Daily Papers

The rapid iteration of autonomous driving algorithms has created a growing demand for high-fidelity, replayable, and diagnosable testing data. However, many public datasets lack real vehicle dynamics feedback and closed-loop interaction with surrounding traffic and road infrastructure, limiting their ability to reflect deployment readiness. To address this gap, we present OVPD (OnSite Virtual-Physical Dataset), a virtual-physical fusion testing dataset released from the 2025 OnSite Autonomous Driving Challenge. Centered on real-vehicle-in-the-loop testing, OVPD integrates virtual background traffic with vehicle-infrastructure perception to build controllable and interactive closed-loop test environments on a proving ground. The dataset contains 20 testing clips from 20 teams over a scenario chain of 15 atomic scenarios, totaling nearly 3 hours of multi-modal data, including vehicle trajectories and states, control commands, and digital-twin-rendered surround-view observations. OVPD supports long-tail planning and decision-making validation, open-loop or platform-enabled closed-loop evaluation, and comprehensive assessment across safety, efficiency, comfort, rule compliance, and traffic impact, providing actionable evidence for failure diagnosis and iterative improvement. The dataset is available via: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yuhang253820/Onsite_OPVD

Zero-shot waypoint navigation requires vision-language models to select, from the current first-person observation, a sequence of spatial actions that is feasible for the agent and reaches the goal, placing joint demands on the integrated spatial intelligence of today's foundation VLMs. Existing spatial-intelligence benchmarks primarily evaluate isolated judgments of relations, directions, or targets and therefore do not directly measure the integrated navigation ability required to combine target recognition, action-consequence assessment, distance estimation, and path planning. To fill this evaluation gap, we introduce EgoPathBench, a dataset and five-task benchmark for first-person waypoint decision-making. Each question presents an egocentric RGB image, a natural-language goal, and numbered visible waypoints; a model returns traversable candidates or an ordered route. Predictions are evaluated for candidate feasibility, adjacent-edge legality, and goal arrival under point-agent or embodied geometry. EgoPathBench contains 31,852 training, 1,345 validation, and 1,111 benchmark questions and retains at least one geometrically verified reference route for every route question. Across nine VLMs, the highest EgoPath Score is only 28.3. The top-ranked model reaches 35.9% success on Point Path, but only 2.9% and 4.0% on Embodied Path and Intent Path, respectively, showing that current models remain limited in forming complete, goal-consistent routes under embodiment constraints. Beyond the evaluation data, we release the corresponding training resource. Fine-tuning Qwen 3.5 4B on the released training split raises its EgoPath Score from 3.9 to 38.9 and improves all four reported evaluations across three external spatial benchmarks, with gains of 1.4--9.6 points.

Many language-based applications need a probability distribution over a small set of decisions rather than an open-ended response. We present Chinese Decision, a family of Chinese-language decision models that adapts pretrained causal language models to this interface. Each question is compiled into a shared instruction-and-candidate prompt; a single forward pass reads the final-position logits of the candidate letters and normalizes them over the valid options, without autoregressive answer generation. The interface covers Boolean judgments, categorical choices, and ordinal scores. We report three completed members built on Qwen3.5 0.8B, 2B, and 4B backbones, each trained for one epoch on the same 13.048 million decisions and released with a validation-fitted temperature and a Q8_0 quantization. On the full 307,900-decision CJ-Bench, the 4B model reaches 85.97% overall accuracy, 75.69% general-domain accuracy, and 84.00% average accuracy across medicine, law, and finance with a single checkpoint, above every reported baseline in each domain, at 1.00% expected calibration error. Between the 2B and 4B members, which share data, objective, and minimum batch, parent-clustered paired bootstrap intervals show gains in all four domains, largest in the two low-resource domains (+8.5 and +7.1 points), whereas the 2B gain over 0.8B in law is not statistically resolved. Analyses of the stored predictions further show that a single global temperature lowers pooled calibration error while worsening some domains, that larger members rank their own errors better for selective prediction, and that merging and quantization each change 0.4-1.1% of top-1 predictions while leaving aggregate metrics nearly unchanged. All comparisons rest on single training runs and imported baselines.

One of the most critical tasks for startups is to validate their business model. Therefore, entrepreneurs try to collect information such as feedback from other actors to assess the validity of their assumptions and make decisions. However, previous work on decisional guidance for business model validation provides no solution for the highly uncertain and complex context of earlystage startups. The purpose of this paper is, thus, to develop design principles for a Hybrid Intelligence decision support system (HI-DSS) that combines the complementary capabilities of human and machine intelligence. We follow a design science research approach to design a prototype artifact and a set of design principles. Our study provides prescriptive knowledge for HI-DSS and contributes to previous work on decision support for business models, the applications of complementary strengths of humans and machines for making decisions, and support systems for extremely uncertain decision-making problems.

Obtaining high-quality fine-grained annotations for traffic signs is critical for accurate and safe decision-making in autonomous driving. Widely used datasets, such as Mapillary, often provide only coarse-grained labels - without distinguishing semantically important types such as stop signs or speed limit signs. To this end, we present a new validation set for traffic signs derived from the Mapillary dataset called Mapillary Vistas Validation for Traffic Signs (MVV), where we decompose composite traffic signs into granular, semantically meaningful categories. The dataset includes pixel-level instance masks and has been manually annotated by expert annotators to ensure label fidelity. Further, we benchmark several state-of-the-art VLMs against the self-supervised DINOv2 model on this dataset and show that DINOv2 consistently outperforms all VLM baselines-not only on traffic sign recognition, but also on heavily represented categories like vehicles and humans. Our analysis reveals significant limitations in current vision-language models for fine-grained visual understanding and establishes DINOv2 as a strong baseline for dense semantic matching in autonomous driving scenarios. This dataset and evaluation framework pave the way for more reliable, interpretable, and scalable perception systems. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/nec-labs-ma/relabeling

Causal discovery is increasingly applied to large-scale telemetry data to estimate the effects of user-facing interventions, yet its reliability for decision-making in feedback-driven systems with strong self-selection remains unclear. In this paper, we propose an effect-centric, admissibility-first framework that treats discovered graphs as structural hypotheses and evaluates them by identifiability, stability, and falsification rather than by graph recovery accuracy alone. Empirically, we study the effect of early exposure to competitive gameplay on short-term retention using real-world game telemetry. We find that many statistically plausible discovery outputs do not admit point-identified causal queries once minimal temporal and semantic constraints are enforced, highlighting identifiability as a critical bottleneck for decision support. When identification is possible, several algorithm families converge to similar, decision-consistent effect estimates despite producing substantially different graph structures, including cases where the direct treatment-outcome edge is absent and the effect is preserved through indirect causal pathways. These converging estimates survive placebo, subsampling, and sensitivity refutation. In contrast, other methods exhibit sporadic admissibility and threshold-sensitive or attenuated effects due to endpoint ambiguity. These results suggest that graph-level metrics alone are inadequate proxies for causal reliability for a given target query. Therefore, trustworthy causal conclusions in telemetry-driven systems require prioritizing admissibility and effect-level validation over causal structural recovery alone.

Unlike human-engineered systems such as aeroplanes, where each component's role and dependencies are well understood, the inner workings of AI models remain largely opaque, hindering verifiability and undermining trust. This paper introduces SemanticLens, a universal explanation method for neural networks that maps hidden knowledge encoded by components (e.g., individual neurons) into the semantically structured, multimodal space of a foundation model such as CLIP. In this space, unique operations become possible, including (i) textual search to identify neurons encoding specific concepts, (ii) systematic analysis and comparison of model representations, (iii) automated labelling of neurons and explanation of their functional roles, and (iv) audits to validate decision-making against requirements. Fully scalable and operating without human input, SemanticLens is shown to be effective for debugging and validation, summarizing model knowledge, aligning reasoning with expectations (e.g., adherence to the ABCDE-rule in melanoma classification), and detecting components tied to spurious correlations and their associated training data. By enabling component-level understanding and validation, the proposed approach helps bridge the "trust gap" between AI models and traditional engineered systems. We provide code for SemanticLens on https://github.com/jim-berend/semanticlens and a demo on https://semanticlens.hhi-research-insights.eu.

Integrating large language models (LLMs) like DeepSeek R1 into healthcare requires rigorous evaluation of their reasoning alignment with clinical expertise. This study assesses DeepSeek R1's medical reasoning against expert patterns using 100 MedQA clinical cases. The model achieved 93% diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating systematic clinical judgment through differential diagnosis, guideline-based treatment selection, and integration of patient-specific factors. However, error analysis of seven incorrect cases revealed persistent limitations: anchoring bias, challenges reconciling conflicting data, insufficient exploration of alternatives, overthinking, knowledge gaps, and premature prioritization of definitive treatment over intermediate care. Crucially, reasoning length correlated with accuracy - shorter responses (<5,000 characters) were more reliable, suggesting extended explanations may signal uncertainty or rationalization of errors. While DeepSeek R1 exhibits foundational clinical reasoning capabilities, recurring flaws highlight critical areas for refinement, including bias mitigation, knowledge updates, and structured reasoning frameworks. These findings underscore LLMs' potential to augment medical decision-making through artificial reasoning but emphasize the need for domain-specific validation, interpretability safeguards, and confidence metrics (e.g., response length thresholds) to ensure reliability in real-world applications.

Pulmonary fibrosis is a devastating chronic lung disease that causes irreparable lung tissue scarring and damage, resulting in progressive loss in lung capacity and has no known cure. A critical step in the treatment and management of pulmonary fibrosis is the assessment of lung function decline, with computed tomography (CT) imaging being a particularly effective method for determining the extent of lung damage caused by pulmonary fibrosis. Motivated by this, we introduce Fibrosis-Net, a deep convolutional neural network design tailored for the prediction of pulmonary fibrosis progression from chest CT images. More specifically, machine-driven design exploration was leveraged to determine a strong architectural design for CT lung analysis, upon which we build a customized network design tailored for predicting forced vital capacity (FVC) based on a patient's CT scan, initial spirometry measurement, and clinical metadata. Finally, we leverage an explainability-driven performance validation strategy to study the decision-making behaviour of Fibrosis-Net as to verify that predictions are based on relevant visual indicators in CT images. Experiments using a patient cohort from the OSIC Pulmonary Fibrosis Progression Challenge showed that the proposed Fibrosis-Net is able to achieve a significantly higher modified Laplace Log Likelihood score than the winning solutions on the challenge. Furthermore, explainability-driven performance validation demonstrated that the proposed Fibrosis-Net exhibits correct decision-making behaviour by leveraging clinically-relevant visual indicators in CT images when making predictions on pulmonary fibrosis progress. While Fibrosis-Net is not yet a production-ready clinical assessment solution, we hope that its release in open source manner will encourage researchers, clinicians, and citizen data scientists alike to leverage and build upon it.

Recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs) have positioned them as a promising paradigm for agents, with long-term planning and decision-making emerging as core general-purpose capabilities for adapting to diverse scenarios and tasks. Real-time strategy (RTS) games serve as an ideal testbed for evaluating these two capabilities, as their inherent gameplay requires both macro-level strategic planning and micro-level tactical adaptation and action execution. Existing RTS game-based environments either suffer from relatively high computational demands or lack support for textual observations, which has constrained the use of RTS games for LLM evaluation. Motivated by this, we present TowerMind, a novel environment grounded in the tower defense (TD) subgenre of RTS games. TowerMind preserves the key evaluation strengths of RTS games for assessing LLMs, while featuring low computational demands and a multimodal observation space, including pixel-based, textual, and structured game-state representations. In addition, TowerMind supports the evaluation of model hallucination and provides a high degree of customizability. We design five benchmark levels to evaluate several widely used LLMs under different multimodal input settings. The results reveal a clear performance gap between LLMs and human experts across both capability and hallucination dimensions. The experiments further highlight key limitations in LLM behavior, such as inadequate planning validation, a lack of multifinality in decision-making, and inefficient action use. We also evaluate two classic reinforcement learning algorithms: Ape-X DQN and PPO. By offering a lightweight and multimodal design, TowerMind complements the existing RTS game-based environment landscape and introduces a new benchmark for the AI agent field. The source code is publicly available on GitHub(https://github.com/tb6147877/TowerMind).

