Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01000v1
• Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2026 05:00:44 GMT
• Title: Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets
• Abstract summary: We measure the capability that role assumes and find it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with.<n>Models judge whether a candidate belongs far better than they author the set itself.
• Score: 13.85834524293015
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language models are increasingly promoted from examinees to examiners: they write the test suites, answer keys, rubrics, and reward functions that define correctness for other systems. We measure the capability that role assumes and find it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with, one-shot greedy authoring with no test-time reasoning. Across four reference constructions - two with complete finite truth, one with a hardened executable reference (HumanEval+/MBPP+), one with an explicitly incomplete lexical reference (WordNet) - models judge whether a candidate belongs far better than they author the set itself. On the incompleteness-proof algorithmic construction the gap is +0.34 to +0.29 F1 over a 24x parameter range and does not close; on executable code, models judging at F1 0.74-0.90 author suites admitting only 19-42% of oracle-correct solutions. A control locates the deficit: asked to emit the predicate rather than its extension, the same models reach F1 about 0.99. The failure is not missing knowledge or an inability to specify, but an inability to materialise the region a specification induces. The dominant error is omission, which resists audit: an over-inclusion is a token a reviewer can challenge, a missing member an absence whose discovery is the authoring problem itself. Models detect planted over-inclusions 6-7x more often than planted omissions, and a production deployment of 43,227 items fails omission-first at 10:1. Wired into RLVR, an authored key costs 1.9 points of accuracy against an exact oracle and 18.5 WordNet-relative (six paired seeds, p=0.031). Gating authored verifiers on a known-correct probe cuts false rejection from 58-92% to at most 5%, but keeps only 5-39% of suites. Repairing them instead, by rewriting each wrong expected value to what a reference execution returns, raises yield 3.3-10.6x across four author families.

Related papers

• SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics [15.233613140316791]
  SemVerBench is the first benchmark of version-constraint resolution semantics across three ecosystems.<n>We evaluate six frontier models and find no statistically significant self-favoritism.<n>Because the task is verifiable and a free, 100%-correct resolver exists, tool delegation reaches 100%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T07:34:44Z)
• IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier [0.0]
  All 18 audited benchmarks score advertised model identifiers.<n>A gold-blind capability-binding preflight verifies that a route can execute the evaluation contract before any task reaches it.<n>A reliability-inclusive first-pass scoring rule keeps failure in the score while keeping unsupported capability out.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T17:31:29Z)
• Where the Verifier Fails: A Category-Level Audit of Reward Signals in RLVR [0.0]
  Reinforcement learning with rewards (RLVR) and standard benchmark evaluation both rely on an automatic verifier that turns a free text answer into a binary reward.<n>Prior work reports that one evaluation harness accepts only about 94% of its own ground truth answers, blaming parsing.<n>We supply the decomposition. We apply metamorphic testing to the verifier rather than the model, generating certified equivalent answer variants.<n>We measure rejection per answer category across four widely used verifiers over 307,420 verdicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T14:57:59Z)
• MemToC: Benchmarking Memory-Tool Conflict Resolution in Large Language Models [49.47300047353726]
  We introduce MemToC, a benchmark for post-tool-return arbitration with executable tools.<n>MemToC comprises 6,504 evaluation episodes constructed from 542 quality-controlled factual questions.<n>Across five open-weight 7-9B models, tool returns strongly dominate elicited closed-book answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T18:22:03Z)
• When Many Answers Are Valid, Voting Fails: Symbolic Verification for Best-of-K Causal Reasoning in LLMs [42.32694162421078]
  We introduce CALVER, a training-free symbolic verifier that scores structured traces against Pearl's causal criteria.<n>On CLEAR find-one-valid queries that admit multiple graph-valid answers, CALVER reaches 42.1% where plurality, a reward model, an LLM judge, and model confidence remain near 30%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T11:45:46Z)
• The Librarian Who Refused to Code: Model-Dependent Identity Enactment in LLM Code Generation [0.0]
  We tested four prompt conditions (no persona, two engineer personas, and a research-librarian persona), 12 code-generation tasks, two frontier models, and five runs per cell.<n>Under pre-registered mixed-effects analysis, the condition-by-model interaction was significant for provider-reported output tokens.<n>On Claude Opus, the minimalist engineer persona reduced visible output by 30% without improving correctness, while the thorough engineer persona increased output without a correctness gain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-19T21:47:58Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• PBT-Bench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Property-Based Testing [29.035258104995204]
  We introduce PBT-Bench, a benchmark of 100 curated property-based testing problems across 40 real Python libraries.<n>Each problem injects one or more semantic bugs (365 in total, mean 3.65 per problem) designed so that default-strategy random inputs almost never trigger them.<n>Bug recall under the PBT-guided prompt ranges from 42.1% to 83.4% across models; under the open-ended baseline, from 31.4% to 76.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T18:01:05Z)
• Beyond Code Reasoning: Specification-Anchored Auditing of Multi-Implementation Distributed Protocols [1.5229705287183657]
  SPECA is an audit framework that derives explicit, categorized security properties from natural-language specifications and reuses them across implementations.<n>On the RepoAudit benchmark, SPECA reaches 88.9% precision at 100% recall (F1=0.94) and surfaces 12 author-validated bugs beyond ground truth.<n>On the Sherlock Fusaka Audit Contest (10 targets, 366 submissions), SPECA recovers all 15 vulnerabilities expert-augmented and surfaces 4 fix-confirmed bugs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T09:57:07Z)
• BibTeX Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Publishing Agents: Evaluation and Mitigation [34.429649156970015]
  Prior evaluations tested base models without search, which does not reflect current practice.<n>Three search-enabled frontier models generate Bib entries scored on nine fields and a six-way error taxonomy.<n>Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T16:30:58Z)
• HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam [63.84155758655084]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models.<n>We introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.<n>We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T02:50:15Z)
• Attention Satisfies: A Constraint-Satisfaction Lens on Factual Errors of Language Models [38.79074982172423]
  We investigate the internal behavior of Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) when they generate factually incorrect text. We propose modeling factual queries as constraint satisfaction problems. We find a strong positive relationship between the LLM's attention to constraint tokens and the factual accuracy of generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-26T17:48:55Z)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

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.