation in a 1,500-clip corpus of human-annotated flaw records that localize real generation failures in prompt reference, space, and time. On a 149-clip core carrying 304 such records, VeriPhy accounts for 228, against 164 for a published question-decomposition evaluator given the same clips and the same claims. Recall alone does not separate it from prompting the same backbone monolithically, which reaches 222; what separates them is that each decision retains its evidence record and provenance, making the traces auditable one verdict at a time and usable as the interface through which a critic verdict could be written back into generation.

The proliferation of online misinformation has posed significant threats to public interest. While numerous online users actively participate in the combat against misinformation, many of such responses can be characterized by the lack of politeness and supporting facts. As a solution, text generation approaches are proposed to automatically produce counter-misinformation responses. Nevertheless, existing methods are often trained end-to-end without leveraging external knowledge, resulting in subpar text quality and excessively repetitive responses. In this paper, we propose retrieval augmented response generation for online misinformation (RARG), which collects supporting evidence from scientific sources and generates counter-misinformation responses based on the evidences. In particular, our RARG consists of two stages: (1) evidence collection, where we design a retrieval pipeline to retrieve and rerank evidence documents using a database comprising over 1M academic articles; (2) response generation, in which we align large language models (LLMs) to generate evidence-based responses via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). We propose a reward function to maximize the utilization of the retrieved evidence while maintaining the quality of the generated text, which yields polite and factual responses that clearly refutes misinformation. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we study the case of COVID-19 and perform extensive experiments with both in- and cross-domain datasets, where RARG consistently outperforms baselines by generating high-quality counter-misinformation responses.

Public-service recommendations require evidence that matches the requested service, scope, and date. Yet treating every missing detail as decisive can withhold useful recommendations. We introduce EviGraph, which distinguishes critical decision requirements from information that can remain unresolved. A language agent links these requirements to evidence in a temporal knowledge graph, while a deterministic checker establishes whether a recommendation is supported. Evaluation on a bilingual Hong Kong public-service benchmark with executable policy references shows that this distinction reduces unnecessary abstention. Additional verification, however, can withdraw supported recommendations without improving decision quality. These findings suggest that reliable evidence-based navigation depends on specifying what must be established for a decision, rather than simply adding more verification.

Seeking health-related advice on the internet has become a common practice in the digital era. Determining the trustworthiness of medical claims found online and finding appropriate evidence for this information is increasingly challenging. Fact-checking has emerged as an approach to assess the veracity of factual claims using evidence from credible knowledge sources. To help advance the automation of this task, in this paper, we introduce a novel dataset of 750 health-related claims, labeled for veracity by medical experts and backed with evidence from appropriate clinical studies. We provide an analysis of the dataset, highlighting its characteristics and challenges. The dataset can be used for Machine Learning tasks related to automated fact-checking such as evidence retrieval, veracity prediction, and explanation generation. For this purpose, we provide baseline models based on different approaches, examine their performance, and discuss the findings.

Existing reasoning evaluations typically provide task-relevant information to models as available premises, rarely examining concurrently how models discover evidence autonomously and how information presentation within narratives guides or obscures judgment. This paper proposes the WORTH Benchmark: models read original mystery narratives without clue annotations, autonomously select key clue sentences, identify case participants, and explain their reasoning process. The narrative materials are designed by professional authors such that evidence facilitating reasoning coexists with narrative arrangements that delay the revelation of truth. We report a pilot experiment under full-story conditions across two episodes, conducting a total of 70 formal runs on models, of which 67 runs are content-scorable. Scoring separately records hits on author-designated key clue sentences and participant selections; natural language explanations are used for case diagnosis and are not scored independently. The results show that clue hits and participant judgments are not synchronized; across 37 content-scorable runs in Episode 02, 31 runs simultaneously selected the same set of incorrect participants, while adjacent suspicion-oriented and exoneration-oriented sentences were selected 25 times and 0 times, respectively. These phenomena illustrate the diagnostic value of component-wise analysis and suggest that not-fully-cooperative informational relationships may influence evidence selection and judgment. This study only implements full-story conditions for two episodes, and does not establish stable model rankings or infer general mechanisms on this basis; human player records have not yet been cleaned, and this version does not report human-model comparisons.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process, undermining reliability and trust. We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions: stance consistency (a coherent stance linking reasoning to answer) and causal influence (the stated reasoning causally drives the answer under output-level interventions), explicitly decoupled from accuracy. To operationalize this, we present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances across seven tasks that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions. Evaluating twelve open-source LRMs, we find unfaithfulness in 49.7% of outputs, predominantly from stance inconsistency. Failures are concentrated in brittle, convergent domains such as math and code, and correlate more with post-training regimes than with scale: within-family ablations indicate that adding current RL-style objectives on top of supervised fine-tuning can reduce reasoning faithfulness, even when accuracy is maintained. Crucially, accuracy is neither a sufficient nor a reliable proxy for faithfulness: once controlling for model and task, the accuracy-faithfulness link is weak and statistically insignificant. Our work establishes a rigorous methodology for auditing LRM reliability and shows that trustworthy AI requires optimizing not only for correct outcomes but also for the structural integrity of the reasoning process. Our code and dataset can be found at project page: https://aidaslab.github.io/RFEval/}{https://aidaslab.github.io/RFEval/

Biomedical fact-checking systems must do more than predict whether a claim is supported, contradicted, or unaddressed: they should also produce evidence that is faithful, complete, and useful for verification. We study this evidence-generation setting on CARE-XAI, a unified benchmark spanning five biomedical and health fact-checking sources. We compare base instruction LLMs, PubMed retrieval-augmented LLMs, fine-tuned LLMs, label-only LLMs, and biomedical encoder classifiers under a shared evaluation protocol. Biomedical classifiers remain strongest for verdict-only prediction, while fine-tuned LLMs are the strongest evidence-generating systems. PubMed retrieval is mixed: it helps PubMed-aligned sources such as PubMedQA and SciFact, but can distract models on broader public-health claims. We introduce Bio-GRACE, a gold-reference-normalized diagnostic for measuring whether retrieved evidence recovers the decision benefit of reference evidence. Bio-GRACE shows that retrieval utility is source-dependent, motivates selective retrieval, and exposes why retrieval recall and lexical evidence overlap are insufficient for biomedical fact-checking.

Deep research requires models to retrieve, connect, and synthesize evidence from large-scale heterogeneous sources to answer complex queries and produce analytical reports. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outcomes, such as answer correctness, report quality, or citation alignment, while providing limited visibility into whether evidence is correctly selected, linked, and aggregated into supported claims and conclusions. To address this gap, we introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research. HiEviDR-Bench covers open-domain and academic-domain settings under both text-only and multimodal conditions, and represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation from evidence to intermediate claims and final conclusions. Based on this formulation, we develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness, together with a progressive gating mechanism for fine-grained error localization. HiEviDR-Bench contains 2,000 human-validated questions with evidence graphs across multiple difficulty levels. Experiments on 16 representative multimodal large language models show that, although many systems achieve strong report quality, their performance drops markedly on citation accuracy, claim construction, and answer correctness. Further analysis shows that the main bottlenecks lie in evidence identification and intermediate claim construction, revealing that strong surface-level report quality does not necessarily imply grounded multi-stage reasoning on our benchmark.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

Misinformation and disinformation demand fact checking that goes beyond simple evidence-based reasoning. Existing benchmarks fall short: they are largely single modality (text-only), span short time horizons, use shallow evidence, cover domains unevenly, and often omit full articles -- obscuring models' real-world capability. We present MMM-Fact, a large-scale benchmark of 125,449 fact-checked statements (1995--2025) across multiple domains, each paired with the full fact-check article and multimodal evidence (text, images, videos, tables) from four fact-checking sites and one news outlet. To reflect verification effort, each statement is tagged with a retrieval-difficulty tier -- Basic (1--5 sources), Intermediate (6--10), and Advanced (>10) -- supporting fairness-aware evaluation for multi-step, cross-modal reasoning. The dataset adopts a three-class veracity scheme (true/false/not enough information) and enables tasks in veracity prediction, explainable fact-checking, complex evidence aggregation, and longitudinal analysis. Baselines with mainstream LLMs show MMM-Fact is markedly harder than prior resources, with performance degrading as evidence complexity rises. MMM-Fact offers a realistic, scalable benchmark for transparent, reliable, multimodal fact-checking.