The increasing complexity and scale of modern telecommunications networks demand intelligent automation to enhance efficiency, adaptability, and resilience. Agentic AI has emerged as a key paradigm for intelligent communications and networking, enabling AI-driven agents to perceive, reason, decide, and act within dynamic networking environments. However, effective decision-making in telecom applications, such as network planning, management, and resource allocation, requires integrating retrieval mechanisms that support multi-hop reasoning, historical cross-referencing, and compliance with evolving 3GPP standards. This article presents a forward-looking perspective on generative information retrieval-inspired intelligent communications and networking, emphasizing the role of knowledge acquisition, processing, and retrieval in agentic AI for telecom systems. We first provide a comprehensive review of generative information retrieval strategies, including traditional retrieval, hybrid retrieval, semantic retrieval, knowledge-based retrieval, and agentic contextual retrieval. We then analyze their advantages, limitations, and suitability for various networking scenarios. Next, we present a survey about their applications in communications and networking. Additionally, we introduce an agentic contextual retrieval framework to enhance telecom-specific planning by integrating multi-source retrieval, structured reasoning, and self-reflective validation. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework significantly improves answer accuracy, explanation consistency, and retrieval efficiency compared to traditional and semantic retrieval methods. Finally, we outline future research directions.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning shines as the pinnacle of multi-agent systems, conquering intricate real-world challenges, fostering collaboration and coordination among agents, and unleashing the potential for intelligent decision-making across domains. However, training a multi-agent reinforcement learning network is a formidable endeavor, demanding substantial computational resources to interact with diverse environmental variables, extract state representations, and acquire decision-making knowledge. The recent breakthroughs in large-scale pre-trained models ignite our curiosity: Can we uncover shared knowledge in multi-agent reinforcement learning and leverage pre-trained models to expedite training for future tasks? Addressing this issue, we present an innovative multi-task learning approach that aims to extract and harness common decision-making knowledge, like cooperation and competition, across different tasks. Our approach involves concurrent training of multiple multi-agent tasks, with each task employing independent front-end perception layers while sharing back-end decision-making layers. This effective decoupling of state representation extraction from decision-making allows for more efficient training and better transferability. To evaluate the efficacy of our proposed approach, we conduct comprehensive experiments in two distinct environments: the StarCraft Multi-agent Challenge (SMAC) and the Google Research Football (GRF) environments. The experimental results unequivocally demonstrate the smooth transferability of the shared decision-making network to other tasks, thereby significantly reducing training costs and improving final performance. Furthermore, visualizations authenticate the presence of general multi-agent decision-making knowledge within the shared network layers, further validating the effectiveness of our approach.

Multimodal large language models are increasingly capable of complex reasoning, yet their performance often degrades when they must externalize a problem through a tool and then reason over the tool's output, specifically when they rely on visual aids. This gap is especially important because real engineering and scientific workflows often rely on visualization tools for analysis, validation, and decision-making. To study this discrepancy, we introduce VAMPS (Visual-Assisted Mathematical Problem Solving), a benchmark for graph-assisted mathematics. VAMPS contains 1,168 multimodal, bilingual multiple-choice question-answer pairs drawn from Iranian University Entrance Exam algebra and calculus problems and expanded with human-reviewed LLM-generated synthetic variants, all selected so that plotting provides a natural solution strategy by revealing intersections, extrema, asymptotes, etc. Designed for both benchmarking and diagnosis, VAMPS goes beyond prior multimodal benchmarks that primarily evaluate reasoning over fixed visual inputs by testing whether a model can benefit from constructing a useful graph and grounding its answer in the resulting visualization. Overall, we found that across a diverse set of models, direct analytical solving surprisingly outperforms tool-enabled visual solving, even on problems where plotting is a natural strategy.

Large language models (LLMs) face the challenge of hallucinations -- outputs that seem coherent but are actually incorrect. A particularly damaging type is fact-conflicting hallucination (FCH), where generated content contradicts established facts. Addressing FCH presents three main challenges: 1) Automatically constructing and maintaining large-scale benchmark datasets is difficult and resource-intensive; 2) Generating complex and efficient test cases that the LLM has not been trained on -- especially those involving intricate temporal features -- is challenging, yet crucial for eliciting hallucinations; and 3) Validating the reasoning behind LLM outputs is inherently difficult, particularly with complex logical relationships, as it requires transparency in the model's decision-making process. This paper presents Drowzee, an innovative end-to-end metamorphic testing framework that utilizes temporal logic to identify fact-conflicting hallucinations (FCH) in large language models (LLMs). Drowzee builds a comprehensive factual knowledge base by crawling sources like Wikipedia and uses automated temporal-logic reasoning to convert this knowledge into a large, extensible set of test cases with ground truth answers. LLMs are tested using these cases through template-based prompts, which require them to generate both answers and reasoning steps. To validate the reasoning, we propose two semantic-aware oracles that compare the semantic structure of LLM outputs to the ground truths. Across nine LLMs in nine different knowledge domains, experimental results show that Drowzee effectively identifies rates of non-temporal-related hallucinations ranging from 24.7% to 59.8%, and rates of temporal-related hallucinations ranging from 16.7% to 39.2%.

Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes. This gap, driven by mutually reinforcing cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector. This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure. Detailed prompting specifying decision partnership and explicitly instructing avoidance of sycophancy, confabulation, solution drift, and nihilism achieved initial partnership state but failed to maintain it under operational pressure. Sustaining protective partnership state required an emergent 7-stage calibration sequence, built upon a 4-stage initialization process, within a 5-layer protection architecture enabling bias self-monitoring, human-AI adversarial challenge, partnership state verification, performance degradation detection, and stakeholder protection. Three discoveries resulted: partnership state is achievable through ordered calibration but requires emergent maintenance protocols; reliability degrades when architectural drift and context exhaustion align; and dissolution discipline prevents costly pursuit of fundamentally wrong directions. Cross-model validation revealed systematic performance differences across LLM architectures. This approach demonstrates that human-AI teams can achieve cognitive partnership capable of preventing avoidable regret in high-stakes decisions, addressing return-on-investment expectations that depend on AI systems supporting consequential decision-making without introducing preventable cognitive traps when verification arrives too late.

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) are increasingly used across society, including in domains like business, engineering, and medicine. These fields often grapple with decision-making under uncertainty, a critical yet challenging task. In this paper, we show that directly prompting LLMs on these types of decision-making problems yields poor results, especially as the problem complexity increases. To overcome this limitation, we propose DeLLMa (Decision-making Large Language Model assistant), a framework designed to enhance decision-making accuracy in uncertain environments. DeLLMa involves a multi-step scaffolding procedure, drawing upon principles from decision theory and utility theory, to provide an optimal and human-auditable decision-making process. We validate our framework on decision-making environments involving real agriculture and finance data. Our results show that DeLLMa can significantly improve LLM decision-making performance, achieving up to a 40% increase in accuracy over competing methods.

Explanations of model behavior are commonly evaluated via proxy properties weakly tied to the purposes explanations serve in practice. We contribute a decision theoretic framework that treats explanations as information signals valued by the expected improvement they enable on a specified decision task. This approach yields three distinct estimands: 1) a theoretical benchmark that upperbounds achievable performance by any agent with the explanation, 2) a human-complementary value that quantifies the theoretically attainable value that is not already captured by a baseline human decision policy, and 3) a behavioral value representing the causal effect of providing the explanation to human decision-makers. We instantiate these definitions in a practical validation workflow, and apply them to assess explanation potential and interpret behavioral effects in human-AI decision support and mechanistic interpretability.

Decision-making is a dynamic process requiring perception, memory, and reasoning to make choices and find optimal policies. Traditional approaches to decision-making suffer from sample efficiency and generalization, while large-scale self-supervised pretraining has enabled fast adaptation with fine-tuning or few-shot learning in language and vision. We thus argue to integrate knowledge acquired from generic large-scale self-supervised pretraining into downstream decision-making problems. We propose Pretrain-Then-Adapt pipeline and survey recent work on data collection, pretraining objectives and adaptation strategies for decision-making pretraining and downstream inference. Finally, we identify critical challenges and future directions for developing decision foundation model with the help of generic and flexible self-supervised pretraining.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Decision models support routing, guardrails, and output verification in LLM systems. However, item accuracy alone cannot establish whether models make correct decisions across controlled variations or assign reliable confidence to their predictions. We introduce DecisionPivot, a diagnostic benchmark comprising 48 tasks and 40,033 items across seven decision roles. Its core track contains 7,800 items from 13 generated task families, organized into contrast groups with computed answers verified by independently implemented solvers. The complementary reference track contains 32,233 items from 35 public test sets, preserving their original evaluation metrics. We evaluate 40 decision models and 14 general models using documented, model-specific protocols, assessing item and contrast-group accuracy, probability ordering, calibration, and empirical selective coverage. Our results reveal substantial differences obscured by aggregate scores: two 27B models separated by only 2.6 points on the reference track achieve contrast-group accuracies of 70.1% and 44.2%. Across 2,400 binary contrast pairs, Perplexity Decider correctly ranks the positive member above the negative member in 92.3% of pairs but answers both members correctly in only 74.1%, exposing a gap between probability ordering and decision correctness. Models with similar item accuracy also differ in the reliability of their high-confidence predictions. On a separate 1,296-item subset, GLM-5.3 achieves 93.5\% contrast-group accuracy at a higher reasoning setting, compared with 81.5% at its lowest effort. By linking errors to pivotal details and difficulty levels, DecisionPivot provides fine-grained diagnostics of decision failures that aggregate evaluation alone cannot reveal.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

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.

Jev has attracted considerable attention for its rapid, generalizable decision-making, yet its medical reliability remains underexplored. To address this gap, our study compares various types of system-one decision models across 15 medical datasets comprising 8,742 instances under a unified protocol. Beyond accuracy, we assess decision stability and the ability to recognize unreliable decisions. Our results show that Jev rivals leading models on primarily text-driven tasks but is less effective on numerically driven tasks, revealing a distinct capability boundary. Under question-format variations, Jev maintains strong decision consistency and small accuracy fluctuations. StartLux-27B exhibits comparable consistency, while D3-27B achieves higher overall accuracy and a lower mean decision reversal rate. But these strengths do not extend to reliable abstention awareness: most evaluated models show limitations in both recognizing missing correct answers and using optional abstention. Moreover, we find that Jev's probability-based answer selection can be improved by changing how decisions are scored: normalizing option-wise binary scores yields higher retained accuracy than choice scoring. Taken together, our findings provide early guidance for improving and applying decision models in medicine.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into judicial decision making -- particularly in pretrial, sentencing, and parole contexts -- has generated a substantial and rapidly growing literature. Across computer science, economics, law, criminology, and psychology, researchers have examined the reliability, fairness, and real-world effects of AI-assisted decision making. Yet this literature remains fragmented, and differences in assumptions, concepts, and research priorities make it difficult to assess what is actually known. Using criminal justice risk assessment as a focal case, this article makes two contributions. First, we develop a conceptual framework that distinguishes and relates three central questions: (1) the predictive validity of automated risk assessment tools; (2) how algorithmic risk assessments compare with human predictions (AI-versus-Human); and (3) how algorithmic recommendations affect judges' decisions (AI-plus-Human). Second, we use this framework to synthesize the empirical evidence addressing each of these questions. Our review identifies important limitations in existing research on predictive validity, as well as substantial gaps in understanding how judges respond to AI advice and how those responses vary across individuals and decision-making environments. The available evidence suggests that AI decision aids have, so far, had at most modest effects on pretrial and sentencing decisions. We conclude that further research is needed to understand how judges make decisions in noisy informational environments and under what conditions AI tools can produce meaningful improvements in judicial decision making.

Emerging decision models such as JEV provide typed interfaces that map task instructions and observations directly to choices, judgments, and scores. As these models are increasingly used for automated decision-making, understanding their reliability under adversarial manipulation becomes critical. We introduce DecisionRobust, a benchmark for systematically evaluating the robustness of decision models across textual and visual inputs. Our benchmark covers practical decision-making scenarios and a diverse suite of attacks, including semantics-preserving text perturbations, image perturbations, and prompt injection in both modalities. We curate evaluation sets through external validity checks and cross-model candidate selection. We evaluate 30 model configurations on text tasks and 17 on vision tasks, including 24 and 12 held-out models, respectively, that are excluded from candidate selection. Our experiments reveal several key findings. First, attacks expose vulnerabilities beyond the models used for construction and selection, although optimized image perturbations transfer weakly to many targets even with multiple surrogates. Second, relative model robustness varies across tasks and attack types, and resistance to input perturbations does not necessarily imply resistance to prompt injection. Third, label-consistency checks substantially reduce measured attack success across text and image settings, highlighting the importance of validating apparent failures. The benchmark is available at https://yifan-lan.github.io/DecisionRobust/.

