Unmatched Does Not Mean False: Incomplete Reference Sets Can Reverse Calibration Rankings in Open-Ended Theory-of-Mind Tracking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25654v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 11:36:31 GMT
• Title: Unmatched Does Not Mean False: Incomplete Reference Sets Can Reverse Calibration Rankings in Open-Ended Theory-of-Mind Tracking
• Abstract summary: Open-ended Theory-of-Mind (ToM) trackers emit valid beliefs absent from finite references.<n>A finite-reference-plus-matcher pipeline marks unmatched outputs false, creating proxy labels that can reverse proper-score model selection.
• Score: 0.5735035463793009
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Open-ended Theory-of-Mind (ToM) trackers emit valid beliefs absent from finite references. A finite-reference-plus-matcher pipeline marks unmatched outputs false, creating proxy labels that can reverse proper-score model selection on fixed outputs. Holding 259 beliefs and paired scores fixed, reference recoding lowers weighted prevalence from 0.783 to 0.295 and reverses strictly proper Brier risk: a frozen source-prior rule leads native confidence by 0.227 under reference labels and trails by 0.152 under blinded adjudication, in all six authored scenarios. A reference-only Platt recalibrator reverses further. An ICE-specific reversal appears in a released 301-question NQ-open DPR-BERT pipeline: its average-confidence baseline improves instance-level calibration error by 0.045 under exact match but worsens it by 0.074 under human correctness, with both intervals excluding zero. On independently authored OpenToM narratives, 90-96% of audited unmatched beliefs are literally true and the paired direction again reverses. An exact decomposition attributes the distortion to omitted truths, and a closed-form criterion correctly classifies comparisons from twelve released systems. Frozen-audit retrospective replay shows 50 attempted annotations recover ranking direction with probability at least 0.996. TriSource-Restore anchors full-frame reference labels and frozen automatic judgments to a probability-sampled human pilot, maintains at least nominal coverage, narrows intervals, and repairs confidence subject to a base-rate deployment gate.

Related papers

• Symmetry-Aware Likelihood-Orbit Aggregation for Selective Left-Right Claim Verification [14.108900142001628]
  We introduce Relation-Orbit, a closed-form contrast that assigns eight normalized likelihoods to query-supporting and counterfactual roles.<n>On VSR and GQA across four frozen vision-language models, Relation-Orbit yields higher mean test coverage at a 10% selective-risk calibration target.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:19:03Z)
• The Model Proposes, the Code Disposes: A Pre-Registered Ablation of a Verifier-and-Acceptance Stage in an LLM-Orchestrated Offensive-Security Agent [0.0]
  We evaluate whether a verifier-and-acceptance stage - a model verifier whose verdicts are enforced by deterministic code - changes what an LLM-driven offensive-security agent reports.<n>We report a 15-run exploratory pilot, a pre-registered 20-run confirmatory ablation, and a pre-registered 2 x 2 factorial study with 40 runs across two deliberately vulnerable lab targets.<n>The results support a narrow conclusion: the verifier changes what the system ships, while deterministic code supplies enforcement and auditability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T17:13:05Z)
• What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions [0.0]
  We introduce Pair-ID, an offline audit that holds one query, retrieval state, and reader constant, then crosses two operations, adding missing support and deleting verified nonsupport, to measure a same-failure counterfactual response vector.<n>A complete funnel over 19,981 benchmark queries identifies 11,105 eligible Qwen failures, from which a prospectively fixed SHA-256 ordering selects 1,200 before generating any sampled response.<n>Results show that evidence sensitivity occurs at meaningful rates in the hash-selected eligible-failure sample, is only partially predictable from the observed failure, and is conditional on the reader.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T22:43:27Z)
• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• When LLMs Agree, Are They Right? Auditing Self-Consistency and Cross-Model Agreement as Confidence Signals [0.0]
  LLM-as-judge is increasingly the default for evaluating AI systems in enterprise pipelines.<n>We show that consistency -- agreement among judges, or a model's own samples -- indicates correctness.<n>We ask when agreement is nonetheless a usable proxy, in a large-scale cross-runner study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T02:46:51Z)
• PerceptionRubrics: Calibrating Multimodal Evaluation to Human Perception [75.70273182182397]
  PerceptionRubrics is a rubric-based evaluation framework.<n>It addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness.<n>It pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 10,000 instance-specific rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-26T17:59:15Z)
• Cherry-pick Override: Unsafe Directional Commitment in LLM Judges under Mixed Evidence [14.905172804386973]
  We argue for an external commitment-control layer that separates verdict generation from commitment authorization.<n>We define CCO under an explicit task contract and report it with a same-denominator diagnostic protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T20:51:51Z)
• 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)
• VERDI: Single-Call Confidence Estimation for Verification-Based LLM Judges via Decomposed Inference [0.0]
  VERDI (VERification-Decomposed Inference Inference) is a method that extracts confidence from a structured judge.<n> VERDI decomposes each evaluation into sub-checks and derives three structural signals.<n>On three public benchmarks, VERDI achieves AUROC 0.72-0.91 on GPT-4.1-mini and 0.66-0.80 on GPT-5.4-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T23:39:19Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)

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.