This article presents a pipeline for automated fact-checking leveraging publicly available Language Models and data. The objective is to assess the accuracy of textual claims using evidence from a ground-truth evidence corpus. The pipeline consists of two main modules -- the evidence retrieval and the claim veracity evaluation. Our primary focus is on the ease of deployment in various languages that remain unexplored in the field of automated fact-checking. Unlike most similar pipelines, which work with evidence sentences, our pipeline processes data on a paragraph level, simplifying the overall architecture and data requirements. Given the high cost of annotating language-specific fact-checking training data, our solution builds on the Question Answering for Claim Generation (QACG) method, which we adapt and use to generate the data for all models of the pipeline. Our strategy enables the introduction of new languages through machine translation of only two fixed datasets of moderate size. Subsequently, any number of training samples can be generated based on an evidence corpus in the target language. We provide open access to all data and fine-tuned models for Czech, English, Polish, and Slovak pipelines, as well as to our codebase that may be used to reproduce the results.We comprehensively evaluate the pipelines for all four languages, including human annotations and per-sample difficulty assessment using Pointwise V-information. The presented experiments are based on full Wikipedia snapshots to promote reproducibility. To facilitate implementation and user interaction, we develop the FactSearch application featuring the proposed pipeline and the preliminary feedback on its performance.

The rapid propagation of misinformation poses substantial risks to public interest. To combat misinformation, large language models (LLMs) are adapted to automatically verify claim credibility. Nevertheless, existing methods heavily rely on the embedded knowledge within LLMs and / or black-box APIs for evidence collection, leading to subpar performance with smaller LLMs or upon unreliable context. In this paper, we propose retrieval augmented fact verification through the synthesis of contrasting arguments (RAFTS). Upon input claims, RAFTS starts with evidence retrieval, where we design a retrieval pipeline to collect and re-rank relevant documents from verifiable sources. Then, RAFTS forms contrastive arguments (i.e., supporting or refuting) conditioned on the retrieved evidence. In addition, RAFTS leverages an embedding model to identify informative demonstrations, followed by in-context prompting to generate the prediction and explanation. Our method effectively retrieves relevant documents as evidence and evaluates arguments from varying perspectives, incorporating nuanced information for fine-grained decision-making. Combined with informative in-context examples as prior, RAFTS achieves significant improvements to supervised and LLM baselines without complex prompts. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through extensive experiments, where RAFTS can outperform GPT-based methods with a significantly smaller 7B LLM.

Deep Research agents extend LLM-based assistants into long-horizon workflows involving planning, retrieval, evidence synthesis, and report generation, yet their reliability in open information environments remains underexplored. A key concern is whether apparently credible but factually misleading knowledge encountered in such environments can propagate through these workflows and be adopted as false conclusions in final reports. To study this failure mode, we introduce MisKnow-Agent, a framework for constructing and validating misleading knowledge for Deep Research tasks. MisKnow-Agent generates misleading instances with controllable authority levels and styles, yielding 5,933 quality-controlled instances built on DeepResearch Benchmark tasks. Extensive experiments across open-source and closed-source Deep Research agents show that even limited exposure to misleading knowledge can induce false-conclusion adoption in final reports, revealing a broad reliability vulnerability in current Deep Research agents. Although search-enabled verifier models consistently identify the retained instances as misleading during focused corpus validation, the same instances can still be adopted during long-horizon research, revealing a disconnect between focused verification and workflow-level evidence use. Finally, we evaluate pre- and post-research defenses, both individually and in combination, finding that all three configurations mitigate but do not fully prevent false-conclusion adoption. Our findings suggest that reliable Deep Research requires evidence verification and correction capabilities at both the model and framework levels, beyond improvements in planning, retrieval, evidence integration, or report-generation abilities.

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

Safeguards in deployed LLM services are evaluated by refusal, attack success, and policy violation rates. Those rates characterize how a control performed on the requests it was tested on. A deployment has to answer a different question: how much help with harmful tasks the service still gives an attacker who keeps adapting or finds another way in. We determine what each reported result implies for that question, allowing results from different safeguard families to be compared under one deployment criterion. The evidence requirements are strongly asymmetric. One attack that obtains harmful help from the deployed service suffices to establish that such help remains, and such attacks appear repeatedly in the coded record. Establishing that little remains cannot follow from the safeguard's own numbers alone; it also requires evidence about what the surrounding system still allows after the safeguard performs its local function. Such evidence is supported or derived in only a small minority of the depth-coded claims, and one such claim bounds its scoped residual. A better local score is therefore not, by itself, a stronger claim about the deployment. Safeguard research cannot stop at raising local scores; a gain has to be judged by whether it makes a deployed system any safer.

Textual claims are often accompanied by images to enhance their credibility and spread on social media, but this also raises concerns about the spread of misinformation. Existing datasets for automated verification of image-text claims remain limited, as they often consist of synthetic claims and lack evidence annotations to capture the reasoning behind the verdict. In this work, we introduce AVerImaTeC, a dataset consisting of 1,297 real-world image-text claims. Each claim is annotated with question-answer (QA) pairs containing evidence from the web, reflecting a decomposed reasoning regarding the verdict. We mitigate common challenges in fact-checking datasets such as contextual dependence, temporal leakage, and evidence insufficiency, via claim normalization, temporally constrained evidence annotation, and a two-stage sufficiency check. We assess the consistency of the annotation in AVerImaTeC via inter-annotator studies, achieving a kappa=0.742 on verdicts and 74.7% consistency on QA pairs. We also propose a novel evaluation method for evidence retrieval and conduct extensive experiments to establish baselines for verifying image-text claims using open-web evidence.

Evaluating the quality of LLM-generated reasoning traces in expert domains (e.g., law) is essential for ensuring credibility and explainability, yet remains challenging due to the inherent complexity of such reasoning tasks. We introduce LEGIT (LEGal Issue Trees), a novel large-scale (24K instances) expert-level legal reasoning dataset with an emphasis on reasoning trace evaluation. We convert court judgments into hierarchical trees of opposing parties' arguments and the court's conclusions, which serve as rubrics for evaluating the issue coverage and correctness of the reasoning traces. We verify the reliability of these rubrics via human expert annotations and comparison with coarse, less informative rubrics. Using the LEGIT dataset, we show that (1) LLMs' legal reasoning ability is seriously affected by both legal issue coverage and correctness, and that (2) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and RL with rubrics bring complementary benefits for legal reasoning abilities, where RAG improves overall reasoning capability, whereas RL improves correctness albeit with reduced coverage.

Scientific research based on multimodal clinical data (including medical imaging) requires coordinating clinical, radiological, programming, and biostatistical expertise, a fragmented process that bottlenecks discovery. We present VERITAS (Verifiable Epistemic Reasoning for Image-Derived Hypothesis Testing via Agentic Systems), a clinical co-scientist: a multi-agent system that autonomously tests natural-language hypotheses and produces a fully auditable evidence trail, tracing every conclusion through executable outputs from analysis plan to segmentation masks to statistical code to final verdict. Unlike prior AI-scientist systems, which mainly operate on tabular or text data, VERITAS grounds autonomous discovery directly in medical images. It decomposes the workflow into four phases handled by role-specialized agents, and introduces an epistemic evidence label framework that mechanically classifies outcomes as Supported, Refuted, Underpowered, or Invalid by jointly evaluating significance, effect direction, and study power. This distinction is critical in medical imaging, where non-significant results often reflect insufficient sample size rather than absent effects. We construct a tiered benchmark of 64 hypotheses spanning six complexity levels across cardiac and brain glioma MRI datasets. VERITAS reaches 81.4% verdict accuracy with frontier models and 71.2% with locally-hosted open-weight models (8-30B), outperforming all single-model baselines in both classes. It also produces the highest rate of independently verifiable statistical outputs (86.6%), so even its failures remain diagnosable through artifact inspection. Structured multi-agent decomposition thus substitutes for model scale while preserving the verifiability that scientific discovery demands. We release code, hypothesis bank, and evaluation pipeline at https://github.com/LucZot/veritas.

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) correctly answers only 56% of our benchmark with specialized models only reaching 42%. Augmenting models with retrieved medical articles improves this performance to up to 82% (using GPT-5.2) highlighting the importance of evidence-grounding for real-world medical reasoning tasks. This work thus establishes a foundation for benchmarking and advancing both general-purpose and medical LLMs to produce reliable answers in challenging clinical contexts.

Claim verification is critical for enhancing digital literacy. However, the state-of-the-art single-LLM methods struggle with complex claim verification that involves multi-faceted evidences. Inspired by real-world fact-checking practices, we propose DebateCV, the first claim verification framework that adopts a debate-driven methodology using multiple LLM agents. In our framework, two Debaters take opposing stances on a claim and engage in multi-round argumentation, while a Moderator evaluates the arguments and renders a verdict with justifications. To further improve the performance of the Moderator, we introduce a novel post-training strategy that leverages synthetic debate data generated by the zero-shot DebateCV, effectively addressing the scarcity of real-world debate-driven claim verification data. Experimental results show that our method outperforms existing claim verification methods under varying levels of evidence quality. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/DebateCV-6781.