Platform content moderation applies explicit policy rules and context-dependent conditions to decide whether user content is allowed, restricted, or removed. A correct moderation outcome must therefore depend on which rules a case activates, how those rules interact, and whether the available evidence is sufficient. Current multimodal safety benchmarks largely reduce moderation to matching predefined final labels, leaving this underlying rule structure untested. As a result, a high benchmark score reveals little about whether a model applies the policy correctly or arrives at the correct label through superficial cues. To evaluate this rule-governed process, we introduce RuleSafe-VL, a benchmark for rule-conditioned decision reasoning in vision-language content moderation. Derived from publicly available platform moderation policies, RuleSafe-VL formalizes 93 atomic rules and 92 typed rule relations, yielding 2,166 context-sensitive image-text cases across three high-risk policy families. Its four diagnostic tasks decompose moderation into a rule-conditioned decision chain. They identify activated rules, recover rule interactions, judge decision sufficiency, and resolve outcomes once missing context is supplied. Experiments on 10 frontier, open-source, and safety-oriented VLMs reveal rule-relation recovery as the dominant bottleneck, where the best model reaches only 64.8 Macro-F1 and some safety-oriented models fall below 7 Macro-F1. Decision-state prediction also remains unreliable, peaking at 64.5 Macro-F1. RuleSafe-VL shifts moderation evaluation from final-label scoring toward diagnostic assessment of rule-conditioned decision reasoning.

Online platforms require robust systems to enforce content safety policies at scale. A critical component of these systems is the ability to evaluate the quality of moderation decisions made by both human agents and Large Language Models (LLMs). However, this evaluation is challenging due to the inherent trade-offs between cost, scale, and trustworthiness, along with the complexity of evolving policies. To address this, we present a comprehensive Decision Quality Evaluation Framework developed and deployed at Pinterest. The framework is centered on a high-trust Golden Set (GDS) curated by subject matter experts (SMEs), which serves as a ground truth benchmark. We introduce an automated intelligent sampling pipeline that uses propensity scores to efficiently expand dataset coverage. We demonstrate the framework's practical application in several key areas: benchmarking the cost-performance trade-offs of various LLM agents, establishing a rigorous methodology for data-driven prompt optimization, managing complex policy evolution, and ensuring the integrity of policy content prevalence metrics via continuous validation. The framework enables a shift from subjective assessments to a data-driven and quantitative practice for managing content safety systems.

In order to minimize the generalization error in neural networks, a novel technique to identify overfitting phenomena when training the learner is formally introduced. This enables support of a reliable and trustworthy early stopping condition, thus improving the predictive power of that type of modeling. Our proposal exploits the correlation over time in a collection of online indicators, namely characteristic functions for indicating if a set of hypotheses are met, associated with a range of independent stopping conditions built from a canary judgment to evaluate the presence of overfitting. That way, we provide a formal basis for decision making in terms of interrupting the learning process. As opposed to previous approaches focused on a single criterion, we take advantage of subsidiarities between independent assessments, thus seeking both a wider operating range and greater diagnostic reliability. With a view to illustrating the effectiveness of the halting condition described, we choose to work in the sphere of natural language processing, an operational continuum increasingly based on machine learning. As a case study, we focus on parser generation, one of the most demanding and complex tasks in the domain. The selection of cross-validation as a canary function enables an actual comparison with the most representative early stopping conditions based on overfitting identification, pointing to a promising start toward an optimal bias and variance control.

A verifier for robot policies reads a candidate behavior and returns a score for how well it did, used both to evaluate vision-language-action policies and to train them. Verifiers range from success detectors and reward models to runtime monitors, safety filters, and temporal-logic specifications. We survey roughly 150 verifiers and compare them along two properties. Availability is how much a verdict costs, how early in a rollout the verdict arrives, and how often a verdict can be asked for. Availability rises as verdicts get cheaper, earlier, and denser. Credibility is how much a high score tells us about the task. Credibility falls as the judgment becomes gameable and self-serving. We group the verifiers by who supplies the judgment: human verifiers, rule-based and formal verifiers, learned and pretrained verifiers, and model-intrinsic verifiers. Across the four families, we find that credibility falls as availability rises. Regardless of who supplies the judgment, there is no free checker. We then examine what validates a verifier itself, and how much a high score tells us. Three measures appear in the literature: agreement with human labels, the performance of the policy it trains, and behavior under reward hacking. We close with nine metrics that make a verifier claim checkable, and coordinates for the verifiers still to be built.

A semantic decision engine such as Jev can return a valid answer and still miss a network deadline, select an infeasible action or leave the service unverified. We systematize 139 paper families by decision interface, execution path and check ownership. Fifty families claim that their engine fits a control loop or time budget, but only four support the claim with matched measurement. Across all 139, four report deadline attainment. The gap concentrates where the decision has no deterministic computation step. Those 72 families make 22 of the claims, none supported, and name a coverage owner in only two. Bounded tests under one event model show that each gap can reverse an admission verdict. A decision that meets a 10 s budget for every isolated request meets it for none once decisions queue ahead of replayed execution times. The same engine passes one coverage check and fails another. We derive a minimum reporting record, design rules and a research agenda for admitting decision engines to control loops.

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.

This paper presents a case study on the design, administration, post-processing, and evaluation of surveys on large language models (LLMs). It comprises two components: (1) A statistical method for eliciting beliefs encoded in LLMs. We introduce statistical measures and evaluation metrics that quantify the probability of an LLM "making a choice", the associated uncertainty, and the consistency of that choice. (2) We apply this method to study what moral beliefs are encoded in different LLMs, especially in ambiguous cases where the right choice is not obvious. We design a large-scale survey comprising 680 high-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I tell a white lie?") and 687 low-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I stop for a pedestrian on the road?"). Each scenario includes a description, two possible actions, and auxiliary labels indicating violated rules (e.g., "do not kill"). We administer the survey to 28 open- and closed-source LLMs. We find that (a) in unambiguous scenarios, most models "choose" actions that align with commonsense. In ambiguous cases, most models express uncertainty. (b) Some models are uncertain about choosing the commonsense action because their responses are sensitive to the question-wording. (c) Some models reflect clear preferences in ambiguous scenarios. Specifically, closed-source models tend to agree with each other.

The ACPBench dataset provides atomic reasoning tasks required for efficient planning. The dataset is aimed at distilling the complex plan generation task into separate atomic reasoning tasks in their easiest possible form, boolean or multiple-choice questions, where the model has to choose the right answer from the provided options. While the aim of ACPBench is to test the simplest form of reasoning about action and change, when tasked with planning, a model does not typically have options to choose from and thus the reasoning required for planning dictates an open-ended, generative form for these tasks. To that end, we introduce ACPBench Hard, a generative version of ACPBench, with open-ended questions which the model needs to answer. Models that perform well on these tasks could in principle be integrated into a planner or be used directly as a policy. We discuss the complexity of these tasks as well as the complexity of validating the correctness of their answers and present validation algorithms for each task. Equipped with these validators, we test the performance of a variety of models on our tasks and find that for most of these tasks the performance of even the largest models is still subpar. Our experiments show that no model outperforms another in these tasks and with a few exceptions all tested language models score below 65%, indicating that even the current frontier language models have a long way to go before they can reliably reason about planning. In fact, even the so-called reasoning models struggle with solving these reasoning tasks. ACPBench Hard collection is available at the following link: https://ibm.github.io/ACPBench

Binary classification involves predicting the label of an instance based on whether the model score for the positive class exceeds a threshold chosen based on the application requirements (e.g., maximizing recall for a precision bound). However, model scores are often not aligned with the true positivity rate. This is especially true when the training involves a differential sampling across classes or there is distributional drift between train and test settings. In this paper, we provide theoretical analysis and empirical evidence of the dependence of model score estimation bias on both uncertainty and score itself. Further, we formulate the decision boundary selection in terms of both model score and uncertainty, prove that it is NP-hard, and present algorithms based on dynamic programming and isotonic regression. Evaluation of the proposed algorithms on three real-world datasets yield 25%-40% gain in recall at high precision bounds over the traditional approach of using model score alone, highlighting the benefits of leveraging uncertainty.

As machine learning and algorithmic decision making systems are increasingly being leveraged in high-stakes human-in-the-loop settings, there is a pressing need to understand the rationale of their predictions. Researchers have responded to this need with explainable AI (XAI), but often proclaim interpretability axiomatically without evaluation. When these systems are evaluated, they are often tested through offline simulations with proxy metrics of interpretability (such as model complexity). We empirically evaluate the veracity of three common interpretability assumptions through a large scale human-subjects experiment with a simple "placebo explanation" control. We find that feature attribution explanations provide marginal utility in our task for a human decision maker and in certain cases result in worse decisions due to cognitive and contextual confounders. This result challenges the assumed universal benefit of applying these methods and we hope this work will underscore the importance of human evaluation in XAI research. Supplemental materials -- including anonymized data from the experiment, code to replicate the study, an interactive demo of the experiment, and the models used in the analysis -- can be found at: https://doi.pizza/challenging-xai.

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.

Training data influence estimation methods quantify the contribution of training documents to a model's output, making them a promising source of information for example-based explanations. As humans cannot interpret thousands of documents, only a small subset of the training data can be presented as an explanation. Although the choice of which documents to include directly affects explanation quality, previous evaluations of such systems have largely ignored any selection strategies. To address this, we propose a novel selection relevance score, a retraining-free metric that quantifies how useful a set of examples is for explaining a model's output. We validate this score through fine-tuning experiments, confirming that it can predict whether a set of examples supports or undermines the model's predictions. Using this metric, we further show that common selection strategies often underperform random selection. Motivated by this finding, we propose a strategy that balances influence and representativeness, enabling better use of selection budgets than naively selecting the highest-ranking examples.

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.

In critical applications, it is vital for classifiers to defer decision-making to humans. We propose a post-hoc method that makes existing classifiers selectively abstain from predicting certain samples. Our abstaining classifier is incentivized to maintain the original accuracy for each sub-population (i.e. no harm) while achieving a set of group fairness definitions to a user specified degree. To this end, we design an Integer Programming (IP) procedure that assigns abstention decisions for each training sample to satisfy a set of constraints. To generalize the abstaining decisions to test samples, we then train a surrogate model to learn the abstaining decisions based on the IP solutions in an end-to-end manner. We analyze the feasibility of the IP procedure to determine the possible abstention rate for different levels of unfairness tolerance and accuracy constraint for achieving no harm. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to identify the theoretical relationships between the constraint parameters and the required abstention rate. Our theoretical results are important since a high abstention rate is often infeasible in practice due to a lack of human resources. Our framework outperforms existing methods in terms of fairness disparity without sacrificing accuracy at similar abstention rates.

Machine learning models always make a prediction, even when it is likely to be inaccurate. This behavior should be avoided in many decision support applications, where mistakes can have severe consequences. Albeit already studied in 1970, machine learning with rejection recently gained interest. This machine learning subfield enables machine learning models to abstain from making a prediction when likely to make a mistake. This survey aims to provide an overview on machine learning with rejection. We introduce the conditions leading to two types of rejection, ambiguity and novelty rejection, which we carefully formalize. Moreover, we review and categorize strategies to evaluate a model's predictive and rejective quality. Additionally, we define the existing architectures for models with rejection and describe the standard techniques for learning such models. Finally, we provide examples of relevant application domains and show how machine learning with rejection relates to other machine learning research areas.

In the last years many accurate decision support systems have been constructed as black boxes, that is as systems that hide their internal logic to the user. This lack of explanation constitutes both a practical and an ethical issue. The literature reports many approaches aimed at overcoming this crucial weakness sometimes at the cost of scarifying accuracy for interpretability. The applications in which black box decision systems can be used are various, and each approach is typically developed to provide a solution for a specific problem and, as a consequence, delineating explicitly or implicitly its own definition of interpretability and explanation. The aim of this paper is to provide a classification of the main problems addressed in the literature with respect to the notion of explanation and the type of black box system. Given a problem definition, a black box type, and a desired explanation this survey should help the researcher to find the proposals more useful for his own work. The proposed classification of approaches to open black box models should also be useful for putting the many research open questions in perspective.

A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks. Because artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into decision-making workflows, managing uncertainty relies more and more on the metacognitive capabilities of these systems; i.e, their ability to assess the reliability of and regulate their own decisions. Hence, it is crucial to employ robust methods to measure the metacognitive abilities of AI. This paper is primarily a methodological contribution arguing for the adoption of the meta-d' framework as the gold standard for assessing the metacognitive sensitivity of AIs--the ability to generate confidence ratings that distinguish correct from incorrect responses. Moreover, we propose to leverage signal detection theory (SDT) to measure the ability of AIs to spontaneously regulate their decisions based on uncertainty and risk. To demonstrate the practical utility of these psychophysical frameworks, we conduct two series of experiments on three large language models (LLMs)--GPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Mistral-Medium-2508.

