Targeted Tests for LLM Reasoning: An Audit-Constrained Protocol

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11599v2
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 07:59:58 GMT
• Title: Targeted Tests for LLM Reasoning: An Audit-Constrained Protocol
• Abstract summary: We propose an audit-constrained protocol for targeted reasoning evaluation.<n>We instantiate Component Prompt Sampling (CAPS), a score-based deterministic sampler over prompt components, and compare it with equal-budget uniform component sampling.
• Score: 0.9805949492148788
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fixed reasoning benchmarks evaluate canonical prompts, but semantically valid changes in presentation can still change model behavior. Studies of prompt variation can reveal such failures, but without audit they can mix genuine model errors with invalid perturbations, extraction artifacts, and unmatched search procedures. We propose an audit-constrained protocol for targeted reasoning evaluation. Prompt variants are generated from a finite component grammar, rendered deterministically, evaluated under a fixed query budget, and counted as model errors only after semantic and extraction audit. Within this protocol we instantiate Component-Adaptive Prompt Sampling (CAPS), a score-based sampler over prompt components, and compare it with equal-budget uniform component sampling under the same task bank, renderer, model interface, decoding settings, and audit procedure. Across three audited slices, the protocol identifies confirmed model-error prompt keys while excluding formatting and extraction artifacts, but matched comparisons do not show that CAPS improves audited yield or unique prompt-key discovery over uniform sampling. The contribution is methodological: targeted prompt variation can be studied under a reconstructable, reviewable, budget-matched protocol, and proxy-guided policies should be judged by audited yield rather than raw mismatch counts or selected examples alone.

Related papers

• From Subjective Judgments to Auditable Standards:Protocol-Guided AI Auditing of Website Redundancy [2.2917707112773593]
  Website redundancy does not have a single fixed meaning.<n>We introduce CORA, which measures repetition load, normal-use tax, and failure-domain recovery reserve separately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T07:17:35Z)
• NL-PAC: Specification Ambiguity and Certified Minimax Risk Floors in LLM-Mediated Supervision [0.9475982252982437]
  We introduce Natural Language PAC, a framework that uses a fixed model's thresholded decoding law to define admissible labels and candidate targets.<n>In a frozen Qwen2.5--3B audit, one prespecified prompt yields a positive model-relative certificate, whereas a paraphrase and exact-rule controls yield zero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T21:53:00Z)
• What to Test Next: Interpretable Coverage Gap Discovery in Driving VLMs [52.50210189669399]
  Driving vision-language models (VLMs) must accurately understand scenes across diverse conditions defined by Operational Design Domains (ODDs)<n>We propose SliceScorer, a deterministic scoring rule for missing-slice recommendation.<n>We show that SliceNav surfaces high-risk coverage gaps more effectively than prior slice-discovery methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T03:18:01Z)
• CITE: Anytime-Valid Statistical Inference in LLM Self-Consistency [10.34950275095264]
  We study anytime-valid certification of a prespecified target answer as unique mode of the model's response distribution.<n>We propose the Certification by Intersection-union Testing with E-processes (CITE) algorithm, which provably controls false certification at any prescribed level.<n>We also prove an category-set-size-free stopping-time rate, establish matching minimax lower bounds up to constants in the main regime, and extend the construction to confidence-weighted voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T08:41:51Z)
• Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model [0.0]
  We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile requirements through remote attestation.<n>The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used.<n>We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T04:10:04Z)
• Sequential Audit Sampling with Statistical Guarantees [6.101839518775968]
  This study formulates audit sampling with additional, sequentially collected items as a sequential testing problem for a finite population under sampling without replacement.<n>We define null and alternative hypotheses in terms of a deviation rate, specify stopping and decision rules, and formulate exact sequential boundary conditions in terms of finite-population error probabilities.<n>The exact design yields ex ante control of decision error probabilities, and the simulation-based implementation approximates that design while allowing the computation of expected stopping times.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:26:23Z)
• K$α$LOS finds Consensus: A Meta-Algorithm for Evaluating Inter-Annotator Agreement in Complex Vision Tasks [4.297070083645049]
  We propose K$$LOS, a unified meta-algorithm that generalizes the "Localization First" principle to dataset quality evaluation.<n>By resolving spatial correspondence before assessing agreement, our framework transforms complex-categorical problems into nominal reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T08:54:05Z)
• Towards Verifiable AI with Lightweight Cryptographic Proofs of Inference [3.3323431541048385]
  We present a verification framework and protocol that replaces full proofs with a lightweight, sampling-based approach.<n>We formalize the conditions under which trace separation between functionally dissimilar models can be leveraged to argue the security of verifiable inference protocols.<n>Our approach reduces proving times by several orders of magnitude compared to state-of-the-art cryptographic proof systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T15:24:27Z)
• PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review [54.141490756509306]
  We introduce PaperAudit-Bench, which consists of two components: PaperAudit-Dataset, an error dataset, and PaperAudit-Review, an automated review framework.<n>Experiments on PaperAudit-Bench reveal large variability in error detectability across models and detection depths.<n>We show that the dataset supports training lightweight LLM detectors via SFT and RL, enabling effective error detection at reduced computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T04:26:12Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Appeal: Allow Mislabeled Samples the Chance to be Rectified in Partial Label Learning [55.4510979153023]
  In partial label learning (PLL), each instance is associated with a set of candidate labels among which only one is ground-truth. To help these mislabeled samples "appeal," we propose the first appeal-based framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T09:09:52Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Classification Errors Through Interpretable Token Patterns [58.91023283103762]
  Characterizing errors in easily interpretable terms gives insight into whether a classifier is prone to making systematic errors. We propose to discover those patterns of tokens that distinguish correct and erroneous predictions. We show that our method, Premise, performs well in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T00:24:26Z)
• Conformal Language Modeling [61.94417935386489]
  We propose a novel approach to conformal prediction for generative language models (LMs) Standard conformal prediction produces prediction sets with rigorous, statistical guarantees. We demonstrate the promise of our approach on multiple tasks in open-domain question answering, text summarization, and radiology report generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T21:55:08Z)
• Boost Test-Time Performance with Closed-Loop Inference [85.43516360332646]
  We propose to predict hard-classified test samples in a looped manner to boost the model performance. We first devise a filtering criterion to identify those hard-classified test samples that need additional inference loops. For each hard sample, we construct an additional auxiliary learning task based on its original top-$K$ predictions to calibrate the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T10:20:21Z)

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.