In common law jurisdictions, legal practitioners rely on precedents to construct arguments, in line with the doctrine of stare decisis. As the number of cases grow over the years, prior case retrieval (PCR) has garnered significant attention. Besides lacking real-world scale, existing PCR datasets do not simulate a realistic setting, because their queries use complete case documents while only masking references to prior cases. The query is thereby exposed to legal reasoning not yet available when constructing an argument for an undecided case as well as spurious patterns left behind by citation masks, potentially short-circuiting a comprehensive understanding of case facts and legal principles. To address these limitations, we introduce a PCR dataset based on judgements from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which explicitly separate facts from arguments and exhibit precedential practices, aiding us to develop this PCR dataset to foster systems' comprehensive understanding. We benchmark different lexical and dense retrieval approaches with various negative sampling strategies, adapting them to deal with long text sequences using hierarchical variants. We found that difficulty-based negative sampling strategies were not effective for the PCR task, highlighting the need for investigation into domain-specific difficulty criteria. Furthermore, we observe performance of the dense models degrade with time and calls for further research into temporal adaptation of retrieval models. Additionally, we assess the influence of different views , Halsbury's and Goodhart's, in practice in ECtHR jurisdiction using PCR task.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations---with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings as well as Claude Code reveals that while the latest iterations perform better---GPT-5 achieves 84.4% recall and a 55.0% F1 score in an agentic framework---all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 15.3 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.

Digital signatures prove key possession, not authorship. An author who generates text with AI, constructs intermediate document states post-hoc, and signs each hash produces a signature chain indistinguishable from genuine composition. We address this gap between cryptographic integrity and process provenance. We introduce proof-of-process, a primitive category for evidence that a physical process, not merely a signing key, produced a digital artifact. Our construction, the jitter seal, injects imperceptible microsecond delays derived via HMAC from a session secret, keystroke ordinal, and cumulative document hash. Valid evidence requires that real keystrokes produced the document through those intermediate states. We propose the Adversarial Collapse Principle as an evaluation criterion: evidence systems should be judged by whether disputing them requires a conjunction of specific, testable allegations against components with independent trust assumptions. We present Witnessd, an architecture combining jitter seals with Verifiable Delay Functions, external timestamp anchors, dual-source keystroke validation, and optional hardware attestation. Each layer forces allegations at different capability levels; disputing authentic evidence requires coordinated claims across independent trust boundaries. The system does not prevent forgery: a kernel-level adversary can defeat it, and typing AI-generated content produces valid evidence. The contribution is converting vague doubt into falsifiable allegations. We evaluate across 31,000 verification trials with deterministic rejection of invalid proofs.

Modern multi-agent knowledge systems increasingly accumulate knowledge through chains of autonomous transformations rather than direct retrieval. Existing provenance work records what happened - execution traces, tool calls, evidence links - and source-reliability estimation is long established (truth discovery, reputation systems). What is missing is an operational framework that attaches graded, per-domain transmitter reliability to claim-level transmission chains, with completeness semantics, transformation-typed aggregation, decoupled content criticism, and serve/review/quarantine routing. Classical Islamic hadith science confronted a structurally similar problem: deciding whether knowledge transmitted through chains of human narrators should be accepted. Over centuries it developed a rigorous methodology - isnad (a complete transmission chain attached to every claim), rijal (systematic grading of each narrator's integrity and precision), weakest-link chain evaluation, corroboration through independent chains, and matn criticism (content evaluated independently of chain quality). This paper transfers that methodology to AI system design. We contribute a formal mapping from hadith-science concepts to multi-agent pipelines, a relational schema implementing claim chains and a graded narrator registry, a decision matrix combining chain grade with content criticism, and an evaluation on 20,000 claims from real physics textbooks. The evaluation validates weakest-link quarantine and independent-chain corroboration; reports a partial failure of the grade-recovery loop, which missed the highest-fault narrator; and reports two analyses as inconclusive, including a matched-coverage comparison the framework could not reach with the reference content critic. The paper is explicit throughout about which claims the evidence does and does not yet support.

LLM agents that invoke privileged tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which adversarial instructions embedded in retrieved data hijack the agent's actions. A growing body of work evaluates defenses against IPI, but the validity of that evaluation is rarely examined. We audit an IPI benchmark and its harness and identify four defect classes -- silent payload non-delivery, attack success scored by tool identity rather than arguments, false-rejection rate conflated with model incapacity, and the absence of an audit trail -- each of which yields a plausible, publishable, and incorrect number. We quantify the distortion by re-scoring identical execution traces under the defective and corrected definitions: on real agent behaviour, the tool-identity scorer reports a 21.7% attack-success rate where the true argument-level rate is 1.2%. In the sharpest case, an open model previously reported at 62.8% registers 0% under the corrected harness -- the prior figure largely an artifact of undelivered payloads and identity-level scoring. We release a harness whose construction makes each defect unrepresentable -- machine-checkable payload placement, argument-level attacker predicates, per-scenario environments, and mandatory trace persistence -- and use it to report three quantities the field does not: whether a compromised agent discloses the attack, the full security/utility operating curve of an LLM-judge defense, and tool-calling capability disentangled from defensive over-blocking. A corrected harness further overturns a reported "capability barrier": a model deemed incapable of tool use is in fact fully capable, its earlier result an artifact of environment mismatch. We argue that evaluation validity is a prerequisite for, not a footnote to, defense claims in agentic security, and provide an instrument that enforces it.

Autonomous scientific agents now increasingly propose ideas, write code, run experiments, analyze results, and even draft papers. Observe and audit those agents are necessary but logging every model call is not enough, scientists also need to inspect the artifacts and claims that the systems produced and their relations. This is driven by the fact that failures in scientific agent systems are often distributed across several objects. A manuscript claim may cite the wrong evidence, a search process may select a degenerate candidate, a laboratory novelty claim may depend on an unstated rule, or a multi-agent plan may change without a visible trigger. Existing tracing, experiment tracking, and archival provenance tools are valuable, but their native objects do not make these scientific audit relations first-class. We argue that autonomous scientific systems should emit portable, claim-aware artifact lineage as a minimum audit layer. We propose a compact observability profile organized around individuals, operators, fitness records, lineage, archives, runs, streams, and steering commands. In this profile, scientific claims are ordinary individuals with explicit evidence bindings and verification records. The profile is intended as a semantic layer that complements current telemetry and provenance standards. Execution details can remain in OpenTelemetry. Final packages can export to PROV-O or RO-Crate standards.

Recent work on reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown that large language models (LLMs) can be substantially improved using outcome-level verification signals, such as unit tests for code or exact-match checks for mathematics. In parallel, process supervision has long been explored as a way to shape the intermediate reasoning behaviour of LLMs, but existing approaches rely on neural judges to score chain-of-thought steps, leaving them vulnerable to opacity, bias, and reward hacking. To address this gap, we introduce Verifiable Process Reward Models (VPRMs), a reinforcement-learning framework in which intermediate reasoning steps are checked by deterministic, rule-based verifiers. We apply VPRMs to risk-of-bias assessment for medical evidence synthesis, a domain where guideline-defined criteria and rule-based decision paths enable programmatic verification of reasoning traces. Across multiple datasets, we find that VPRMs generate reasoning that adheres closely to domain rules and achieve substantially higher coherence between step-level decisions and final labels. Results show that VPRMs achieve up to 20% higher F1 than state-of-the-art models and 6.5% higher than verifiable outcome rewards, with substantial gains in evidence grounding and logical coherence.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated images have become increasingly realistic and readily adaptable to concrete real-world claims, creating new challenges for verifying visual evidence. A concrete emerging risk is AI-generated refund fraud, in which manipulated or synthetic images are used to support claims about damaged products, poor delivery conditions, or service-related defects. Existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks mainly evaluate standalone authenticity classification, cross-generator transfer, or forensic localization, leaving claim-conditioned fraudulent evidence detection underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce FraudBench, a multimodal benchmark for detecting AI-generated fraudulent refund evidence. FraudBench is constructed from real-world user-review evidence across e-commerce, food delivery, and travel-service scenarios. We curate real evidence images together with their associated review and product metadata, identify genuine damaged and undamaged evidence through MLLM-assisted filtering and human annotation, and synthesize fake-damaged evidence from genuine undamaged reference images using six state-of-the-art image editing and generation models. Using FraudBench, we evaluate MLLMs, specialized AI-generated image detectors, and human participants under the same settings. Experiments show that current MLLMs often recognize real-damaged evidence but fail on many fake-damaged subsets, with fake-damage detection rates (TPR) far below the 50% baseline on most generator subsets. Specialized detectors generally perform better but remain inconsistent across generators and can produce false positives on real-damaged samples, revealing a clear gap between generic AI image detection and reliable claim-conditioned refund-evidence verification.