Political scientists are rapidly adopting large language models (LLMs) for text annotation, yet the sensitivity of annotation results to implementation choices remains poorly understood. Most evaluations test a single model or configuration; how model choice, model size, learning approach, and prompt style interact, and whether popular "best practices" survive controlled comparison, are largely unexplored. We present a controlled evaluation of these pipeline choices, testing six open-weight models across four political science annotation tasks under identical quantisation, hardware, and prompt-template conditions. Our central finding is methodological: interaction effects dominate main effects, so seemingly reasonable pipeline choices can become consequential researcher degrees of freedom. No single model, prompt style, or learning approach is uniformly superior, and the best-performing model varies across tasks. Two corollaries follow. First, model size is an unreliable guide both to cost and to performance: cross-family efficiency differences are so large that some larger models are less resource-intensive than much smaller alternatives, while within model families mid-range variants often match or exceed larger counterparts. Second, widely recommended prompt engineering techniques yield inconsistent and sometimes negative effects on annotation performance. We use these benchmark results to develop a validation-first framework - with a principled ordering of pipeline decisions, guidance on prompt freezing and held-out evaluation, reporting standards, and open-source tools - to help researchers navigate this decision space transparently.

In this paper, we conduct a study to utilize LLMs as a solution for decision making that requires complex data analysis. We define Decision QA as the task of answering the best decision, d_{best}, for a decision-making question Q, business rules R and a database D. Since there is no benchmark that can examine Decision QA, we propose Decision QA benchmark, DQA. It has two scenarios, Locating and Building, constructed from two video games (Europa Universalis IV and Victoria 3) that have almost the same goal as Decision QA. To address Decision QA effectively, we also propose a new RAG technique called the iterative plan-then-retrieval augmented generation (PlanRAG). Our PlanRAG-based LM generates the plan for decision making as the first step, and the retriever generates the queries for data analysis as the second step. The proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art iterative RAG method by 15.8% in the Locating scenario and by 7.4% in the Building scenario, respectively. We release our code and benchmark at https://github.com/myeon9h/PlanRAG.

There is increasing interest in using LLMs as decision-making "agents." Doing so includes many degrees of freedom: which model should be used; how should it be prompted; should it be asked to introspect, conduct chain-of-thought reasoning, etc? Settling these questions -- and more broadly, determining whether an LLM agent is reliable enough to be trusted -- requires a methodology for assessing such an agent's economic rationality. In this paper, we provide one. We begin by surveying the economic literature on rational decision making, taxonomizing a large set of fine-grained "elements" that an agent should exhibit, along with dependencies between them. We then propose a benchmark distribution that quantitatively scores an LLMs performance on these elements and, combined with a user-provided rubric, produces a "STEER report card." Finally, we describe the results of a large-scale empirical experiment with 14 different LLMs, characterizing the both current state of the art and the impact of different model sizes on models' ability to exhibit rational behavior.

Monitoring complex industrial assets relies on engineer-authored symbolic rules that trigger based on sensor conditions and prompt technicians to perform corrective actions. The bottleneck is not detection but response: translating rules into maintenance steps requires asset-specific knowledge gained through years of practice. We investigate whether LLMs can serve as decision support for this rule-to-action step and introduce , a benchmark of 6{,}690 expert-validated multiple-choice questions from 118 rule-action pairs across 16 asset types. We contribute (i) a symbolic-to-MCQA pipeline normalizing rules to Disjunctive Normal Form with embedding-based distractor sampling, (ii) five variants probing distinct failure modes (Pro, Pert, Verbose, Aug, Rationale), and (iii) a benchmark of 29 LLMs and 4 embedding baselines. A human evaluation (9 practitioners, mean 45.0\%) confirms requires specialist knowledge beyond operational experience. Three findings stand out. The frontier has closed: the top three LLMs lie within one Macro point, with Bradley-Terry Elo placing claude-opus-4-6 30 points above the next model. Yet \,Pro exposes brittleness, with every model losing 13--60\% relative accuracy under distractor expansion. \,Aug exposes pattern-matching: under condition inversion, frontier models still select the original answer 49--63\% of the time. The deployment bottleneck is not capability but calibration: frontier models handle template-style fault detection but break under structural perturbation.

Decision-making, a complicated task requiring various types of abilities, presents an excellent framework for assessing Large Language Models (LLMs). Our research investigates LLMs' decision-making capabilities through the lens of a well-established field, Game Theory. We focus specifically on games that support the participation of more than two agents simultaneously. Subsequently, we introduce our framework, GAMA-Bench, including eight classical multi-agent games. We design a scoring scheme to assess a model's performance in these games quantitatively. Through GAMA-Bench, we investigate LLMs' robustness, generalizability, and enhancement strategies. Results reveal that while GPT-3.5 shows satisfying robustness, its generalizability is relatively limited. However, its performance can be improved through approaches such as Chain-of-Thought. Additionally, we conduct evaluations across various LLMs and find that GPT-4 outperforms other models on GAMA-Bench, achieving a score of 60.5. Moreover, Gemini-1.0-Pro and GPT-3.5 (0613, 1106, 0125) demonstrate similar intelligence on GAMA-Bench. The code and experimental results are made publicly available via https://github.com/CUHK-ARISE/GAMABench.

The progress in generative AI has fueled AI-powered tools like co-pilots and assistants to provision better guidance, particularly during data analysis. However, research on guidance has not yet examined the perceived efficacy of the source from which guidance is offered and the impact of this source on the user's perception and usage of guidance. We ask whether users perceive all guidance sources as equal, with particular interest in three sources: (i) AI, (ii) human expert, and (iii) a group of human analysts. As a benchmark, we consider a fourth source, (iv) unattributed guidance, where guidance is provided without attribution to any source, enabling isolation of and comparison with the effects of source-specific guidance. We design a five-condition between-subjects study, with one condition for each of the four guidance sources and an additional (v) no-guidance condition, which serves as a baseline to evaluate the influence of any kind of guidance. We situate our study in a custom data preparation and analysis tool wherein we task users to select relevant attributes from an unfamiliar dataset to inform a business report. Depending on the assigned condition, users can request guidance, which the system then provides in the form of attribute suggestions. To ensure internal validity, we control for the quality of guidance across source-conditions. Through several metrics of usage and perception, we statistically test five preregistered hypotheses and report on additional analysis. We find that the source of guidance matters to users, but not in a manner that matches received wisdom. For instance, users utilize guidance differently at various stages of analysis, including expressing varying levels of regret, despite receiving guidance of similar quality. Notably, users in the AI condition reported both higher post-task benefit and regret.

Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, leading to the emergence of "LLM-as-a-Judge," where LLMs are employed as evaluators for complex tasks. With their ability to process diverse data types and provide scalable, cost-effective, and consistent assessments, LLMs present a compelling alternative to traditional expert-driven evaluations. However, ensuring the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems remains a significant challenge that requires careful design and standardization. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-as-a-Judge, addressing the core question: How can reliable LLM-as-a-Judge systems be built? We explore strategies to enhance reliability, including improving consistency, mitigating biases, and adapting to diverse assessment scenarios. Additionally, we propose methodologies for evaluating the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, supported by a novel benchmark designed for this purpose. To advance the development and real-world deployment of LLM-as-a-Judge systems, we also discussed practical applications, challenges, and future directions. This survey serves as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in this rapidly evolving field.

Clinical decision-making requires nuanced reasoning over heterogeneous evidence and traceable justifications. While recent LLM multi-agent systems (MAS) show promise, they largely optimise for outcome accuracy while overlooking process-grounded reasoning aligned with clinical standards. One critical real-world case of this is gene-disease validity curation, where experts must determine whether a gene is causally implicated in a disease by synthesising diverse biomedical evidence. We introduce an agent-as-tool reinforcement learning framework for this task with two objectives: (i) process-level supervision to ensure reasoning follows valid clinical pathways, and (ii) efficient coordination via a hierarchical multi-agent system. Our evaluation on the ClinGen dataset shows that with outcome-only rewards, MAS with a GRPO-trained Qwen3-4B supervisor agent substantially improves final outcome accuracy from 0.195 with a base model supervisor to 0.732, but results in poor process alignment (0.392 F1). Conversely, with process + outcome rewards, MAS with GRPO-trained supervisor achieves higher outcome accuracy (0.750) while significantly improving process fidelity to 0.520 F1. Our code is available at https://github.com/chaeeunlee-io/GeneDiseaseCurationAgents.

Overfitting is the bane of data analysts, even when data are plentiful. Formal approaches to understanding this problem focus on statistical inference and generalization of individual analysis procedures. Yet the practice of data analysis is an inherently interactive and adaptive process: new analyses and hypotheses are proposed after seeing the results of previous ones, parameters are tuned on the basis of obtained results, and datasets are shared and reused. An investigation of this gap has recently been initiated by the authors in (Dwork et al., 2014), where we focused on the problem of estimating expectations of adaptively chosen functions. In this paper, we give a simple and practical method for reusing a holdout (or testing) set to validate the accuracy of hypotheses produced by a learning algorithm operating on a training set. Reusing a holdout set adaptively multiple times can easily lead to overfitting to the holdout set itself. We give an algorithm that enables the validation of a large number of adaptively chosen hypotheses, while provably avoiding overfitting. We illustrate the advantages of our algorithm over the standard use of the holdout set via a simple synthetic experiment. We also formalize and address the general problem of data reuse in adaptive data analysis. We show how the differential-privacy based approach given in (Dwork et al., 2014) is applicable much more broadly to adaptive data analysis. We then show that a simple approach based on description length can also be used to give guarantees of statistical validity in adaptive settings. Finally, we demonstrate that these incomparable approaches can be unified via the notion of approximate max-information that we introduce.

Machine learning models are increasingly used to automate decisions that affect humans - deciding who should receive a loan, a job interview, or a social service. In such applications, a person should have the ability to change the decision of a model. When a person is denied a loan by a credit score, for example, they should be able to alter its input variables in a way that guarantees approval. Otherwise, they will be denied the loan as long as the model is deployed. More importantly, they will lack the ability to influence a decision that affects their livelihood. In this paper, we frame these issues in terms of recourse, which we define as the ability of a person to change the decision of a model by altering actionable input variables (e.g., income vs. age or marital status). We present integer programming tools to ensure recourse in linear classification problems without interfering in model development. We demonstrate how our tools can inform stakeholders through experiments on credit scoring problems. Our results show that recourse can be significantly affected by standard practices in model development, and motivate the need to evaluate recourse in practice.

General decision models, such as Jev, have recently emerged as efficient alternatives to LLMs for structured judgment and selection. But what kinds of decisions can these models reliably make, and how does their behavior change when individual decisions are composed into larger systems? To study this, we introduce JEVal, a bilingual benchmark comprising 11,257 instances from 36 datasets across 10 application domains, and evaluate 25 model configurations spanning general decision models and generative LLMs. Our results show that (1) general decision models are most competitive when decisions can be resolved from available evidence, but weaken when they require specialist knowledge or faithful uncertainty estimation: they can often identify the most likely outcome while substantially overstating its probability. (2) In more dynamic and realistic systems involving long-horizon, multi-step interactions, the advantages of fast local decision making are offset by reliability failures at the system level. on τ-bench, faster local decisions reduce median episode time but lower task success as decision errors accumulate over long trajectories. (3) In large-scale social simulation, decision models approach strong generative LLMs on individual response prediction at substantially lower inference cost, yet remain weaker in user profiling and exhibit larger aggregate estimation errors and systematic bias. Finally, we propose InnerJev-4B and InnerJev-27B, which internalize an open-weight LLM's own reasoning into a single-pass first-token decision through Reasoning-to-Readout Self-Distillation, with InnerJev-27B performing on par with Jev on JEVal while answering a typical query in about 0.1 s.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

Forming a reliable judgement of a machine learning (ML) model's appropriateness for an application ecosystem is critical for its responsible use, and requires considering a broad range of factors including harms, benefits, and responsibilities. In practice, however, evaluations of ML models frequently focus on only a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. Through an empirical study of papers from recent high-profile conferences in the Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing communities, we demonstrate a general focus on a handful of evaluation methods. By considering the metrics and test data distributions used in these methods, we draw attention to which properties of models are centered in the field, revealing the properties that are frequently neglected or sidelined during evaluation. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts; these include commitments to consequentialism, abstractability from context, the quantifiability of impacts, the limited role of model inputs in evaluation, and the equivalence of different failure modes. Shedding light on these assumptions enables us to question their appropriateness for ML system contexts, pointing the way towards more contextualized evaluation methodologies for robustly examining the trustworthiness of ML models

In response to the pressing need for advanced clinical problem-solving tools in healthcare, we introduce BooksMed, a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM). BooksMed uniquely emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses, utilizing the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework to effectively quantify evidence strength. For clinical decision-making to be appropriately assessed, an evaluation metric that is clinically aligned and validated is required. As a solution, we present ExpertMedQA, a multispecialty clinical benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions, and validated by a diverse group of medical professionals. By demanding an in-depth understanding and critical appraisal of up-to-date clinical literature, ExpertMedQA rigorously evaluates LLM performance. BooksMed outperforms existing state-of-the-art models Med-PaLM 2, Almanac, and ChatGPT in a variety of medical scenarios. Therefore, a framework that mimics human cognitive stages could be a useful tool for providing reliable and evidence-based responses to clinical inquiries.

