Kernel Token Contradiction: a Fast and Principled Approach for LLM Claim Uncertainty Quantification

Claim-level Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) aims to mitigate the lack of reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) by evaluating the factuality of each claim in their outputs. We introduce Kernel Token Contradiction (KTC), a lightweight approach to compute claim-level UQ under realistic white-box conditions. KTC represents the candidate tokens involved in LLM generation as a positive semi-definite kernel that integrates both the LLM's conditional distribution and a token contradiction score. We then use the Von Neumann entropy to quantify the uncertainty of this kernel. To estimate token contradiction, we develop a new approach based on frequency statistics from the Wikipedia corpus. Although CPU-only, our approach achieves over an 8.2x speedup compared to state-of-the-art GPU-accelerated methods based on cross-encoders, and over a 65x speedup compared to CPU-only methods with comparable performance. Our evaluation spans two benchmarks across four European languages and 16 different models. KTC not only matches the average performance of existing methods but also outperforms them in high-precision regimes. This combination of computational efficiency and accuracy makes real-time monitoring of LLM outputs practical in production.

NetlistBench: Evaluating LLM Reliability in SPICE Netlist Recognition and Manipulation

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in circuit design workflows, yet their reliability on simulator-facing SPICE netlist recognition and manipulation remains poorly understood and is rarely separated from high-level design reasoning. Although netlists are textual, they encode structured circuit objects through topology and parameters. We present \textbf{NetlistBench}, a structure-verified benchmark for SPICE netlist recognition and manipulation. NetlistBench contains 2,342 cases across 24 task families, covering parameter and connectivity recognition and edits, hierarchical operations, equivalence judgment, and long-horizon compound editing. Model outputs are evaluated by a deterministic structure-aware oracle. Across six non-thinking LLMs, performance varies substantially with operation-level structural complexity. Simple local edits reach $96\%$--$100\%$ accuracy, while device addition drops to $41\%$--$83\%$ and equivalence judgment to $49\%$--$90\%$. Enabling reasoning substantially improves weaker models but does not eliminate structure-preservation failures, with performance still degrading sharply as the edit horizon increases. NetlistBench identifies netlist reliability as a distinct bottleneck for trustworthy LLM-based circuit design automation.

Relational Response Fields: A General Theory of Black-Box LLM Response Consistency and Recovery

Black-box language-model reliability is commonly pursued by sampling, prompting, voting, verifying, or iteratively revising individual answers. We ask a prior question: \emph{what determines whether a collection of black-box responses is recoverable at all?} We represent responses to typed transformations of a query as a \emph{relational response field} (RRF). Edge transports encode how valid responses must change under paraphrase, scaling, decomposition, refactoring, or other task symmetries; anchors encode independently trusted evidence such as execution or a verifier. For relation operator $D$, anchor operator $A$, and at most $k$ corrupted response nodes, we identify $γ_k(D,A)$ as the intrinsic difficulty of black-box response recovery. It is positive exactly when every $k$-node corruption is identifiable; it gives a deterministic stability bound proportional to $1/γ_k$; and a matching two-point minimax lower bound shows that no estimator can improve this dependence. Thus consistency is not truth: relation-only methods are blind to null directions, including shared hallucinations. We derive sparse field-repair algorithms while separating information-theoretic identifiability from the stronger null-space conditions required by convex optimization. Controlled theorem tests and black-box mathematics/code experiments evaluate four theory-fixed consequences: consistency--truth separation, anchor phase transitions, redundancy saturation, and cross-model, cross-task prediction of repair difficulty. The results support $γ_k(D,A)$ as a measurable property of a response-recovery instance, rather than a score attached to one repair heuristic.

SymboUQ: Symbolic Uncertainty Quantification for Spatial Reasoning in LLMs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Static Rules: Automated Discovery of Latent Vulnerabilities in Text-to-SQL

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in Text-to-SQL tasks, their deployment in real-world environments is hindered by latent reliability issues. Identifying these latent weaknesses is critical for building trustworthy database interfaces, yet current diagnostic approaches rely heavily on static, expert-defined rules, which lack the capability for systematic and automated exploration. To bridge this gap, we propose SAGE (Systematic Automated Guided Exploration), a novel framework designed to autonomously uncover latent failure patterns in LLM-based Text-to-SQL generation. Specifically, SAGE generates vulnerability hypotheses for given samples and references a continuously evolving Vulnerability Codex to design targeted perturbations, thereby iteratively verifying and documenting potential defects. Extensive experiments on state-of-the-art open-source LLMs demonstrate that SAGE uncovers a substantial number of failure cases, highlighting the significant fragility of current models. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that the Vulnerability Codex exhibits strong cross-model transferability, indicating that the discovered patterns represent generalized structural weaknesses. Finally, we explore SAGE's potential for remediation. Although preliminary, lightweight fine-tuning on the generated samples yields promising improvements, suggesting a scalable pathway for closing the reliability loop in future work.

Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences

Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).