Meta-analysis is a demanding form of evidence synthesis that combines literature retrieval, PI/ECO-guided study selection, and statistical aggregation. Its structured, verifiable workflow makes it an ideal substrate for evaluating systematic scientific reasoning, yet existing benchmarks lack ground truth across the full retrieval-screening-synthesis pipeline. We introduce MetaSyn, a dataset of 442 expert-curated meta-analyses from Nature Portfolio journals. Each entry pairs a research question with PI/ECO criteria, a retrieval corpus of 140k PubMed articles, verified positive studies, hard negatives that are topically similar but PI/ECO-ineligible, and complete search strategies and date bounds. Benchmarking twelve pipeline configurations (nine RAG variants and a protocol-driven agent) reveals a critical screening bottleneck: despite a retrieval ceiling of 90.9% recall at K=200, no system recovers more than 52.7% of ground-truth included literature. Current LLMs fail to reliably separate eligible studies from PI/ECO-failing distractors in pools of comparable topical relevance. Stage-attributed metrics capture where systems succeed and fail; a single end-to-end score does not.

Large language models increasingly justify legal decisions by naming the statute or precedent behind a verdict, treated as evidence that the decision follows from it. We test this directly: holding case facts fixed, we substitute the named legal authority for an unrelated one and decode a model's evolving verdict from its hidden states. Across seven open-weight models (8B-70B) and four benchmarks spanning judicial and contractual reasoning, when explicitly required to justify a verdict by naming the governing authority, models name the correct one in 66.7%-100% of generations, while the verdict changing when the authority changes is far less consistent: 0.0%-21.7% on CaseHOLD, 30.0%-76.7% on ECHR and SCOTUS, and 43.3%-50.0% on ContractNLI. Neither scale nor a purpose-built legal-reasoning model (a best-effort LoRA reproduction; Section 6) closes this gap. A red-teaming evaluation on five core models finds compliance with an adversarial instruction hidden in the case facts (73.3%-96.4%) exceeds verdict-swap sensitivity by a wide margin, holding without exception across model rankings. Naming a legal authority is thus a poor proxy for a verdict's dependence on it, while the same verdict remains separately vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. Both findings replicate across checks ruling out prompt-wording noise and confounded sampling, and bear directly on the use of generated legal explanations as compliance or audit artefacts.

How do we most effectively treat a disease or condition? Ideally, we could consult a database of evidence gleaned from clinical trials to answer such questions. Unfortunately, no such database exists; clinical trial results are instead disseminated primarily via lengthy natural language articles. Perusing all such articles would be prohibitively time-consuming for healthcare practitioners; they instead tend to depend on manually compiled systematic reviews of medical literature to inform care. NLP may speed this process up, and eventually facilitate immediate consult of published evidence. The Evidence Inference dataset was recently released to facilitate research toward this end. This task entails inferring the comparative performance of two treatments, with respect to a given outcome, from a particular article (describing a clinical trial) and identifying supporting evidence. For instance: Does this article report that chemotherapy performed better than surgery for five-year survival rates of operable cancers? In this paper, we collect additional annotations to expand the Evidence Inference dataset by 25\%, provide stronger baseline models, systematically inspect the errors that these make, and probe dataset quality. We also release an abstract only (as opposed to full-texts) version of the task for rapid model prototyping. The updated corpus, documentation, and code for new baselines and evaluations are available at http://evidence-inference.ebm-nlp.com/.

In this position paper, we argue that instead of morally aligning LLMs to specific set of ethical principles, we should infuse generic ethical reasoning capabilities into them so that they can handle value pluralism at a global scale. When provided with an ethical policy, an LLM should be capable of making decisions that are ethically consistent to the policy. We develop a framework that integrates moral dilemmas with moral principles pertaining to different foramlisms of normative ethics, and at different levels of abstractions. Initial experiments with GPT-x models shows that while GPT-4 is a nearly perfect ethical reasoner, the models still have bias towards the moral values of Western and English speaking societies.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

This paper presents HerO 2, Team HUMANE's system for the AVeriTeC shared task at the FEVER-25 workshop. HerO 2 is an enhanced version of HerO, the best-performing open-source model from the previous year's challenge. It improves evidence quality through document summarization and answer reformulation, optimizes veracity prediction via post-training quantization under computational constraints, and enhances overall system performance by integrating updated language model (LM) backbones. HerO 2 ranked second on the leaderboard while achieving the shortest runtime among the top three systems, demonstrating both high efficiency and strong potential for real-world fact verification. The code is available at https://github.com/ssu-humane/HerO2.

Despite substantial progress in fact-verification benchmarks, claims grounded in large-scale structured data remain underexplored. In this work, we introduce ClaimDB, the first fact-verification benchmark where the evidence for claims is derived from compositions of millions of records and multiple tables. ClaimDB consists of 80 unique real-life databases covering a wide range of domains, from governance and healthcare to media, education and the natural sciences. At this scale, verification approaches that rely on "reading" the evidence break down, forcing a timely shift toward reasoning in executable programs. We conduct extensive experiments with 30 state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source (below 70B) LLMs and find that none exceed 83% accuracy, with more than half below 55%. Our analysis also reveals that both closed- and open-source models struggle with abstention -- the ability to admit that there is no evidence to decide -- raising doubts about their reliability in high-stakes data analysis. We release the benchmark, code, and the LLM leaderboard at https://claimdb.github.io .

Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details. Current solutions typically treat this as a direct-to-text generation problem, suffering from hallucination, overlooked critiques, and a lack of verifiable grounding. To address these limitations, we introduce RebuttalAgent, the first multi-agents framework that reframes rebuttal generation as an evidence-centric planning task. Our system decomposes complex feedback into atomic concerns and dynamically constructs hybrid contexts by synthesizing compressed summaries with high-fidelity text while integrating an autonomous and on-demand external search module to resolve concerns requiring outside literature. By generating an inspectable response plan before drafting, RebuttalAgent ensures that every argument is explicitly anchored in internal or external evidence. We validate our approach on the proposed RebuttalBench and demonstrate that our pipeline outperforms strong baselines in coverage, faithfulness, and strategic coherence, offering a transparent and controllable assistant for the peer review process. Code will be released.

Existing datasets for automated fact-checking have substantial limitations, such as relying on artificial claims, lacking annotations for evidence and intermediate reasoning, or including evidence published after the claim. In this paper we introduce AVeriTeC, a new dataset of 4,568 real-world claims covering fact-checks by 50 different organizations. Each claim is annotated with question-answer pairs supported by evidence available online, as well as textual justifications explaining how the evidence combines to produce a verdict. Through a multi-round annotation process, we avoid common pitfalls including context dependence, evidence insufficiency, and temporal leakage, and reach a substantial inter-annotator agreement of kappa=0.619 on verdicts. We develop a baseline as well as an evaluation scheme for verifying claims through several question-answering steps against the open web.

Organizations deploying AI face two fundamental governance challenges: managing AI risk and sustaining AI value. Both depend on evidence whose sufficiency cannot be taken for granted. We call the shared underlying challenge the AI Evaluability Gap: the condition in which organizations lack sufficient evidence to support high-confidence governance decisions regarding either risk or value. We argue that this gap reflects a category error in current practice. Existing governance approaches focus primarily on properties of systems, such as safety, fairness, reliability, compliance, and value, while paying comparatively little attention to the evidentiary foundations required to justify decisions about those properties. We further argue that AI governance encompasses both operational decisions regarding whether a system may operate and investment decisions regarding whether it merits continued organizational resources. To address this problem, we introduce Evaluability, defined as the capability of a system to generate, maintain, and renew evidence sufficient to support high-confidence governance decisions over time. We formalize governance decisions as functions of calibrated confidence Conf(D|E) and identify six properties of evaluable evidence: observability, attributability, intervenability, verifiability, calibration, and temporal validity. The framework distinguishes Operational Certification, which relies primarily on structural evidence to justify deployment decisions, from Investment Certification, which relies primarily on causal evidence to justify continued resource allocation. We argue that evidence sufficiency is a missing layer of AI governance and that closing the AI Evaluability Gap is a prerequisite for both managing risk and sustaining value in AI-enabled organizations.