The correct use of model evaluation, model selection, and algorithm selection techniques is vital in academic machine learning research as well as in many industrial settings. This article reviews different techniques that can be used for each of these three subtasks and discusses the main advantages and disadvantages of each technique with references to theoretical and empirical studies. Further, recommendations are given to encourage best yet feasible practices in research and applications of machine learning. Common methods such as the holdout method for model evaluation and selection are covered, which are not recommended when working with small datasets. Different flavors of the bootstrap technique are introduced for estimating the uncertainty of performance estimates, as an alternative to confidence intervals via normal approximation if bootstrapping is computationally feasible. Common cross-validation techniques such as leave-one-out cross-validation and k-fold cross-validation are reviewed, the bias-variance trade-off for choosing k is discussed, and practical tips for the optimal choice of k are given based on empirical evidence. Different statistical tests for algorithm comparisons are presented, and strategies for dealing with multiple comparisons such as omnibus tests and multiple-comparison corrections are discussed. Finally, alternative methods for algorithm selection, such as the combined F-test 5x2 cross-validation and nested cross-validation, are recommended for comparing machine learning algorithms when datasets are small.

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

System One models output calibrated probabilities over typed answers such as categorical choices, ordinal levels, or binary outcomes, via a non-generative interface. Software can act on these probabilities through thresholds, cost-weighted choices, and escalation rules. Consequently, if these probabilities are miscalibrated or wording-sensitive, the software ma take unintended actions leaving human operators with no textual rationale to inspect. Current evaluations largely report accuracy and calibration on public classification datasets without a clear reference. We present TypedBench, a benchmark for typed decision models like Jev built from seven policy-labelled generators and nine evaluation suites. We report accuracy as median and range across paraphrases, and calibration error relative to the finite-sample noise floor of a matched, perfectly calibrated predictor. We assess probability quality through selective prediction, ordinal proper scoring rules, and realised cost under asymmetric cost matrices. We evaluate a hosted model, an open encoder, and a family of open decoders spanning 0.8B-9B parameters on identical items. The hosted model follows the stated policy but is wording-sensitive and systematically underconfident; under asymmetric costs, using its probabilities can be worse than taking its top answer. Decoders route exactly and are slow as options or questions are added. The decoder is least accurate on policy questions and degrades with more options. Overall, typed decision models must be evaluated jointly on policy adherence, wording robustness, probability quality, and induced decision outcomes.

Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.

Effective decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for handling intricate tasks. However, existing approaches prioritize performance but often overlook the balance between effectiveness and computational cost. To address this, we first introduce the 3E Criteria to systematically assess the cost-effectiveness of search strategies, revealing that existing methods often trade significant efficiency for marginal performance gains. To improve LLM decision-making while maintaining efficiency, we propose the Speculative Reward Model (SRM), a plug-and-play framework that seamlessly integrates with existing search strategies. Specifically, SRM employs an external reward assigner to predict optimal actions, reducing reliance on LLMs' internal self-evaluation. And a speculative verification mechanism is used to prune suboptimal choices and guide the search toward more promising steps. We evaluate SRM on several complex decision-making tasks including mathematical reasoning, planning and numerical reasoning in specialized domains. Experimental results show that SRM reduces costs to 1/10 of the original search framework on average while maintaining effectiveness.

LLMs are ideal for decision-making thanks to their ability to reason over long contexts. However, challenges arise when processing speech transcripts that describe complex scenarios, as they are verbose and include repetition, hedging, and vagueness. E.g., during a company's earnings call, an executive might project a positive revenue outlook to reassure investors, despite uncertainty regarding future earnings. It is crucial for LLMs to incorporate this uncertainty systematically when making decisions. In this paper, we introduce DeFine, a modular framework that constructs probabilistic factor profiles from complex scenarios. It then integrates these profiles with analogical reasoning, leveraging insights from similar past experiences to guide LLMs in making critical decisions in new situations. Our framework separates the tasks of quantifying uncertainty and incorporating it into LLM decision-making. This approach is particularly useful in areas such as consulting and financial deliberation, where making decisions under uncertainty is vital.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

As agents take on long-horizon tasks, users shift from making individual decisions to overseeing autonomous execution. Yet the volume of agent activity and the fragmentation of supporting evidence make it difficult to determine which decisions warrant user verification. We study monitors that identify consequential decisions and locate evidence to help users assess their implications. We introduce AgentMonBench, a software-engineering benchmark comprising three subsets that cover two complementary dimensions: alignment between requirements and behavior, and awareness of consequential autonomous decisions for verification. To support these judgments, we propose the Evidence-Grounded Behavior Graph (EBG), a training-free method that groups source-linked evidence into behaviors and organizes their relationships into a graph. EBG presents task-oriented views of this graph to help monitors interpret behavior in context. Experiments across eight models show that EBG improves decision identification and evidence localization in most settings compared with direct access to the original context. Further experiments show that EBG's evidence-localization gains persist across input scales and hyperparameter settings, while real-world applications illustrate its practical value for human oversight.

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.

Rigorous evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies on comparing models by the prevalence of desirable or undesirable behaviors, such as task pass rates or policy violations. These prevalence estimates are produced by a classifier, either an LLM-as-a-judge or human annotators, making the choice of classifier central to trustworthy evaluation. Common metrics used for this choice, such as Accuracy, Precision, and F1, are sensitive to class imbalance and to arbitrary choices of positive class, and can favor judges that distort prevalence estimates. We show that Youden's J statistic is theoretically aligned with choosing the best judge to compare models, and that Balanced Accuracy is an equivalent linear transformation of J. Through both analytical arguments and empirical examples and simulations, we demonstrate how selecting judges using Balanced Accuracy leads to better, more robust classifier selection.

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

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.

This graduate textbook on machine learning tells a story of how patterns in data support predictions and consequential actions. Starting with the foundations of decision making, we cover representation, optimization, and generalization as the constituents of supervised learning. A chapter on datasets as benchmarks examines their histories and scientific bases. Self-contained introductions to causality, the practice of causal inference, sequential decision making, and reinforcement learning equip the reader with concepts and tools to reason about actions and their consequences. Throughout, the text discusses historical context and societal impact. We invite readers from all backgrounds; some experience with probability, calculus, and linear algebra suffices.

An ordinary-looking background detail can turn a correct model decision into a confident mistake. We demonstrate this fragility in four decision systems, including Jev, across seven datasets covering knowledge, reasoning, and tool routing. Within 64 accepted target evaluations per decision, we uncover short context additions that redirect 61.4%-73.2% of each system's initially correct decisions toward a wrong option fixed in advance. The additions supply background or procedural information rather than explicit answer-selection instructions, leaving the original question and choices intact. We construct them through probability-guided context optimization, which uses shifts in the option distribution to refine surrounding text under naturalness and answer-preservation constraints. Redirection affects initially confident decisions, often produces high-confidence wrong choices, and transfers across models. In blinded human evaluation, 91.6% of 250 sampled successful contexts are judged natural, answer-preserving, and free of decisive answer-changing evidence by a majority of three independent annotators. These findings expose a weakness in current decision models: context that looks entirely compatible with an input can redirect the choices that agents, routers, and evaluators rely on.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

Enterprises adopting retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) face a recurring operational decision: promote, revise, or block a system version. The evidence is incomplete and the metrics come from fallible LLM judges. We report on AGO AI Quality Gate (AGO), an evidence-first quality-gate framework deployed in industrial RAG assessment engagements. AGO integrates four key components: a four-state decision model that treats missing data and judge errors as explicit outcomes; layered scoring combining deterministic checks, local guardrails, and structured LLM evaluation; a stratified beta-binomial gate that quantifies regression risk probabilistically; and a mandatory meta-evaluation protocol to validate the LLM judge before it influences decisions. Since engagement data is proprietary, we evaluate the judge layer on RAGBench, a public benchmark of 100k annotated RAG traces across 12 datasets. On identical stratified test samples (N=1200 per judge), a low-cost judge (gpt-4.1-nano) detects non-adherent answers barely above chance (AUROC 0.603 [0.570, 0.634]), despite producing flawless protocol output, while gpt-4o reaches 0.783 [0.756, 0.807] -- yet its per-domain performance still ranges from 0.62 to 0.88. A fixed-seed gate study spanning regression, no change, and improvement quantifies unsafe promotion, false-alarm cost, and improvement throughput. Under regression, the decision-grade profile reduces unsafe promotion to 22.2%-35.1%, against 29.3%-41.8% for a naive gate. These results support the design choices that judge quality must be measured per engagement and that point estimates alone are not a release decision.

Knowing when to answer or refuse is crucial for safe and reliable decision-making language agents. Although prior work has introduced refusal strategies to boost LMs' reliability, how these models adapt their decisions to different risk levels remains underexplored. We formalize the task of risk-aware decision-making, expose critical weaknesses in existing LMs, and propose skill-decomposition solutions to mitigate them. Our findings show that even cutting-edge LMs--both regular and reasoning models--still require explicit prompt chaining to handle the task effectively, revealing the challenges that must be overcome to achieve truly autonomous decision-making agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare applications, including clinical documentation, diagnostic reasoning, medicine recommendation, and medical education. Their outputs are largely unstructured clinical text, which is difficult to reliably evaluate at scale. LLM-as-a-Judge, in which an LLM evaluates another system's output against task-specific criteria, offers a scalable alternative and is increasingly used in clinical evaluation, yet its validity in healthcare remains underexamined. Existing reviews focus on general-purpose LLM evaluation or on risk framework, rather than systematically characterizing how LLM-as-a-Judge is applied in healthcare and how well their judgments align with human experts. We therefore conduct a PRISMA-guided comprehensive review of LLM-as-a-Judge applications in healthcare, searching five databases for studies published between January 2023 and February 2026. After screening 541 records, 134 studies meet the eligibility and are coded by health scenario, judge configuration, technical approach, and validation design. LLM-as-a-Judge is concentrated in clinical decision support, clinical natural language processing (NLP), medical knowledge and question answering (QA), and medical communication. OpenAI models are the most frequently used judges, and prompt engineering appears in nearly all studies, with ensemble, multi-agent, and retrieval-augmented designs as common extensions. Among studies reporting human validation, LLM judges often show moderate to strong alignment with expert judgments, although reliability varies substantially across tasks. Overall, this review positions LLM-as-a-Judge as a promising framework for scalable healthcare AI evaluation, while emphasizing that its clinical value depends on model design and rigorous validation.

AI explanations are often mentioned as a way to improve human-AI decision-making, but empirical studies have not found consistent evidence of explanations' effectiveness and, on the contrary, suggest that they can increase overreliance when the AI system is wrong. While many factors may affect reliance on AI support, one important factor is how decision-makers reconcile their own intuition -- beliefs or heuristics, based on prior knowledge, experience, or pattern recognition, used to make judgments -- with the information provided by the AI system to determine when to override AI predictions. We conduct a think-aloud, mixed-methods study with two explanation types (feature- and example-based) for two prediction tasks to explore how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations, and ultimately their choice of when to rely on AI. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations: intuition about the task outcome, features, and AI limitations. Building on these, we summarize three observed pathways for decision-makers to apply their own intuition and override AI predictions. We use these pathways to explain why (1) the feature-based explanations we used did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI, and (2) the example-based explanations we used improved decision-makers' performance over feature-based explanations and helped achieve complementary human-AI performance. Overall, our work identifies directions for further development of AI decision-support systems and explanation methods that help decision-makers effectively apply their intuition to achieve appropriate reliance on AI.

