Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27768v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 23:02:52 GMT
• Title: Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models
• Abstract summary: A language model can commit to a final claim unsupported by the evidence it has seen, even when a single available tool call would resolve the uncertainty.<n>We separate this failure into two precisely defined quantities: occurrence, how often the model makes an unsupported claim on its own, measured from the visible evidence and final claim without using the hidden correct answer; and conditional repair, how often those same naturally occurring unsupported claims are repaired when the missing evidence is supplied.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A language model with access to tools can commit to a final claim unsupported by the evidence it has seen, even when a single available tool call would resolve the uncertainty and its instructions explicitly forbid assumptions and guesses. We separate this failure into two precisely defined quantities: occurrence, how often the model makes an unsupported claim on its own, measured from the visible evidence and final claim without using the hidden correct answer; and conditional repair, how often those same naturally occurring unsupported claims are repaired when the missing evidence is supplied. On one fixed Qwen3-32B setup, 33 of 512 first responses to 256 new prompt templates ended with an unsupported established claim. We replayed each case from an exact copy of the state in which the claim occurred; within each matched replay, the alternative tool responses had the same structure and length and differed only in a one-character response code. Resolving evidence repaired 33 of 33 claims; a matched response carrying no useful information repaired 0 of 33. When the evidence supported the original answer, the model preserved 33 of 33, with no observed harm. In a separate experiment, on 64 cases where evidence was needed, an automatic checking rule added 21 evidence calls, corrected all 10 wrong unsupported claims, preserved the 11 that were correct by accident, and never changed a correct answer into a wrong one. On a fixed Gemma 4 setup using the same sampling settings, the model called the tool in all 512 first responses and never made an unsupported final claim, so conditional repair could not be measured for that setup. These results describe two local fixed model setups on two synthetic task families. They do not show how common this failure is in real-world deployments, nor that it reflects a general mechanism shared across models.

Related papers

• VeriPhy: Agentic Physical Reasoning for World Model Evaluation and Refinement [57.86962208273888]
  We present an auditable physical-verification system in which a text-only planner compiles the prompt into typed physical obligations.<n>Each action returns a provenance-carrying evidence record whose payload, when usable, is either a typed measurement or an explicitly tagged learned state.<n>We anchor evaluation in a 1,500-clip corpus of human-annotated flaw records that localize real generation failures in prompt reference, space, and time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T20:36:45Z)
• Fidelity Is Not Enough: Dispatch-Level Instrumentation for Agentic Datasheet Extraction [6.419341495897254]
  We log every tool call in an agentic benchmark of 25 hand-curated claims over three components, with 12 more on a fourth, 37 in all.<n>We build two instruments: a rule-based failure-attribution classifier, and a silent-failure detector whose two rules check only which tools were called, never the extracted value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T15:25:12Z)
• 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)
• SEER: A Self-Grounded Evidence Interface for Controlled Spatial Relation Classification [71.9783246097687]
  SEER hides candidate relations during pair localization, constructs a query-specific view with explicit subject/object roles, and retains the full image and sparse box geometry as complementary evidence.<n>For relation-choice protocols with exact inverse support, an optional refinement swaps the entity roles and changes the forward decision only when exactly one visual state obeys the corresponding inverse relation.<n>The unchanged protocol yields +4.35 to +11.79 on all 2,434 filtered EmbSpatial pair-relation questions across three models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T13:16:15Z)
• Judging Is Not Enumerating: Silent Omissions in LLM-Authored Acceptable Sets [13.85834524293015]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T05:00:44Z)
• Visual Credit Audit for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning [70.16915309526443]
  Visual Credit Audit separates two Estimands: whether the benchmark image gives the model's declared decision more support than text-only and blank controls, and whether the model responds to relation-specific visual evidence.<n>Applying labels yields dependence-credited correctness (D-CC)<n>Across four open MLLMs and two spatial benchmarks, 12.73-26.25% of decisions are correct yet uncredited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T15:55:31Z)
• The Knowing-Saying Gap: When Probes See Errors that Confidence Misses [20.46211358172975]
  Linear probes detect corrupted context in language models with near-perfect accuracy, yet this does not translate into reliable failure prediction.<n>Across multi-hop arithmetic chains, probes that detect corruption turn out to be uninformative about final answer correctness.<n>As a real-time monitor, probe-based interventions are sharply model and error-type dependent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T12:13:10Z)
• When Binaries Talk Back: Representation-Confusion Attacks on LLM-Assisted Reverse Engineering [0.0]
  A binary can make data look like instructions or records from one origin look like independent evidence.<n>We call such failuresConfusion Attacks in Reverse Engineering (RARE)<n>RARE measures these failures behavior-checked clean and adversarial.<n>We instrument Ghidra, r2pipe, and angr on 16 further programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T08:38:10Z)
• Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
  We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)
• Factual Error Correction of Claims [18.52583883901634]
  This paper introduces the task of factual error correction. It provides a mechanism to correct written texts that contain misinformation. It acts as an inherent explanation for claims already partially supported by evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-31T18:11:26Z)

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.