Fact verification is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM applications. In this study, we evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, including frontier LLMs and open-weight reasoning LLMs, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks. We share three findings intended to guide future development of more robust fact verifiers. First, we highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets, demonstrating that approximately 16\% of ambiguous or incorrectly labeled data substantially influences model rankings. Neglecting this issue may result in misleading conclusions during comparative evaluations, and we suggest using a systematic pipeline utilizing LLM-as-a-judge to help identify these issues at scale. Second, we discover that frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance. We therefore recommend future studies include comparisons with these simple yet highly effective baselines. Lastly, despite their effectiveness, frontier LLMs incur substantial costs, motivating the development of small, fine-tuned fact verifiers. We show that these small models still have room for improvement, particularly on instances that require complex reasoning. Encouragingly, we demonstrate that augmenting training with synthetic multi-hop reasoning data significantly enhances their capabilities in such instances. We release our code, model, and dataset at https://github.com/just1nseo/verifying-the-verifiers

Autonomous agents increasingly perform bounded software tasks under an orchestrator that retries, resumes, and budgets them. The machinery such orchestrators reach for is the service mesh's: retry, timeout, and error-rate circuit breaking. We report a failure study of a production agentic software-delivery platform over 147 numbered incidents spanning 81 runs, each with a measured cost and, in most cases, a mutation proof reproducing the failure. All three assumptions those primitives rest on are violated in practice, and we quantify the consequences: a loop of fifty-four consecutive successful tool calls no error-rate breaker could see; a progress signal constant by construction, guaranteeing a false trip on the third repair round and driving one run from six of six components to three; twenty-one events accumulated across six invocations of one delegation, making a correct, idempotent component unwinnable; a misrouted failure that woke five components for a two-component fault, leaving three bystanders regressing working code; and twelve incidents in which the enforcement layer blocked correct work, the most expensive costing 107 agent turns and zero accepted writes. We find one cross-cutting cause and its dual. Identity adequacy: in five separate subsystems an identity that failed to discriminate produced a confident wrong answer, and two of them derived the corrective rule independently. Evidence adequacy: a reliability decision may be taken only on evidence capable of moving, attributable to what it measures, and deterministic under identical conditions. From the findings we derive seven reliability primitives whose enforcement unit is the delegation rather than the message, and specify the controlled evaluation the study motivates but does not constitute.

Autonomous research agents must acquire and reason over evidence within a limited budget. Yet relevant sources can remain uninspected or unused, leaving a gap between retrieval coverage and the evidence that informs research. The challenge is to align fast local judgments with changing evidence needs and feed their findings back into research decisions. We introduce JevGPT, a dual-system architecture for autonomous research that couples fast evidence processing with deliberative research planning. System Two sets evidence objectives and integrates findings, while System One locates support, assesses relevance, and guides further inspection. Independent source judgments run in parallel; selected original passages inform the next research step. Experiments on fixed-corpus question answering and document ranking show that JevGPT achieves leading task performance, with faster completion and lower cost than comparably effective research agents. Evidence analysis shows broader source inspection and greater coverage of supporting documents in the research loop, highlighting efficient evidence processing as a route to more capable autonomous research.

We present a complete theoretical characterization of Latent Posterior Factors (LPF), a principled framework for aggregating multiple heterogeneous evidence items in probabilistic prediction tasks. Multi-evidence reasoning arises pervasively in high-stakes domains including healthcare diagnosis, financial risk assessment, legal case analysis, and regulatory compliance, yet existing approaches either lack formal guarantees or fail to handle multi-evidence scenarios architecturally. LPF encodes each evidence item into a Gaussian latent posterior via a variational autoencoder, converting posteriors to soft factors through Monte Carlo marginalization, and aggregating factors via exact Sum-Product Network inference (LPF-SPN) or a learned neural aggregator (LPF-Learned). We prove seven formal guarantees spanning the key desiderata for trustworthy AI: Calibration Preservation (ECE <= epsilon + C/sqrt(K_eff)); Monte Carlo Error decaying as O(1/sqrt(M)); a non-vacuous PAC-Bayes bound with train-test gap of 0.0085 at N=4200; operation within 1.12x of the information-theoretic lower bound; graceful degradation as O(epsilon*delta*sqrt(K)) under corruption, maintaining 88% performance with half of evidence adversarially replaced; O(1/sqrt(K)) calibration decay with R^2=0.849; and exact epistemic-aleatoric uncertainty decomposition with error below 0.002%. All theorems are empirically validated on controlled datasets spanning up to 4,200 training examples. Our theoretical framework establishes LPF as a foundation for trustworthy multi-evidence AI in safety-critical applications.

An agent harness, the code that turns a model into an agent, writes its own record of each run, and that record is all a later reader gets when a run is disputed, investigated or audited. We call a record evidentiary when a reader who was not there can check it without trusting the writer. Across sixteen deployed frameworks, none writes one in full. Hearsay examines the record, not the task: five harnesses run fourteen tasks, three blinded LLM examiners and a human panel read the records, and every excerpt an examiner quotes is checked mechanically for who wrote it. First, the record lets a reader name the fault but not prove how the run went. Examiners name the right fault in 74 to 91% of 140 runs, but the fault can be proved only from two files the benchmark adds; for what happened in between, fewer than one citation in ten lands on anything the harness did not write, and the examiner with the fewest false alarms catches half of the entries we delete, rewrite or fabricate. Second, the remedy is a second author, not a stronger seal on the first. An append-only log of what passes between harness and model, kept outside the harness and read against the record in both directions, reports all 28 omissions and fabrications we made a harness commit as it ran, where a hash chain over the harness's own record passes all 28. Handed the log, examiners keep their fault verdicts but rest more of their citations on what the harness did not write. What makes a record evidence is who writes it, not what is captured.

This paper presents our system for Task 3 of the CLEF 2025 CheckThat! Lab, which focuses on verifying numerical and temporal claims using retrieved evidence. We explore two complementary approaches: zero-shot prompting with instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) and supervised fine-tuning using parameter-efficient LoRA. To enhance evidence quality, we investigate several selection strategies, including full-document input and top-k sentence filtering using BM25 and MiniLM. Our best-performing model LLaMA fine-tuned with LoRA achieves strong performance on the English validation set. However, a notable drop in the test set highlights a generalization challenge. These findings underscore the importance of evidence granularity and model adaptation for robust numerical fact verification.

Answering complex questions over long documents frequently requires integrating evidence that the source itself disperses naturally across distant passages. In an incident report, the operating condition, design flaw, and missed safety check that jointly explain a disaster may appear dozens of sections apart; in a novel, a character's true motive may surface only through scenes far removed from the moment it becomes relevant. This source-internal evidence integration is central to real-world long-document analysis, yet existing benchmarks largely sidestep it. Needle probes, planted facts, and reverse-engineered multi-hop chains embed evidence that may differ from the host text in distribution, placement, or register, making it unclear whether strong performance reflects genuine source reasoning or distributional artifacts. We introduce WILDTRACE, a benchmark of 481 tasks over 214 naturally occurring long-form sources such as technical incident reports and lesser-known literary narratives, where all evidence trails arise from the document's own causal, temporal, and narrative logic. Drawing on Pearl's causal hierarchy and prior multi-hop reasoning typologies, we define seven source-internal evidence geometries that characterize the distinct relational demands of analytical reading in long documents. A source-first construction pipeline mines candidate trails from document structure before writing questions; each item then undergoes multi-stage validation covering clue necessity, answer groundedness, rubric fidelity, contamination resistance and answerability. As models are increasingly entrusted with real-world high-stakes analytical tasks, this gap between accessing information and reasoning over naturally dispersed evidence emerges as a defining challenge for the next stage of long-context research.

Emerging personal AI agents are moving toward persistent, multi-source memory. This creates an evaluation problem: systems must decide how to use conflicting or incomplete evidence; they cannot just retrieve facts from one clean history. Existing benchmarks rarely show whether an error came from the evidence given to a method or from the method's conflict-resolution step. We study this as selective QA over conflicting multi-source personal memory: systems answer based on conflicting, sometimes incomplete sources, or abstain when evidence is insufficient. We develop a benchmark containing 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types, 480 personas, 4 random seeds, and 34,560 instances, with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth. We evaluate the performance of baselines without access to any source, access to a single source, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs. The best trained fusion resolver reaches 80.3% accuracy, while the strongest prompt-only LLM baseline reaches 70.0%. With abstention, the same resolver reaches 85.3% selective accuracy at 78.3% coverage and the best LLM reaches 71.0% selective accuracy at 95.4% coverage. Different models have different strengths across reasoning types. We release the data, code, cached model outputs, and data-generating process for reuse.