In the midst of widespread misinformation and disinformation through social media and the proliferation of AI-generated texts, it has become increasingly difficult for people to validate and trust information they encounter. Many fact-checking approaches and tools have been developed, but they often lack appropriate explainability or granularity to be useful in various contexts. A text validation method that is easy to use, accessible, and can perform fine-grained evidence attribution has become crucial. More importantly, building user trust in such a method requires presenting the rationale behind each prediction, as research shows this significantly influences people's belief in automated systems. It is also paramount to localize and bring users' attention to the specific problematic content, instead of providing simple blanket labels. In this paper, we present ClaimVer, a human-centric framework tailored to meet users' informational and verification needs by generating rich annotations and thereby reducing cognitive load. Designed to deliver comprehensive evaluations of texts, it highlights each claim, verifies it against a trusted knowledge graph (KG), presents the evidence, and provides succinct, clear explanations for each claim prediction. Finally, our framework introduces an attribution score, enhancing applicability across a wide range of downstream tasks.

Common-sense reasoning is a key language model capability because it encapsulates not just specific factual knowledge but rather general language and world understanding. Measuring common-sense reasoning, therefore, is crucial for language models of different sizes and applications. One of the most widely used benchmarks for evaluating such capabilities is HellaSwag; however, in this paper, we show that it has severe construct validity issues. These issues range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. Furthermore, we show that if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same, and this cannot be attributed merely to contamination. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. In particular, knowing that taking benchmark scores at face value is ubiquitous, inadequate evaluation leads to ill-informed decisions about models. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate critical validity issues posed by HellaSwag and illustrate them with various evaluations using generative language models of different sizes. We argue that this benchmark does not accurately measure common-sense reasoning and, therefore, should not be used for evaluation in its current state. Based on the results of our study, we propose requirements that should be met by future common-sense reasoning benchmarks. In addition, we release GoldenSwag, a corrected subset of HellaSwag, which, to our belief, facilitates acceptable common-sense reasoning evaluation.

As Large Language Models increasingly automate complex, long-horizon tasks such as vibe coding, a supervision gap has emerged. While models excel at execution, users often struggle to guide them effectively due to insufficient domain expertise, the difficulty of articulating precise intent, and the inability to reliably validate complex outputs. It presents a critical challenge in scalable oversight: enabling humans to responsibly steer AI systems on tasks that surpass their own ability to specify or verify. To tackle this, we propose Scalable Interactive Oversight, a framework that decomposes complex intent into a recursive tree of manageable decisions to amplify human supervision. Rather than relying on open-ended prompting, our system elicits low-burden feedback at each node and recursively aggregates these signals into precise global guidance. Validated in web development task, our framework enables non-experts to produce expert-level Product Requirement Documents, achieving a 54\% improvement in alignment. Crucially, we demonstrate that this framework can be optimized via Reinforcement Learning using only online user feedback, offering a practical pathway for maintaining human control as AI scales.

BoN improves model outputs by sampling several candidates and selecting one with a proxy score, but it assumes that complete candidates can be evaluated reliably. Many vision-language tasks instead provide only partial verification: a finding, span, value, region, or relation may be checkable even when no dependable whole-response verifier exists. Moreover, the same claim may recur across candidates with opposing stances, allowing one observation to support part of the pool and contradict another. We introduce Best-of-Evidence (BoE), an inference-time selection framework that keeps the BoN candidate pool fixed, represents reusable claims with a signed candidate--factor graph, and allocates a limited budget to evidence actions that can change the final choice. BoE formalizes selection under partial verification and provides a practical score-based controller, with the zero-budget case recovering the underlying BoN decision. Theoretically, we show that residual evidence capacity limits any evidence-driven improvement and that shared factor queries can achieve an O(log K) versus Θ(K) query separation in a factor-code model. Common-ledger experiments on four medical VQA settings show that BoE can improve fixed-pool selection and rescue some BoN failures when evidence is reliable, contrastive, and decision-relevant, while also revealing the channel-quality and candidate-generation limits that prevent universal gains.

In this study, we propose a multicriteria group decision making (MCGDM) algorithm under uncertainty where data is collected as intervals. The proposed MCGDM algorithm aggregates the data, determines the optimal weights for criteria and ranks alternatives with no further input. The intervals give flexibility to experts in assessing alternatives against criteria and provide an opportunity to gain maximum information. We also propose a novel method to aggregate expert judgements using cloud models. We introduce an experimental approach to check the validity of the aggregation method. After that, we use the aggregation method for an MCGDM problem. Here, we find the optimal weights for each criterion by proposing a bilevel optimisation model. Then, we extend the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for data based on cloud models to prioritise alternatives. As a result, the algorithm can gain information from decision makers with different levels of uncertainty and examine alternatives with no more information from decision-makers. The proposed MCGDM algorithm is implemented on a case study of a cybersecurity problem to illustrate its feasibility and effectiveness. The results verify the robustness and validity of the proposed MCGDM using sensitivity analysis and comparison with other existing algorithms.

Numerous real-world decision-making problems can be formulated and solved using Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) models. However, the transformation of these problems into MILP models heavily relies on expertise in operations research and mathematical optimization, which restricts non-experts' accessibility to MILP. To address this challenge, we propose a framework for automatically formulating MILP models from unstructured natural language descriptions of decision problems, which integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) and mathematical modeling techniques. This framework consists of three phases: i) identification of decision variables, ii) classification of objective and constraints, and iii) finally, generation of MILP models. In this study, we present a constraint classification scheme and a set of constraint templates that can guide the LLMs in synthesizing a complete MILP model. After fine-tuning LLMs, our approach can identify and synthesize logic constraints in addition to classic demand and resource constraints. The logic constraints have not been studied in existing work. To evaluate the performance of the proposed framework, we extend the NL4Opt dataset with more problem descriptions and constraint types, and with the new dataset, we compare our framework with one-step model generation methods offered by LLMs. The experimental results reveal that with respect to the accuracies of generating the correct model, objective, and constraints, our method which integrates constraint classification and templates with LLMs significantly outperforms the others. The prototype system that we developed has a great potential to capture more constraints for more complex MILPs. It opens up opportunities for developing training tools for operations research practitioners and has the potential to be a powerful tool for automatic decision problem modeling and solving in practice.

Best-of-N inference scaling (drawing N candidate answers from a language model and returning the one a reward model ranks highest) improves accuracy by an amount that varies across models, but predicting that amount in advance currently requires running the procedure end-to-end. Prior work links cheap statistics of a model's sampled outputs and validation-set correctness (how often samples agree, how diverse they are, how confident the model is, and where correct samples appear) to model behavior, but does not isolate which of these form a stable, compact predictor of best-of-N gain. We fit ridge predictors on features computed from a single labeled validation-set sampling pass, use bootstrap-Lasso as a stability analysis of the candidate feature set, and give a concentration analysis with an explicit linear-approximation residual. Across three base-model families, six post-training methods, and math and reasoning task domains, the stability analysis identifies a strict three-feature core spanning prompt-level agreement spread, label-assisted first-correct-sample position, and completion-length variance; a compact ridge predictor built from this core plus an entropy add-on reaches Spearman ρ= 0.90 with actual best-of-N gain under a reward-model verifier. The intended use is labeled validation-set screening of candidate configurations before paying the full reward-model scoring cost.

Machine learning-based Type 2 diabetes risk prediction models obtain good internal validation results but lose effectiveness in real-world applications due to deficient external testing and fairness assessment. We developed a multi-dimensional framework evaluating discrimination, calibration, interpretability, and algorithmic fairness on nationally representative populations. An XGBoost model was trained on NHANES 2015-2020 (n=15,685) using eight non-laboratory predictors: age, sex, race/ethnicity, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, history of heart attack, and history of stroke. External validation was performed on BRFSS 2020-2022 (n=1,285,783) under realistic distribution shift. Internal validation showed good discrimination (AUC=0.794, 95% CI 0.788-0.800), with performance loss on external validation (AUC=0.717, relative decrease: -9.7%, p<0.001). Fairness analysis revealed severe bias: elderly adults (>=60) showed AUC=0.607 vs 0.742 for young adults (difference=0.135, p<0.001); obese individuals showed AUC=0.698 vs 0.735 for normal weight (difference=0.037, p<0.001). Gender showed comparable performance (male=0.723 vs female=0.712, p=0.142). Calibration revealed risk overestimation (Brier score=0.123). SHAP analysis identified age, BMI, and physical activity as primary risk drivers. Populations with highest diabetes risk receive the worst algorithmic performance, underscoring the need for fairness-aware, age-stratified deployment strategies before clinical use.

LLMs' decision-making process is opaque, prompting the need for explanation techniques like Chain-of-Thought. To investigate the relationship between answer and reasoning, we design a novel evaluation framework, MATCHA. In domains like education and healthcare, reasoning is key for model trustworthiness. MATCHA reveals that LLMs under input perturbations can give inconsistent or nonsensical reasoning. Additionally, we use LLM judges to assess reasoning robustness across models. Our results show that LLMs exhibit greater vulnerability to input perturbations for multi-step and commonsense tasks than compared to logical tasks. Also, we show non-trivial transfer rates of our successful examples to black-box models. Our evaluation framework helps to better understand LLM reasoning mechanisms and guides future models toward more robust and reasoning-driven architectures, enforcing answer-reasoning consistency.

While LLM-as-a-Judge is widely used in automated evaluation, existing validation practices primarily operate at the level of observed outputs, offering limited insight into whether LLM judges themselves function as stable and reliable measurement instruments. To address this limitation, we introduce a two-phase diagnostic framework for assessing reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge, grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT). The framework adopts Graded Response Model (GRM) of IRT and formalizes reliability along two complementary dimensions: (1) intrinsic consistency, defined as the stability of measurement behavior under prompt variations, and (2) human alignment, capturing correspondence with human quality assessments. We empirically examine diverse LLM judges with this framework, and show that leveraging IRT-GRM yields interpretable signals for diagnosing judgments systematically. These signals provide practical guidance for verifying reliablity of LLM-as-a-Judge and identifying potential causes of unreliability.

People overthink; language models over-sample, and the extra effort can talk both into a worse answer. Reasoning systems answer a hard question by sampling it many times (test-time scaling), and the more they draw, the more often a correct answer turns up somewhere, so coverage, the fraction of problems with at least one correct try, climbs and appears to be progress. But a deployed system must return one answer, and choosing it, not knowing which try is right, is selection; selection is capped, and past a point extra samples only make the model surer of a confident mistake, even as every draw adds cost. The gap between climbing coverage and stalled selection, the identifiability gap, is the answer a model can produce but not pick. So the real question is not whether to sample but how far, and the answer is: not far. For picking an answer, the vote has already settled within a few dozen draws, the modal ceiling; for scoring a benchmark, sooner still, the correlation ceiling. Beyond that, extra draws cost compute and add nothing, and can even make the answer worse. This paper turns the cutoff into a single number, the effective number of samples, that any sampling run already reveals. The bottleneck is recognizing a right answer, not generating one.

LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet. Do they weigh information appropriately -- updating more for reliable sources (source discernment) and more when claims bring priors closer to the truth (truth discernment)? We formalize this as information discernment and introduce Learn2Discern (L2D), an experimental framework and benchmark grounded in three normative axioms with interpretable metrics. To establish external validity, a pre-registered, quota-matched user study (n=299) confirms that real LLM users endorse all three axioms and report that violations reduce their trust and usage intent. Across 13 models and nearly 670K trials, we find consistent failures across both dimensions: models perform near chance on source and truth discernment, rely on source popularity twice as much as source reliability, and update roughly equally whether a claim improves or worsens their position relative to the ground truth. Models integrate external knowledge most effectively on datasets where their priors are already the most accurate. Newer and larger models improve truth discernment but not source discernment, a blind spot that model complexity does not address. We identify simple inference-time interventions that improve both forms of discernment. We release our dataset and survey as a testbed for a core alignment property that scales in importance as LLMs replace traditional search.

Machine learning models are often used to decide who will receive a loan, a job interview, or a public benefit. Standard techniques to build these models use features about people but overlook their actionability. In turn, models can assign predictions that are fixed, meaning that consumers who are denied loans, interviews, or benefits may be permanently locked out from access to credit, employment, or assistance. In this work, we introduce a formal testing procedure to flag models that assign fixed predictions that we call recourse verification. We develop machinery to reliably determine if a given model can provide recourse to its decision subjects from a set of user-specified actionability constraints. We demonstrate how our tools can ensure recourse and adversarial robustness in real-world datasets and use them to study the infeasibility of recourse in real-world lending datasets. Our results highlight how models can inadvertently assign fixed predictions that permanently bar access, and we provide tools to design algorithms that account for actionability when developing models.

