Task-Conditional Faithfulness Auditing of Multimodal LLMs for Grid Diagnosis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24539v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:17:15 GMT
• Title: Task-Conditional Faithfulness Auditing of Multimodal LLMs for Grid Diagnosis
• Abstract summary: Multimodal large language models (LLMs) can combine topology, measurements, and incident text for grid diagnosis.<n>This letter proposes a general framework in order to conduct task-conditional faithfulness audit.
• Score: 5.427346259545067
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal large language models (LLMs) can combine topology, measurements, and incident text for grid diagnosis, yet answer accuracy does not establish that task-appropriate evidence was used. This letter proposes a general framework in order to conduct task-conditional faithfulness audit. It compares self-reported reliance, intervention-derived behavioral reliance, and preregistered engineering importance. The framework first registers task-specific evidence requirements and compares them with self-reported reliance and behavioral changes under controlled modality ablations. To resolve detected discrepancies, we design an evidence-gated correction and re-audit mechanism that regenerates failed responses under evidence constraints and independently re-ablates them to verify improved grounding without performance loss. Case studies evaluate three differently scaled LLMs on IEEE 39- and 118-bus scenarios. These results validate the framework ability to detect, diagnose, and correct task-conditional faithfulness failures.

Related papers

• The Tell-Tale Trace: Detecting Reasoning Failures in LLMs Using Chain-of-Thought Dynamics [0.9668407688201359]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance.<n>Existing approaches that leverage verbalized CoTs to monitor reasoning correctness largely evaluate the semantic correctness or consistency of individual intermediate steps.<n>We show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T08:04:36Z)
• AuditWeave: A Tamper-Evident, Auditor-Navigable Evidence Layer for AI-Assisted and Data-Transformation Workflows [0.0]
  AuditWeave is a lightweight Python library that records the steps of AI-assisted and data-transformation into a single hash-chained ledger.<n>We describe the design and evaluate recording overhead, scalability, and tamper-detection correctness on the reference implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T21:46:04Z)
• Diagnosing LLM Arbitration Behavior over Pre-evidence Epistemic States in RAG-based Fact-Checking [14.164769475625391]
  In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence.<n>We introduce textscPAVE (emphPrior-Aware Verifier Evaluation), a diagnostic testbed that stratifies an LLM verifier into four epistemic states.<n>Experiments reveal unreliable and highly model-dependent prior-context arbitration, highlighting the importance of verifier selection for real-world RAG-based fact-checking applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T09:37:56Z)
• VerifyMAS: Hypothesis Verification for Failure Attribution in LLM Multi-Agent Systems [79.51005192758262]
  Large language model-driven multi-agent systems excel at complex tasks.<n>However, unreliable agents remain a key bottleneck to system-level reliability.<n>We propose a hypothesis verification framework for agent failure attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T14:09:35Z)
• Stress-Testing Neural Network Verifiers with Provably Robust Instances [10.017475431603389]
  We introduce a reusable framework for generating verification instances with ground-truth labels.<n>We also introduce the verification Difficulty Profile, a collection of estimable quantities capturing distinct sources of instance hardness.<n>Using our framework and these profiles, we evaluate five state-of-the-art verifiers and show that different instances stress distinct aspects of the verification pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-16T20:56:52Z)
• SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding [13.62148061055744]
  We propose a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages.<n>We evaluate this framework on a benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T19:33:58Z)
• Trust but Verify: Introducing DAVinCI -- A Framework for Dual Attribution and Verification in Claim Inference for Language Models [53.279391576560755]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and limitation.<n>This poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount.<n>We introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T01:37:50Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Stage-wise Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Fact-Checking [64.97768177044355]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world fact-checking systems.<n>We present FactArena, a fully automated arena-style evaluation framework.<n>Our analyses reveal significant discrepancies between static claim-verification accuracy and end-to-end fact-checking competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T02:51:56Z)
• DoVer: Intervention-Driven Auto Debugging for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [48.971606069204825]
  DoVer is an intervention-driven debug framework for large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems.<n>It augments hypothesis generation with active verification through targeted interventions.<n>DoVer flips 18-28% of failed trials into successes, achieves up to 16% milestone progress, and validates or refutes 30-60% of failure hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T09:23:48Z)
• When Does Verification Pay Off? A Closer Look at LLMs as Solution Verifiers [11.937771430269201]
  We present a systematic study across 37 large language models (LLMs)<n>We compare self-verification with verification within the same family and across different families.<n>We analyze how metrics like verifier gain and false positive rate scale with model size and post-training, and characterize differences in dataset verifiability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T00:51:14Z)
• 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)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)

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.