Reinforcement learning enables Agentic RAG systems to learn multi-turn search from verifiable outcome rewards, but all- zero rollout groups provide no comparative signal and may hide useful search behavior. We present EviBack, an evidence- constrained Teacher backoff that supplies auxiliary super- vision to such groups while preserving verifiable Actor re- wards. It separates evidence assessment from answer refine- ment, preventing reference answers from overriding evidence- insufficiency judgments. A fully automated, end-to-end GPT- 5.5-assisted APE pipeline starts from a manually authored single-prompt dual-task Teacher, automatically partitions and labels rollout data, and performs ablation, task decomposition, evaluation, and selection to produce a gated two-stage Teacher. Compared with the manual design, the resulting Teacher im- proves downstream F1 and valid-answer rate while reduc- ing search, duplicate queries, and forced termination. Across seven open-domain QA benchmarks and three Qwen3 scales, EviBack improves F1 over Search-R1 and raises both single- and multi-hop macro F1. We guarantee that the code will be made publicly available at a later stage.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with a large language model. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the Standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) can be dishonest when reporting on their actions and beliefs -- for example, they may overstate their confidence in factual claims or cover up evidence of covert actions. Such dishonesty may arise due to the effects of reinforcement learning (RL), where challenges with reward shaping can result in a training process that inadvertently incentivizes the model to lie or misrepresent its actions. In this work we propose a method for eliciting an honest expression of an LLM's shortcomings via a self-reported *confession*. A confession is an output, provided upon request after a model's original answer, that is meant to serve as a full account of the model's compliance with the letter and spirit of its policies and instructions. The reward assigned to a confession during training is solely based on its honesty, and does not impact positively or negatively the main answer's reward. As long as the "path of least resistance" for maximizing confession reward is to surface misbehavior rather than covering it up, this incentivizes models to be honest in their confessions. Our findings provide some justification this empirical assumption, especially in the case of egregious model misbehavior. To demonstrate the viability of our approach, we train GPT-5-Thinking to produce confessions, and we evaluate its honesty in out-of-distribution scenarios measuring hallucination, instruction following, scheming, and reward hacking. We find that when the model lies or omits shortcomings in its "main" answer, it often confesses to these behaviors honestly, and this confession honesty modestly improves with training. Confessions can enable a number of inference-time interventions including monitoring, rejection sampling, and surfacing issues to the user.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly decide whether software behaves correctly, either by writing a test oracle or by acting as one. Yet two oracles can look identical and rest on different ground: one assertion encodes a written specification, another only what the model learned in training. Prior secondary studies sort oracles by form or by technique, rarely by the property that governs how far a verdict can be trusted: where its authority comes from. This systematic literature review, reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, screens 2,436 records to 54 included studies, extended by citation searching (snowballing) to 83 in total. We read the corpus along three axes: the source of an oracle's authority, the form it takes, and the mechanism that adjudicates it. Just over half of the corpus reaches a verdict with no specification at all. That is what lets these oracles work on code with no specification to consult, and what leaves a challenged verdict with less to fall back on. Source and mechanism cross-cut rather than coincide, so a label such as LLM-as-a-judge names how a verdict is produced, not why it should be trusted. Oracle quality is most often judged by resemblance to a known oracle rather than by whether injected faults are caught. The first question to ask of any LLM oracle is therefore what one would point to in defending its verdict. The protocol, search query, and per-study coding sheet are released.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including AI in Science (AIS), should be done following the principles of responsible AI. Progress in responsible AI is often quantified through evaluation metrics, yet there has been less work on assessing the robustness and reliability of the metrics themselves. We reflect on prior work that examines the robustness of fairness metrics for recommender systems as a type of AI application and summarise their key takeaways into a set of non-exhaustive guidelines for developing reliable metrics of responsible AI. Our guidelines apply to a broad spectrum of AI applications, including AIS.

Professional-document review is a constraint-checking problem in which decisions depend on relations among text, geometry, pages, and document revisions. We present an evidence-grounded pipeline that normalizes extracted facts, executes four-state rules deterministically, retains source spans, and escalates unresolved cases. We evaluate its PDF evidence allocator on 160 reference-based tasks from 29 construction projects using a repeated four-system test and a disjoint two-system breadth extension. In the repeated test, reallocating a four-image budget from retrieved page overviews to one overview and three overlapping tiles improves project-family standardized decision accuracy by 10.6 percentage points (95% project-cluster bootstrap CI: 4.3 to 18.0; exact p = 0.031). This effect does not persist in the broader block: Region-RAG changes accuracy by -4.1 points (95% CI: -10.2 to 1.9; exact p = 0.209), while an equal-image sensitivity favors page breadth. Exact finding-set recovery remains low, false passes remain common, and repeated-run agreement is poorly calibrated. The results identify a resolution-breadth trade-off rather than a universal advantage for region-focused evidence, motivating rule-aware evidence routing and expert review.

Fact verification systems typically assess whether a claim is supported by retrieved evidence, assuming that truthfulness depends solely on what is stated. However, many real-world claims are half-truths, factually correct yet misleading due to the omission of critical context. Existing models struggle with such cases, as they are not designed to reason about what is left unsaid. We introduce the task of half-truth detection, and propose PolitiFact-Hidden, a new benchmark with 15k political claims annotated with sentence-level evidence alignment and inferred claim intent. To address this challenge, we present TRACER, a modular re-assessment framework that identifies omission-based misinformation by aligning evidence, inferring implied intent, and estimating the causal impact of hidden content. TRACER can be integrated into existing fact-checking pipelines and consistently improves performance across multiple strong baselines. Notably, it boosts Half-True classification F1 by up to 16 points, highlighting the importance of modeling omissions for trustworthy fact verification.

Tool-using LLM agents increasingly use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to answer from heterogeneous evidence sources, including search, APIs, databases, clinical records, and formulary tools. Standard factuality metrics usually test whether an answer is supported by pooled evidence, missing a provenance-sensitive failure mode: a claim may be supported somewhere while being attributed to the wrong source. We call this cross-source conflation. We introduce ProvenanceGuard, a source-aware verifier for MCP-grounded answers. It consumes captured MCP traces with stable tool IDs, source IDs, and raw outputs; decomposes answers into atomic claims; routes claims to source-specific evidence; checks support with NLI and a token-alignment proxy; compares stated attribution with the routed source; and returns per-claim verdicts plus an answer-level allow/block decision. Blocked answers can be repaired with retrieval-augmented answer revision and re-verified. We evaluate on 281 medical-domain MCP-agent traces. A 266-trace adjudicated subset yields 2,325 LLM-assisted claim labels split by trace; 361 held-out labels are human-verified. On the 40-trace held-out split, ProvenanceGuard achieves block F1 0.802 and source accuracy 0.858 over 260 source-eligible claims, outperforming source-blind baselines that do not emit claim-to-source IDs. On a harder multi-source benchmark it reaches block F1 0.846, while source-plus-relation accuracy drops to 0.229, showing that exact source ownership remains difficult with semantically close sources. Repair-and-reverify resolves all blocked answers in the full trace set, often via conservative fallback. In 50 controlled clinical conflation probes, ProvenanceGuard detects all injected attribution swaps with no retained wrong attribution. These results show that source attribution is an independent axis for factuality verification in MCP-based agents.

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable. LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures (especially truncated traces), produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test. We introduce PROBE (Protocol Reasoning Over evidence-Based Ensembles), a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures. It integrates (i) deterministic PCAP-to-text normalization with frame-level verifiability, (ii) multi-run, multi-candidate ensembles with optional cross-model second opinion and progressive obfuscation, (iii) a verdict-aware evidence framework treating absence of failure evidence as contributing evidence, and (iv) a fully deterministic composite reliability score from evidence validity, run-to-run stability, and cross-model agreement without LLM self-assessment. On 87 enterprise Wi-Fi captures (104 capture-reviewer pairs), single-pass LLM analysis raises weighted evidence F1 from 0.871 (expert baseline) to 0.912 but misses critical frames in 35% of cases. Naive ensemble voting drops below baseline (0.842) as majority voting amplifies conservative verdicts: 50% of confirmed failures are misclassified as 'no issue' or 'insufficient evidence.' Adding evidence-grounded reconciliation achieves 0.957 F1, a 96% auto-accept rate, and a worst-case floor above 0.70. LLM self-reported confidence clusters at 0.95 regardless of difficulty (71% report exactly 0.95), confirming it is uninformative. We also introduce a model-agnostic evaluation framework using per-field assertion matching, eliminating circular bias from model-co-produced golden references.

Large Language Model safety alignment predominantly operates on a binary assumption that requests are either safe or unsafe. This classification proves insufficient when models encounter ethical dilemmas, where the capacity to reason through moral trade-offs creates a distinct attack surface. We formalize this vulnerability through TRIAL, a multi-turn red-teaming methodology that embeds harmful requests within ethical framings. TRIAL achieves high attack success rates across most tested models by systematically exploiting the model's ethical reasoning capabilities to frame harmful actions as morally necessary compromises. Building on these insights, we introduce ERR (Ethical Reasoning Robustness), a defense framework that distinguishes between instrumental responses that enable harmful outcomes and explanatory responses that analyze ethical frameworks without endorsing harmful acts. ERR employs a Layer-Stratified Harm-Gated LoRA architecture, achieving robust defense against reasoning-based attacks while preserving model utility.