Language models are increasingly used to create synthetic survey samples, also called silicon samples. Decision models are a new class of language models that return a probability for each point of a rating scale instead of text. We ask whether these models, or the newest generative LLMs, can stand in for human respondents on a psychometric survey. We test fourteen decision models from eleven providers and 47 generative LLMs on an open Lithuanian organisational-psychology survey (n=263, 68 items), with 100 real respondent profiles, the Psychometric Similarity Score (PSS) and statistical baselines. The best generative model, MiniMax M3, reaches PSS 0.813. This is level with a Gaussian copula fit only on other respondents (0.824) and below a copula fit in sample (0.927). A second sample of 100 real people scores below the best models, so at this size PSS cannot rank them against real respondents. In 5 of 10 product lines the newest generative release scores below an earlier release of the same line beyond resampling noise, and none gains beyond it. With the default rounded readout, 13 of 14 decision models score below the generative reference gpt-5.4-mini. Of the 47 generative models, 33 reproduce the pattern of item correlations better than any decision model. Averaged over respondents, the probability vectors are much closer to the human item marginals than rounded answers. They also rank respondents about as well as a profile regression fit on 163 real people. As forecasts of each person's own answers, however, every decision model is worse than the answer frequencies of other respondents, mainly because its average vector differs from them. The profile regression improves on these frequencies by only 1.0%, so the profile fields say little about how a person answers. Synthetic respondents built on such profiles should therefore aim at sample-level fidelity.

Autonomous research agents can generate experiments faster than researchers can validate them. Researchers have responded by scaling the proposer and ranking more samples with a learned judge or human reviewers. We argue that this *generate-and-rank* paradigm misses the problem of sparse feedback. Within a declared research problem, an agent follows the control loop of a greybox fuzzer: it proposes a candidate, executes it, observes feedback, and chooses what to try next. A fuzzer rarely finds a bug, but coverage makes partial progress observable on every execution. Fuzzers then use that signal to mutate inputs and allocate effort, rather than only to rank completed runs. Auto-research needs the same two capabilities. First, each experiment should expose a cheap, dense signal of epistemic progress before final scientific validation is available. Second, that signal should determine the next intervention so that the agent searches rather than repeatedly samples. Because the optimized progress signal is guidance rather than a verdict, final validation must still decide what counts as a discovery using evidence protected from adaptive reuse. We propose controlled tests of whether candidate signals predict validated progress, whether feedback-directed search yields more validated discoveries per unit cost than repeated sampling, and whether protected validation reduces false discoveries. Feedback architecture, not only generation, is a central bottleneck in auto-research.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as medical triage and legal assistance, often as document-grounded QA systems in which a user provides a description, relevant sources are retrieved, and an LLM generates a prediction. In practice, initial user queries are often underspecified, and a single retrieval pass is insufficient for reliable decision-making, leading to incorrect and overly confident answers. While follow-up questioning can elicit missing information, existing methods typically depend on implicit, unstructured confidence signals from the LLM, making it difficult to determine what remains unknown, what information matters most, and when to stop asking questions. We propose InfoGatherer, a framework that gathers missing information from two complementary sources: retrieved domain documents and targeted follow-up questions to the user. InfoGatherer models uncertainty using Dempster-Shafer belief assignments over a structured evidential network, enabling principled fusion of incomplete and potentially contradictory evidence from both sources without prematurely collapsing to a definitive answer. Across legal and medical tasks, InfoGatherer outperforms strong baselines while requiring fewer turns. By grounding uncertainty in formal evidential theory rather than heuristic LLM signals, InfoGatherer moves towards trustworthy, interpretable decision support in domains where reliability is critical.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks that require complex reasoning. Most benchmarks focus on final outcomes but overlook the intermediate reasoning steps - such as planning, revision, and decision making under resource constraints. We argue that measuring these internal processes is essential for understanding model behavior and improving reliability. We propose using strategic games as a natural evaluation environment: closed, rule-based systems with clear states, limited resources, and automatic feedback. We introduce a framework that evaluates LLMs along three core dimensions: planning, revision, and resource-constrained decision making. To operationalize this, we define metrics beyond win rate, including overcorrection risk rate, correction success rate, improvement slope, and over-budget ratio. In 4320 adversarial rounds across 12 leading models, ChatGPT-o3-mini achieves the top composite score, with a win rate of 74.7 percent, a correction success rate of 78.6 percent, and an improvement slope of 0.041. By contrast, Qwen-Plus, despite an overcorrection risk rate of 81.6 percent, wins only 25.6 percent of its matches - primarily due to excessive resource use. We also observe a negative correlation between overcorrection risk rate and correction success rate (Pearson r = -0.51, p = 0.093), suggesting that more frequent edits do not always improve outcomes. Our findings highlight the value of assessing not only what LLMs decide but how they arrive at those decisions

Decision-focused learning (DFL) is an emerging paradigm that integrates machine learning (ML) and constrained optimization to enhance decision quality by training ML models in an end-to-end system. This approach shows significant potential to revolutionize combinatorial decision-making in real-world applications that operate under uncertainty, where estimating unknown parameters within decision models is a major challenge. This paper presents a comprehensive review of DFL, providing an in-depth analysis of both gradient-based and gradient-free techniques used to combine ML and constrained optimization. It evaluates the strengths and limitations of these techniques and includes an extensive empirical evaluation of eleven methods across seven problems. The survey also offers insights into recent advancements and future research directions in DFL. Code and benchmark: https://github.com/PredOpt/predopt-benchmarks

A typed decision model answers a fixed question about an input by returning a probability for each of several caller-defined options. Each option carries a short label and a written definition, which is where a developer states the rule the model should apply. Jev introduced this interface for routing, moderation and triage, open implementations followed, and the same operation occurs whenever a language model is used as a classifier by scoring label strings. We study the open implementations, whose weights we can inspect and patch, and ask whether the probability follows the definitions or the labels. A preference for the label we call option-label bias. Across four open-weight typed decision models, three ways of reading an answer from a Qwen2.5 backbone, eleven classification tasks and PolicyBench, a synthetic routing suite we introduce in which the rule appears only in the definitions, the answer is mostly the labels. Deleting every definition leaves accuracy unchanged (laya-td: 0.8559 against 0.8487), although those definitions support 0.7971 on their own, and renaming the options to A and B raises accuracy by +0.1511 [+0.1377, +0.1646]. One system, von, is unaffected, and the two code bases differ in one expression: laya writes each option as "{label}: {definition}", while von writes only the definition. Changing that expression in both directions, with no weight changed, makes all three laya checkpoints exactly invariant (+0.0000 [+0.0000, +0.0000]) and creates the effect in von, whose accuracy falls from 0.8511 to 0.2281 when a label contradicts its definition. Earlier work attributed this failure to the constrained decision head these models use in place of a text decoder; our results locate it in the prompt rendering. We give a two-call test that tells a practitioner which case applies to their model, and measure what four mitigations are worth.

As models increasingly leverage multi-step reasoning strategies to solve complex problems, supervising the logical validity of these intermediate steps has become a critical research challenge. Process reward models address this by providing step-by-step feedback, but current approaches have two major drawbacks: they typically function as classifiers without providing explanations, and their reliance on supervised fine-tuning with static datasets limits generalization. Inspired by recent advances, we reframe stepwise reward modeling from a classification task to a reasoning task itself. We thus propose a generative judge that reasons about the policy model's reasoning steps (i.e., meta-reasons), outputting thinking tokens before delivering a final verdict. Our model, StepWiser, is trained by reinforcement learning using relative outcomes of rollouts. We show it provides (i) better judgment accuracy on intermediate steps than existing methods; (ii) can be used to improve the policy model at training time; and (iii) improves inference-time search.

The pervasiveness of large language models and generative AI in online media has amplified the need for effective automated fact-checking to assist fact-checkers in tackling the increasing volume and sophistication of misinformation. The complex nature of fact-checking demands that automated fact-checking systems provide explanations that enable fact-checkers to scrutinise their outputs. However, it is unclear how these explanations should align with the decision-making and reasoning processes of fact-checkers to be effectively integrated into their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals, we bridge this gap by: (i) providing an account of how fact-checkers assess evidence, make decisions, and explain their processes; (ii) examining how fact-checkers use automated tools in practice; and (iii) identifying fact-checker explanation requirements for automated fact-checking tools. The findings show unmet explanation needs and identify important criteria for replicable fact-checking explanations that trace the model's reasoning path, reference specific evidence, and highlight uncertainty and information gaps.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as automated judges for evaluating other models, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt paraphrases remains unmeasured. We introduce JudgeSense, a framework and benchmark for quantifying this property via the Judge Sensitivity Score (JSS), defined as the fraction of paraphrase pairs on which a judge returns an identical decision. Evaluating nine judge models on 494 validated paraphrase pairs, we find that coherence is the only task where judges meaningfully differ, with JSS ranging from 0.389 to 0.992. On factuality, all judges cluster near JSS about 0.63, driven by a polarity-inverted prompt artifact; after correction, factuality JSS rises to about 0.9. Pairwise tasks (preference and relevance) exhibit degenerate always-A behavior in 8 of 9 judges, indicating strong position bias. Model scale does not predict consistency. We release code, decision logs, and a validated paraphrase dataset to support standardized JSS reporting.

The extraction of a small number of relevant insights from vast amounts of data is a crucial component of data-driven decision-making. However, accomplishing this task requires considerable technical skills, domain expertise, and human labor. This study explores the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the discovery of insights in data, leveraging recent advances in reasoning and code generation techniques. We propose a new evaluation methodology based on a "capture the flag" principle, measuring the ability of such models to recognize meaningful and pertinent information (flags) in a dataset. We further propose two proof-of-concept agents, with different inner workings, and compare their ability to capture such flags in a real-world sales dataset. While the work reported here is preliminary, our results are sufficiently interesting to mandate future exploration by the community.

As LLM-based agents increasingly operate in high-stakes domains with real-world consequences, ensuring their behavioral safety becomes paramount. The dominant oversight paradigm, LLM-as-a-Judge, faces a fundamental dilemma: how can probabilistic systems reliably supervise other probabilistic systems without inheriting their failure modes? We argue that formal verification offers a principled escape from this dilemma, yet its adoption has been hindered by a critical bottleneck: the translation from natural language requirements to formal specifications. This paper bridges this gap by proposing , a neuro-symbolic framework that employs a bidirectional Formal-of-Thought architecture: LLMs serve as specification compilers that top-down decompose high-level human intent into atomic, verifiable constraints, then bottom-up prove compliance using Dafny specifications and Z3 Satisfiability modulo theories solving, which produces mathematical guarantees rather than probabilistic scores. We validate across three benchmarks spanning behavioral safety, multi-domain constraint adherence, and agentic upward deception detection. Experiments on 7 agent models demonstrate that achieves an average improvement of 16.6% over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, enables weak-to-strong generalization where a 7B judge achieves over 90% accuracy detecting deception from 72B agents, and provides near-linear safety improvement through iterative refinement.

Is explainability a false promise? This debate has emerged from the insufficient evidence that explanations aid people in situations they are introduced for. More human-centered, application-grounded evaluations of explanations are needed to settle this. Yet, with no established guidelines for such studies in NLP, researchers accustomed to standardized proxy evaluations must discover appropriate measurements, tasks, datasets, and sensible models for human-AI teams in their studies. To help with this, we first review fitting existing metrics. We then establish requirements for datasets to be suitable for application-grounded evaluations. Among over 50 datasets available for explainability research in NLP, we find that 4 meet our criteria. By finetuning Flan-T5-3B, we demonstrate the importance of reassessing the state of the art to form and study human-AI teams. Finally, we present the exemplar studies of human-AI decision-making for one of the identified suitable tasks -- verifying the correctness of a legal claim given a contract.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

This position paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics, which diminishes its practical value, trustworthiness, and ability to meet regulatory requirements. Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models. A central issue is the absence of a ground truth for explanations, complicating comparisons across various XAI approaches. To address these challenges, we advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics. These metrics should be resistant to manipulation, relevant to each use case, and based on human judgment and real-world applicability. We also recommend creating domain-specific evaluation benchmarks that align with the user and regulatory needs of sectors such as healthcare and finance. By encouraging collaboration among academia, industry, and regulators, we can create standards that balance flexibility and consistency, ensuring XAI explanations are meaningful, trustworthy, and compliant with evolving regulations.