When Can Conformal Risk Control Certify LLM Outputs? Bounds, Impossibility, and Adaptation for Structured Generation

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for structured generation (NER, JSON extraction, QA, and classification) lack formal reliability guarantees, and standard heuristic abstention policies miss user-specified risk targets by 7.5--12.5%. We characterize when conformal risk control (CRC) can certify structured LLM outputs and when it provably cannot. First, we prove an impossibility result: when the base risk (μ> α), any distribution-free method must abstain on at least ((μ-α)/(1-α)) examples, yielding a closed-form feasibility test: one can check whether CRC will work before running it. Second, we analyze a certification hierarchy across Hoeffding, empirical Bernstein, and a betting-based e-CRC bound, with strict gains in low-variance/large-sample regimes: the Hoeffding-to-Bernstein step delivers the largest gain (+37% certified configurations), while e-CRC adds value when calibration data is scarce (10% certification at 20% data versus 0% for Hoeffding). Third, we validate adaptive conformal inference (ACI) under cross-dataset shift, reducing risk-target violations from 71% to 21%, with residual failures concentrated exactly where the impossibility bound predicts. Across six open-weight models (3B--72B parameters), eight datasets, four tasks, and six nonconformity scores, hard NER/QA/CLS configurations are uncertifiable at (α= 0.10); relaxing to (α= 0.30--0.40) unlocks practical certification (47% NER, 40% QA, 60% CLS). The framework gives a three-step deployment recipe: check feasibility, select the bound and score, then mitigate shift.

Grad Detect: Gradient-Based Hallucination Detection in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse tasks, yet they remain prone to generating hallucinations. Detecting these hallucinations is critical for deploying LLMs reliably in high-stakes applications. We present Grad Detect, a gradient-based approach for predicting hallucinations by analyzing layer-wise gradient patterns from a single forward-backward pass during inference. Our method shows that the internal gradient structure of a model carries rich information about the correctness of its output. This information is not accessible through output-level signals alone. We evaluate Grad Detect on several Q&A benchmarks across both hallucination detection and model abstention prediction, where it consistently outperforms confidence-based and sampling-based baselines. Through comprehensive layer ablation studies across all eleven models from four architectural families, we find that the final five layers concentrate over 97% of the discriminative gradient signal, enabling efficient deployment with minimal performance loss. Grad Detect provides a unified framework for predicting multiple dimensions of LLM reliability, offering strong predictive performance alongside interpretable insights into where and how model failures originate.

If These Walls Could Talk: Critical Play with Large Language Models in Museums

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in museums to as role playing chatbots which let visitors talk to simulated versions of people and artefacts from the past. While such installations can be playful and engaging, they are also problematic because LLMs cannot be trusted to speak truthfully. I identify a fundamental dilemma for the use of LLMs in museum chatbots: LLMs cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and efforts to make them more reliable may ruin that which is attractive about the bots in the first place - their ability to engage in life-like conversation. In response, I propose designing for critical play with LLM-based bots: Designing for playful interactions with bots that are unreliable but still able to represent the past in an adequate and engaging manner - as fictional characters representing historical narratives, styles of discourse, diverse perspectives, humor and satire.

(Human) Attention Is (Still) All You Need: Human oversight makes AI-assisted social science reliable

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

From Context-Aware to Conflict-Aware: Generalizing Contrastive Decoding for Knowledge Conflict in LLMs

When large language models generate from retrieved or augmented contexts, conflicts between external context and parametric priors remain a central reliability bottleneck. Existing contrastive decoding methods follow a \emph{context-aware} paradigm that unilaterally amplifies context over parametric priors, overwriting correct priors when the context is erroneous. We generalize this to the \textbf{conflict-aware} paradigm that dynamically allocates authority between prior and context based on conflict signals, rather than presupposing context trustworthiness. We show that the affine combination of prior and context logits yields a \textbf{power family} with an inherent \textbf{regime asymmetry}: extrapolation amplifies errors unboundedly when the prior is correct, interpolation under-corrects when the context is correct, and no static regime covers both. Existing contrastive decoding methods are instances of this family, mostly extrapolative. To evaluate both conflict directions, we propose TriState-Bench, a model-aware evaluation protocol that calibrates per-model prior knowledge to measure three conflict states: correction, resistance, and agreement. To resolve the asymmetry, we propose Adaptive Regime Routing (ARR), which routes between regimes at each step, lifting resistance EM from below 6 to 16--33 without sacrificing correction or agreement. Our code is available at https://github.com/keith-Jiang/conflict-aware-decoding.

OpenHalDet: A Unified Benchmark for Hallucination Detection across Diverse Generation Scenarios

Hallucination detection is essential for the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs). However, existing evaluations face two core challenges: inconsistent inference configuration and evaluation, and limited coverage of downstream domains and tasks. Consequently, reported detector performance is often difficult to compare, reproduce, and generalize beyond specific experimental settings. We introduce OpenHalDet, a unified benchmark for hallucination detection across diverse generation scenarios. OpenHalDet standardizes the evaluation pipeline, from prompt construction and response generation to truthfulness annotation, detector scoring, and metric computation. It supports heterogeneous detector families under different access settings, including black-box methods that use only generated outputs, gray-box methods that rely on probability-based signals, and white-box methods that exploit internal model signals. By bringing diverse tasks, models, and detectors into a shared framework, OpenHalDet enables controlled comparison and provides a systematic view of how different detection paradigms behave in LLM applications. We release OpenHalDet as an open and extensible codebase to facilitate reproducible evaluation and future development of hallucination detection methods. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Nellie179/Hallucination-Detection.