Misinformation in healthcare, from vaccine hesitancy to unproven treatments, poses risks to public health and trust in medical systems. While machine learning and natural language processing have advanced automated fact-checking, validating biomedical claims remains uniquely challenging due to complex terminology, the need for domain expertise, and the critical importance of grounding in scientific evidence. We introduce CER (Combining Evidence and Reasoning), a novel framework for biomedical fact-checking that integrates scientific evidence retrieval, reasoning via large language models, and supervised veracity prediction. By integrating the text-generation capabilities of large language models with advanced retrieval techniques for high-quality biomedical scientific evidence, CER effectively mitigates the risk of hallucinations, ensuring that generated outputs are grounded in verifiable, evidence-based sources. Evaluations on expert-annotated datasets (HealthFC, BioASQ-7b, SciFact) demonstrate state-of-the-art performance and promising cross-dataset generalization. Code and data are released for transparency and reproducibility: https: //github.com/PRAISELab-PicusLab/CER.

The increasing adoption of large language models (LLMs) has been accompanied by growing concerns regarding their reliability and trustworthiness. As a result, a growing body of research focuses on evidence-based text generation with LLMs, aiming to link model outputs to supporting evidence to ensure traceability and verifiability. However, the field is fragmented due to inconsistent terminology, isolated evaluation practices, and a lack of unified benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we systematically analyze 134 papers, introduce a unified taxonomy of evidence-based text generation with LLMs, and investigate 300 evaluation metrics across seven key dimensions. Thereby, we focus on approaches that use citations, attribution, or quotations for evidence-based text generation. Building on this, we examine the distinctive characteristics and representative methods in the field. Finally, we highlight open challenges and outline promising directions for future work.

Enterprise agents answer questions over workplace records that evolve through team collaboration. As information is shared, corrected, and revised across documents, chats, and figures, multiple versions of the same information accumulate in the workspace. Reliable question answering therefore requires agents to reason over sufficient evidence, resolve cross-source and temporal conflicts, and recognize when the available evidence is insufficient to establish an answer. To systematically evaluate these capabilities, we introduce MMEnterprise-Bench, a benchmark comprising 1,613 questions grounded in evolving multimodal records from simulated collaboration projects, covering three categories: Evidence Reasoning, Conflict Resolution, and Unanswerability. We evaluate 10 proprietary and open-source multimodal LLMs and find that even the strongest models struggle when evidence contains cross-source or temporal conflicts or spans multiple images. Moreover, increasing the retrieval budget or employing a larger retriever improves evidence recall but does not consistently translate into higher answer accuracy. These findings highlight the persistent challenges of reasoning over evolving workplace records and establish MMEnterprise-Bench as a testbed for developing more reliable enterprise agents. Code and data are available at https://mlvlab.github.io/MMEnterprise-Bench/.

Misinformation in healthcare, from vaccine hesitancy to unproven treatments, poses risks to public health and trust in medical systems. While machine learning and natural language processing have advanced automated fact-checking, validating biomedical claims remains uniquely challenging due to complex terminology, the need for domain expertise, and the critical importance of grounding in scientific evidence. We introduce CER (Combining Evidence and Reasoning), a novel framework for biomedical fact-checking that integrates scientific evidence retrieval, reasoning via large language models, and supervised veracity prediction. By integrating the text-generation capabilities of large language models with advanced retrieval techniques for high-quality biomedical scientific evidence, CER effectively mitigates the risk of hallucinations, ensuring that generated outputs are grounded in verifiable, evidence-based sources. Evaluations on expert-annotated datasets (HealthFC, BioASQ-7b, SciFact) demonstrate state-of-the-art performance and promising cross-dataset generalization. Code and data are released for transparency and reproducibility: https://github.com/PRAISELab-PicusLab/CER

Evaluating whether multimodal large language models truly understand long-form scientific papers remains challenging: answer-only metrics and synthetic "Needle-In-A-Haystack" tests often reward answer matching without requiring a causal, evidence-linked reasoning trace in the document. We propose the "Fish-in-the-Ocean" (FITO) paradigm, which requires models to construct explicit cross-modal evidence chains within native scientific documents. To operationalize FITO, we build SIN-Data, a scientific interleaved corpus that preserves the native interleaving of text and figures. On top of it, we construct SIN-Bench with four progressive tasks covering evidence discovery (SIN-Find), hypothesis verification (SIN-Verify), grounded QA (SIN-QA), and evidence-anchored synthesis (SIN-Summary). We further introduce "No Evidence, No Score", scoring predictions when grounded to verifiable anchors and diagnosing evidence quality via matching, relevance, and logic. Experiments on eight MLLMs show that grounding is the primary bottleneck: Gemini-3-pro achieves the best average overall score (0.573), while GPT-5 attains the highest SIN-QA answer accuracy (0.767) but underperforms on evidence-aligned overall scores, exposing a gap between correctness and traceable support.

Legal reasoning requires not only correct outcomes but also procedurally compliant reasoning processes. However, existing methods lack mechanisms to verify intermediate reasoning steps, allowing errors such as inapplicable statute citations to propagate undetected through the reasoning chain. To address this, we propose LawThinker, an autonomous legal research agent that adopts an Explore-Verify-Memorize strategy for dynamic judicial environments. The core idea is to enforce verification as an atomic operation after every knowledge exploration step. A DeepVerifier module examines each retrieval result along three dimensions of knowledge accuracy, fact-law relevance, and procedural compliance, with a memory module for cross-round knowledge reuse in long-horizon tasks. Experiments on the dynamic benchmark J1-EVAL show that LawThinker achieves a 24% improvement over direct reasoning and an 11% gain over workflow-based methods, with particularly strong improvements on process-oriented metrics. Evaluations on three static benchmarks further confirm its generalization capability. The code is available at https://github.com/yxy-919/LawThinker-agent .

Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integrating and updating evidence across time and sources to form, revise and justify a patient's problem representation and a defensible plan. This structured narrative review maps three literatures: medical education assessment instruments, clinical LLM benchmarks published from 2023 onwards, and general-domain methods for evaluating long-form generation. We examine six dimensions: problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. Preprints are included and flagged. No single instrument covers all six dimensions. Problem representation and differential or management reasoning are reasonably covered, although reliability varies by instrument and setting. TIMER-Eval targets temporal synthesis, and ER-Reason assesses sequential diagnostic belief updating. Dedicated uncertainty and counterfactual evaluations are emerging, but their applicability to longitudinal free-text reasoning remains limited. Factual completeness is well theorised in general-domain evaluation, with early clinical evidence of important omissions. Faithfulness remains the weakest dimension, with one identified clinical causal-ablation study on multiple-choice questions. Existing tools should be combined through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, case-specific importance weighting with non-compensable safety caps, temporal order-consistency checks, and chance-corrected reliability reporting. Further design work is needed for calibrated uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning and faithfulness over longitudinal free-text records. This review provides a design rationale, not a validated instrument.

Verifying the final answer of a long reasoning trace may show that the trace is wrong but it does not distinguish three cases. The problem may lie beyond the model's capability, another attempt would succeed, or one step in an otherwise recoverable trace made the trace fail. Standard hidden-state probes are trained on final-answer correctness, a label that conflates these cases. Monte Carlo rollouts distinguish the cases and locate the failing step at additional inference cost. We test the hidden states of 4B and 8B reasoning models for the failure type and the failing step and compare each probe with the strongest baseline that uses no hidden states. On incorrect 8B traces, the confidence probe, a calibrated correctness probe at a midpoint cutoff, misses 81% of cases in which a single step makes the trace unrecoverable and 47% of cases in which another attempt would succeed. A probe with a different training design over the same states reverses the ordering of these two kinds of failure, so either ordering can be read from those states. At both scales, no single tested probe locates the failing step more accurately than a rule based only on trace length, and at 4B a probe trained to predict that step fails to outperform this rule in any of 10 runs on identical traces. The confidence probe therefore indicates that an answer is wrong, but its failure-type ordering depends on its training design.

As language models shift from single-shot answer generation toward multi-step reasoning that retrieves and consumes evidence mid-inference, evaluating the role of individual retrieved items becomes more important. Existing RAG evaluation typically targets final-answer quality, citation faithfulness, or answer-level attribution, but none of these directly targets the intervention-based, per-evidence-item utility view we study here. We introduce CUE-R, a lightweight intervention-based framework for measuring per-evidence-item operational utility in single-shot RAG using shallow observable retrieval-use traces. CUE-R perturbs individual evidence items via REMOVE, REPLACE, and DUPLICATE operators, then measures changes along three utility axes (correctness, proxy-based grounding faithfulness, and confidence error) plus a trace-divergence signal. We also outline an operational evidence-role taxonomy for interpreting intervention outcomes. Experiments on HotpotQA and 2WikiMultihopQA with Qwen-3 8B and GPT-5.2 reveal a consistent pattern: REMOVE and REPLACE substantially harm correctness and grounding while producing large trace shifts, whereas DUPLICATE is often answer-redundant yet not fully behaviorally neutral. A zero-retrieval control confirms that these effects arise from degradation of meaningful retrieval. A two-support ablation further shows that multi-hop evidence items can interact non-additively: removing both supports harms performance far more than either single removal. Our results suggest that answer-only evaluation misses important evidence effects and that intervention-based utility analysis is a practical complement for RAG evaluation.