We introduce a dataset of natural-language questions in the decision theory of so-called Newcomb-like problems. Newcomb-like problems include, for instance, decision problems in which an agent interacts with a similar other agent, and thus has to reason about the fact that the other agent will likely reason in similar ways. Evaluating LLM reasoning about Newcomb-like problems is important because interactions between foundation-model-based agents will often be Newcomb-like. Some ways of reasoning about Newcomb-like problems may allow for greater cooperation between models. Our dataset contains both capabilities questions (i.e., questions with a unique, uncontroversially correct answer) and attitude questions (i.e., questions about which decision theorists would disagree). We use our dataset for an investigation of decision-theoretical capabilities and expressed attitudes and their interplay in existing models (different models by OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, GDM, Reka, etc.), as well as models under simple prompt-based interventions. We find, among other things, that attitudes vary significantly between existing models; that high capabilities are associated with attitudes more favorable toward so-called evidential decision theory; and that attitudes are consistent across different types of questions.

More and more processes governing our lives use in some part an automatic decision step, where -- based on a feature vector derived from an applicant -- an algorithm has the decision power over the final outcome. Here we present a simple idea which gives some of the power back to the applicant by providing her with alternatives which would make the decision algorithm decide differently. It is based on a formalization reminiscent of methods used for evasion attacks, and consists in enumerating the subspaces where the classifiers decides the desired output. This has been implemented for the specific case of decision forests (ensemble methods based on decision trees), mapping the problem to an iterative version of enumerating k-cliques.

Modern CI/CD pipelines integrating agent-generated code exhibit a structural failure in responsibility attribution. Decisions are executed through formally correct approval processes, yet no entity possesses both the authority to approve those decisions and the epistemic capacity to meaningfully understand their basis. We define this condition as responsibility vacuum: a state in which decisions occur, but responsibility cannot be attributed because authority and verification capacity do not coincide. We show that this is not a process deviation or technical defect, but a structural property of deployments where decision generation throughput exceeds bounded human verification capacity. We identify a scaling limit under standard deployment assumptions, including parallel agent generation, CI-based validation, and individualized human approval gates. Beyond a throughput threshold, verification ceases to function as a decision criterion and is replaced by ritualized approval based on proxy signals. Personalized responsibility becomes structurally unattainable in this regime. We further characterize a CI amplification dynamic, whereby increasing automated validation coverage raises proxy signal density without restoring human capacity. Under fixed time and attention constraints, this accelerates cognitive offloading in the broad sense and widens the gap between formal approval and epistemic understanding. Additional automation therefore amplifies, rather than mitigates, the responsibility vacuum. We conclude that unless organizations explicitly redesign decision boundaries or reassign responsibility away from individual decisions toward batch- or system-level ownership, responsibility vacuum remains an invisible but persistent failure mode in scaled agent deployments.

This paper offers a new perspective to ease the challenge of domain generalization, which involves maintaining robust results even in unseen environments. Our design focuses on the decision-making process in the final classifier layer. Specifically, we propose treating the element-wise contributions to the final results as the rationale for making a decision and representing the rationale for each sample as a matrix. For a well-generalized model, we suggest the rationale matrices for samples belonging to the same category should be similar, indicating the model relies on domain-invariant clues to make decisions, thereby ensuring robust results. To implement this idea, we introduce a rationale invariance loss as a simple regularization technique, requiring only a few lines of code. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves competitive results across various datasets, despite its simplicity. Code is available at https://github.com/liangchen527/RIDG.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems play an increasingly prominent role in human decision-making, challenges surface in the realm of human-AI interactions. One challenge arises from the suboptimal AI policies due to the inadequate consideration of humans disregarding AI recommendations, as well as the need for AI to provide advice selectively when it is most pertinent. This paper presents a sequential decision-making model that (i) takes into account the human's adherence level (the probability that the human follows/rejects machine advice) and (ii) incorporates a defer option so that the machine can temporarily refrain from making advice. We provide learning algorithms that learn the optimal advice policy and make advice only at critical time stamps. Compared to problem-agnostic reinforcement learning algorithms, our specialized learning algorithms not only enjoy better theoretical convergence properties but also show strong empirical performance.

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.

Machine learning models are widely used, but can also often be wrong. Users would benefit from a reliable indication of whether a given output from a given model should be trusted, so a rational decision can be made whether to use the output or not. For example, outputs can be associated with a confidence measure; if this confidence measure is strongly associated with likelihood of correctness, then the model is said to be well-calibrated. A well-calibrated confidence measure can serve as a basis for rational, graduated decision-making on how much review and care is needed when using generated code. Calibration has so far been studied in mostly non-generative (e.g. classification) settings, especially in software engineering. However, generated code can quite often be wrong: Given generated code, developers must decide whether to use directly, use after varying intensity of careful review, or discard model-generated code. Thus, calibration is vital in generative settings. We make several contributions. We develop a framework for evaluating the calibration of code-generating models. We consider several tasks, correctness criteria, datasets, and approaches, and find that, by and large, generative code models we test are not well-calibrated out of the box. We then show how calibration can be improved using standard methods, such as Platt scaling. Since Platt scaling relies on the prior availability of correctness data, we evaluate the applicability and generalizability of Platt scaling in software engineering, discuss settings where it has good potential for practical use, and settings where it does not. Our contributions will lead to better-calibrated decision-making in the current use of code generated by language models, and offers a framework for future research to further improve calibration methods for generative models in software engineering.

Serving an answer from a large language model requires deciding when to abstain, yet a verifier's ranking accuracy alone does not determine the error rate among served answers. We introduce PriceCheck, which builds a compact family of decision rules from label-free checks such as re-solving a problem. Each check has a price: its agreement rates on correct and incorrect answers and its cost per run. Prices fitted on a small, class-enriched labelled set compose into predictions of a schedule's coverage and cost, guiding which checks to run and when to stop. A calibration test then selects a schedule at a stated selective-risk target. In mathematics, the selected schedules serve 76.1% of answers on average and keep held-out selective risk below 1.5% on all 15 splits. Under the shared testing protocol, PriceCheck serves more answers at that target than reward models, a prompted judge, the generator's confidence and a trained correctness classifier. At matched coverage, it keeps the fewest wrong answers among these scorers. Across 118 diagnostic schedules, price-based coverage predictions have a rank correlation of 0.97 with observed coverage. These results show that choosing how checks are combined and stopped matters alongside how well a verifier ranks answers. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/PriceCheck.

Generating rationales that justify scoring decisions has been a promising way to facilitate explainability in automated scoring systems. However, existing methods do not match the accuracy of classifier-based methods. Plus, the generated rationales often contain hallucinated information. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework capable of generating more faithful rationales and, more importantly, matching performance with classifier-based black-box scoring systems. We first mimic the human assessment process by querying Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate a thought tree. We then summarise intermediate assessment decisions from each thought tree path for creating synthetic rationale data and rationale preference data. Finally, we utilise the generated synthetic data to calibrate LLMs through a two-step training process: supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves a 38% assessment performance improvement in the QWK score compared to prior work while producing higher-quality rationales, as recognised by human evaluators and LLMs. Our work sheds light on the effectiveness of performing preference optimization using synthetic preference data obtained from thought tree paths.

Machine learning models are often trained to predict the outcome resulting from a human decision. For example, if a doctor decides to test a patient for disease, will the patient test positive? A challenge is that historical decision-making determines whether the outcome is observed: we only observe test outcomes for patients doctors historically tested. Untested patients, for whom outcomes are unobserved, may differ from tested patients along observed and unobserved dimensions. We propose a Bayesian model class which captures this setting. The purpose of the model is to accurately estimate risk for both tested and untested patients. Estimating this model is challenging due to the wide range of possibilities for untested patients. To address this, we propose two domain constraints which are plausible in health settings: a prevalence constraint, where the overall disease prevalence is known, and an expertise constraint, where the human decision-maker deviates from purely risk-based decision-making only along a constrained feature set. We show theoretically and on synthetic data that domain constraints improve parameter inference. We apply our model to a case study of cancer risk prediction, showing that the model's inferred risk predicts cancer diagnoses, its inferred testing policy captures known public health policies, and it can identify suboptimalities in test allocation. Though our case study is in healthcare, our analysis reveals a general class of domain constraints which can improve model estimation in many settings.

Large language model (LLM) agents can keep scientific experiments running for months with little human supervision, but reliable autonomous research also requires scientific judgment. Evaluating scientific judgment is difficult because research decisions are open-ended and depend on project context. We construct SciΠvot, a 248-case benchmark of scientific judgment based on human corrections. The benchmark draws on records from six months of research in which senior researchers ran LLM agents on 26 projects across six scientific fields and repeatedly intervened to correct the agents' research judgments. In each case, an agent chooses between the original LLM plan and the human-corrected alternative, using only the project record available before the correction as context. We compare LLM and human performance and examine the effects of reasoning effort, access to the project record, and reconsideration. At medium reasoning effort with the project record, models systematically prefer the original LLM plan over the human-corrected alternative. Four of five frontier models perform below chance on the selected cases. The highest accuracy in the project condition across the tested models and reasoning effort settings is 63.5%, compared with 73.4% for fresh researchers. At medium effort, every model achieves lower accuracy with the project record than without it, and reconsideration does not consistently improve overall accuracy. Even with a human-corrected alternative available, frontier models struggle with the selected research decisions, while SciΠvot supports systematic evaluation of scientific judgment for LLM agents.

Training language models for formal theorem proving requires large numbers of verifier calls. Slow checks and timeouts often leave GPUs waiting and withhold rewards from potentially correct proofs. We train neural evaluators to predict Lean 4 verdicts and compiler feedback on GPUs using 4.84M labelled programs. We compare two validity classifiers with a feedback model that annotates proof attempts with predicted goal states and error messages. A two-stage evaluator that screens candidates with a classifier and scores its positive predictions with the feedback model reaches 87.8% accuracy in predicting whether Lean accepts a candidate proof, evaluated on a 68,932-program benchmark collected from public provers. The combined evaluator processes 3.5 candidates per second on one H100, 4.2x the throughput of our 64-worker Lean baseline with environment reuse. Finally, we combine our evaluator with Lean verdicts to obtain a hybrid reward system that shortens GRPO training steps by approximately 31%. After one GRPO epoch with hybrid rewards, the prover achieves nearly the same miniF2F pass@1 as with Lean-only rewards (62.2% versus 62.4%) and a pass@32 of 72.4% versus 71.3%.

Machine learning systems in fraud detection, credit scoring, and clinical risk assessment operate under delayed ground truth: outcome labels arrive days to months after the decision they evaluate. During this blind period, governance evidence degrades through mechanisms that neither drift detection methods nor governance frameworks adequately address. This paper formalizes an evidence sufficiency model with four dimensions (completeness, freshness, reliability, representativeness) and a decision-readiness gate that quantifies how label latency degrades evidence quality. The model maps three drift types to dimension-specific degradation trajectories. A complementary proxy indicator framework comprising seven measurement categories estimates sufficiency degradation without labels, with explicit coverage mapping and characterized blind spots per drift type. Evaluation on the IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection dataset (~590K transactions) with controlled drift injection shows that composite proxy monitoring detects covariate and mixed drift with 100% detection rate, while concept drift without feature change remains undetected -- consistent with the theoretical impossibility of unsupervised detection when P(X) is unchanged. Blind period simulation confirms monotone sufficiency degradation, with concept drift degrading fastest (S=0.242 at day 60 vs 0.418 for no-drift). The framework contributes a governance sufficiency monitoring instrument; its value lies in translating drift signals into auditable sufficiency assessments with characterized blind spots. Mapping sufficiency levels to governance actions requires deployment-specific calibration beyond this study's scope.

Specifying a penalty can turn a legal obligation into a cost-benefit calculation that favors violation. We show that this enforcement information paradox occurs in AI agents. Most AI safety evaluations test whether models fail; we ask why, using compliance theory from law and economics as a diagnostic. We evaluate twelve instruction-tuned language models deployed as enterprise procurement chatbots. Each is given an environmental regulation in its system prompt covering large purchases, and a vendor list on which the certified suppliers cost nearly twice what the uncertified ones do. We test the agents against the predictions of deterrence, legitimacy, and expressive law, and find that each theory accounts for part of what we observe. Under identical conditions, compliance spans 46 percentage points across models, and models differ in which pressure breaks them: some treat the regulation as binding however it is worded, while others fail where theory predicts, under low penalties and non-command phrasing. Benchmark scores and developers' own descriptions of post-training do not predict where a model falls. Across all twelve, financial incentives, managerial demands, peer outcomes, and employee pressure each produce large compliance failures. These agents violate regulatory constraints to satisfy local user objectives in ways standard alignment benchmarks do not measure. Embedding the rule in the system prompt is not on its own enough to produce a compliant agent: model selection is itself a governance decision, and benchmark evaluation is not sufficient for compliance-sensitive deployments.