Coherent Without Grounding, Grounded Without Success: Observability and Epistemic Failure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28371v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 12:38:42 GMT
• Title: Coherent Without Grounding, Grounded Without Success: Observability and Epistemic Failure
• Abstract summary: I argue that evaluating artificial agents requires a tripartite framework -- coherence, grounding, and a proper relation linking explanation to action.<n>I develop the Epistemic Triangle, a model of how priors, signals, and domain knowledge interact under varying observability.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: When an agent can articulate why something works, we typically take this as evidence of genuine understanding. This presupposes that effective action and correct explanation covary, and that coherent explanation reliably signals both. I argue that this assumption fails for contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). I introduce what I call the Bidirectional Coherence Paradox: competence and grounding not only dissociate but invert across epistemic conditions. In low-observability domains, LLMs often act successfully while misidentifying the mechanisms that produce their success. In high-observability domains, they frequently generate explanations that accurately track observable causal structure yet fail to translate those diagnoses into effective intervention. In both cases, explanatory coherence remains intact, obscuring the underlying dissociation. Drawing on experiments in compiler optimization and hyperparameter tuning, I develop the Epistemic Triangle, a model of how priors, signals, and domain knowledge interact under varying observability. The results suggest that neither behavioral success nor explanatory accuracy alone suffices for attributing understanding. I argue that evaluating artificial epistemic agents requires a tripartite framework -- coherence, grounding, and a proper basing relation linking explanation to action. The systematic separation of knowing-that and knowing-how in LLMs thus challenges assumptions inherited from both epistemology and current AI evaluation practice.

Related papers

• ESI-Bench: Towards Embodied Spatial Intelligence that Closes the Perception-Action Loop [55.468404995694975]
  We develop a benchmark for embodied spatial intelligence spanning 10 task categories and 29 subcategories built on OmniGibson.<n>We conduct experiments on state-of-the-art MLLMs and find that active exploration substantially outperforms passive counterparts.<n>Unlike humans who seek falsifying viewpoints and revise beliefs under contradiction, models commit prematurely with high confidence regardless of evidence quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:59:02Z)
• Anatomy of a Lie: A Multi-Stage Diagnostic Framework for Tracing Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models [62.932580559941414]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently "hallucinate" - generate plausible yet factually incorrect statements.<n>We propose a new paradigm for diagnosing hallucinations, recasting them from static output errors into dynamic pathologies of a model's computational cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T17:20:38Z)
• Universe Routing: Why Self-Evolving Agents Need Epistemic Control [0.0]
  A critical failure mode of current lifelong agents is not lack of knowledge, but the inability to decide how to reason.<n>We formalize this as the universe routing problem: classifying questions into mutually exclusive belief spaces before invoking specialized solvers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T03:58:14Z)
• AI Knows What's Wrong But Cannot Fix It: Helicoid Dynamics in Frontier LLMs Under High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Helicoid dynamics is the name given to a specific failure regime in that second domain.<n>System engages competently, drifts into error, accurately names what went wrong, then reproduces the same pattern at a higher level of sophistication.<n>This prospective case series documents that regime across seven leading systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T05:25:49Z)
• Beyond Hallucinations: The Illusion of Understanding in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are becoming deeply embedded in human communication and decision-making.<n>They inherit the ambiguity, bias, and lack of direct access to truth inherent in language itself.<n>This paper argues that LLMs operationalize System 1 cognition at scale: fast, associative, and persuasive, but without reflection or falsification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T13:19:44Z)
• Hallucination Detection via Internal States and Structured Reasoning Consistency in Large Language Models [7.18947815679122]
  Internal State Probing and Chain-of-Thought Verification are used to detect hallucinations in large language models.<n>We develop a unified framework that bridges the gap between the two methods.<n>Our framework consistently and significantly outperforms strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T15:31:21Z)
• Distributional Semantics Tracing: A Framework for Explaining Hallucinations in Large Language Models [4.946483489399819]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to hallucination, the generation of factually incorrect statements.<n>This work investigates the intrinsic, architectural origins of this failure mode through three primary contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T16:40:31Z)
• Generalization or Hallucination? Understanding Out-of-Context Reasoning in Transformers [80.70134000599391]
  We argue that both behaviors stem from a single mechanism known as out-of-context reasoning (OCR)<n>OCR drives both generalization and hallucination, depending on whether the associated concepts are causally related.<n>Our work provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the OCR phenomenon, offering a new lens for analyzing and mitigating undesirable behaviors from knowledge injection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T16:50:45Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the interaction between world knowledge and logical reasoning.<n>We find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) often rely on superficial generalizations.<n>We show that simple reformulations of the task can elicit more robust reasoning behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.