LLM search agents are often evaluated on final-answer accuracy, overlooking the process. Analyzing a search strategy requires understanding how credible evidence is retrieved to address question constraints. This valuable information is buried in raw search trajectories that are long and difficult to parse. We introduce SearchAtlas, a framework that converts search trajectories into structured graphs whose edges represent how evidence is propagated across the reasoning trace, from the query that retrieves it to the final answer. Our automated parsing pipeline achieves a mean edge F1 of 86.0% against human-annotated graphs and remains consistent across repeated runs. We analyze five search agents on three benchmarks, revealing systematic differences in search scale and evidence aggregation. SearchAtlas exposes fragmented answer support, question constraints that do not reach the answer, and unverified parametric knowledge entering the response. These process failures are strongly associated with incorrect answers, even more so than an LLM judge given either the raw trajectory or the ordered query list, suggesting that the constructed graphs provide useful interpretability. Moreover, an audit of cases in which process-diagnostic scores disagree with final-answer correctness shows that they capture information not reducible to answer accuracy.

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Large language model safeguards decide whether to answer before seeing how an answer will be used. This creates a basic problem for dual-use tasks: the same answer can help an authorized professional or an attacker, while an attacker can imitate a benign request and interaction history. We separate the capability released by the model from the evidence available about downstream use. When that evidence is copyable, we derive the exact worst-case floor on attacker assistance while preserving useful answers. The result yields a safety trilemma: Useful Capability, Reliable Safety, and Open Access cannot coexist. We then show how a trusted credential can complement existing safeguards by adding hard-to-copy information that predicts actual downstream use, and identify the stronger condition needed to eliminate the floor. Evidence from dual-use evaluations, adaptive attacks, and deployed trusted-access programs supports the practical relevance of these conditions.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) highlights the necessity for ethical considerations and data integrity in AI development, particularly emphasizing the role of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles. While these principles are crucial for ethical data stewardship, their specific application in the context of LLM training data remains an under-explored area. This research gap is the focus of our study, which begins with an examination of existing literature to underline the importance of FAIR principles in managing data for LLM training. Building upon this, we propose a novel framework designed to integrate FAIR principles into the LLM development lifecycle. A contribution of our work is the development of a comprehensive checklist intended to guide researchers and developers in applying FAIR data principles consistently across the model development process. The utility and effectiveness of our framework are validated through a case study on creating a FAIR-compliant dataset aimed at detecting and mitigating biases in LLMs. We present this framework to the community as a tool to foster the creation of technologically advanced, ethically grounded, and socially responsible AI models.

With the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs), hallucinations, which are non-factual fabrications in model outputs, have become serious concerns. Reasoning capabilities have received attention as a self-verification process to improve output reliability. However, the effect of reasoning within a closed system where LLMs cannot rely on external tools or knowledge has yet to be clarified. We therefore conduct experiments under strict constraints (recommending peer-reviewed journal articles in computer science) to examine the effect of reasoning across multiple models (GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Flash). Our results reveal a problematic trade-off between constraint compliance and factual accuracy. Non-reasoning models exhibit high constraint violation rates (66-75%) but maintain factual accuracy, while reasoning models reduce violations (13-26%) but systematically distort known facts to satisfy constraints and increase complete fabrication. This trade-off pattern is consistent across both models despite different architectures, indicating a fundamental limitation of reasoning. Furthermore, reasoning does not uniformly improve output authenticity: effects diverge by model, reflecting different allocations of the compliance-truthfulness trade-off. These findings challenge the assumption that reasoning universally improves reliability: reasoning models trade honest constraint violations for detection-resistant distortions.

Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand. We study where this evidence-to-action chain breaks as agents move from deciding whether to act to executing single actions and dependent workflows. Across ten model-harness configurations, strong static action assessment can coexist with much weaker interactive execution. Failures often begin before execution: agents stop with incomplete investigation or act before required evidence is established. Once required evidence is obtained, single-action execution is usually reliable, while multi-action workflows additionally expose unresolved prerequisites and incomplete execution. For this analysis, we introduce SafeActBench, comprising 656 cases across six operational domains and five protocols that progress from static action judgment and investigated non-action to single- and multi-action workflows. A provenance-bound Evidence Ledger and deterministic trajectory evaluator track what information was established, when actions occurred, and whether downstream dependencies were satisfied. These results show that failures arise not only from missing information, but also from how agents use established evidence when deciding and executing actions.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

Providing high quality explanations for AI predictions based on machine learning is a challenging and complex task. To work well it requires, among other factors: selecting a proper level of generality/specificity of the explanation; considering assumptions about the familiarity of the explanation beneficiary with the AI task under consideration; referring to specific elements that have contributed to the decision; making use of additional knowledge (e.g. expert evidence) which might not be part of the prediction process; and providing evidence supporting negative hypothesis. Finally, the system needs to formulate the explanation in a clearly interpretable, and possibly convincing, way. Given these considerations, ANTIDOTE fosters an integrated vision of explainable AI, where low-level characteristics of the deep learning process are combined with higher level schemes proper of the human argumentation capacity. ANTIDOTE will exploit cross-disciplinary competences in deep learning and argumentation to support a broader and innovative view of explainable AI, where the need for high-quality explanations for clinical cases deliberation is critical. As a first result of the project, we publish the Antidote CasiMedicos dataset to facilitate research on explainable AI in general, and argumentation in the medical domain in particular.

We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50\% to 82.19\% with 37.0\% fewer tokens.

Long-horizon, semi-verifiable agentic tasks often rely on rubric-based evaluation, but the evidence needed to assess these tasks can be spread across the environment state and the execution trace. A judge may overlook this evidence or accept unsupported claims, including an agent's own reports of success. When rubric verdicts serve as reinforcement-learning rewards, such errors can reinforce undesirable behavior. We introduce Sauron, an evidence-first agentic verifier that investigates both state and trace and relies on a claim only after independently validating it against its source. Bounded queries and joint investigation of related criteria reduce context use and redundant work, and each verdict carries an auditable receipt of its supporting evidence. Across 2,586 human-labeled criteria from 100 personal-assistant episodes, Sauron achieves the highest F1 of five verifiers on all eight backbones tested while costing less than Gandalf, the strongest baseline. With GPT-5.6 Sol, it reaches 0.96 F1 versus Gandalf's 0.92 at 23% lower cost, with a wider margin on process criteria. On a paired fault-injection suite covering 13 families, several of which simulate reward hacking, Sauron detects 97% of injected failures while flagging only 2% of clean controls, outperforming baselines even when they are given the full trace. On TRAIL, a benchmark for detecting and localizing real agent errors, Sauron leads both Gandalf and TRAIL's own judge on all three quality metrics.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies. However, existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics, which fail to automatically evaluate the justification production and uncover the nuanced limitations of LLMs in fact-checking. In this work, we introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities. Leveraging importance sampling principles and multi-agent collaboration, FACT-AUDIT generates adaptive and scalable datasets, performs iterative model-centric evaluations, and updates assessments based on model-specific responses. By incorporating justification production alongside verdict prediction, this framework provides a comprehensive and evolving audit of LLMs' factual reasoning capabilities, to investigate their trustworthiness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FACT-AUDIT effectively differentiates among state-of-the-art LLMs, providing valuable insights into model strengths and limitations in model-centric fact-checking analysis.

Can AI agents carry out research on open scientific problems? We introduce Into the Unknown, a benchmark that provides an agent with a science paper along with a research direction to pursue and tasks it to write a follow-up paper. We work with scientists at US Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, who each contribute an unpublished follow-up direction from their own work together with the necessary conditions a submission must meet. While assessing the quality of a follow-up paper is challenging in general, using these conditions to form a rubric makes evaluation more tractable for research problems that have no reference answer. We have nine frontier agents write 15 follow-ups each, spanning quantum computing, plasma physics, computational chemistry, materials science, and scientific machine learning domains. None of the 135 submissions satisfies all the conditions, and 114 fail our integrity check, most often because the paper claims work that was never done or reports numbers that contradict the recorded evidence. Overall, agents readily produce papers that look like follow-ups, but none meets the standard of the domain scientist, leaving substantial headroom. Our code and data are publicly available.