EVAR: Evidence-Validated Hypothesis Admission for Budget-Aware Narrative Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29835v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 15:07:27 GMT
• Title: EVAR: Evidence-Validated Hypothesis Admission for Budget-Aware Narrative Reasoning
• Abstract summary: EVAR is an evidence-validated hypothesis admission framework for budget-aware narrative reasoning.<n>We show that EVAR improves both task performance and evidence faithfulness while maintaining controllable inference cost.
• Score: 6.590648135605556
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often produce fluent but weakly grounded conclusions when reasoning over non-interactive, long-form narratives. A central failure mode is that unsupported intermediate hypotheses can enter the reasoning trajectory and contaminate subsequent inference, especially when evidence is scattered across distant parts of the story. To address this problem, we propose EVAR, an evidence-validated hypothesis admission framework for budget-aware narrative reasoning. EVAR first compiles the narrative into an immutable evidence store of source-linked atomic claims and assigns an instance-specific inference budget from unresolved gaps and uncertainty signals. During refinement, EVAR directly proposes candidate hypotheses for unresolved gaps, constructs hypothesis-conditioned validation challenges, and verifies each candidate against the locked store before admission: supported hypotheses enter the answer-supporting state, unverifiable ones are quarantined, and contradictory ones are discarded. A sufficiency-based stopping mechanism further avoids unnecessary refinement. Experiments on NarraCrime and multiple public reasoning benchmarks show that EVAR improves both task performance and evidence faithfulness while maintaining controllable inference cost.

Related papers

• Autoformalizing Argumentative Material Inferences [26.35292656634472]
  We develop an autoformalization for argumentative material inference as guard completion.<n>GUARD yields significant improvements in verified-faithful.<n>We show that the symbolic soft critique and the explicit assumption layer account for most of these gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:05:26Z)
• DERELAB: Probing Defeasible Reasoning and Confirmation Bias in LLMs with a Generative Benchmark [6.835919520017402]
  Defeasible reasoning is a type of reasoning where inferences are drawn from plausible current evidence, but can be retracted upon the introduction of newer evidence.<n>We introduce DeReLab, a generative framework that produces multi-turn belief-updating conversations from parameterized graph structures.<n>We evaluate nine open and proprietary large language models and find that nearly all exhibit a systematic tendency to accept congruent evidence while resisting incongruent updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T08:10:29Z)
• Don't Let Me Ask for It: LLMs Show Deficiencies in Active Multi-Turn Information Acquisition for Abductive Inference [15.768100289136392]
  Abductive reasoning requires forming hypotheses that explain observed evidence and revising them as new evidence becomes available.<n>We introduce Alien Abduction, an interactive probe for studying these behaviours under different interaction modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T09:39:24Z)
• When benchmark inferences do not compose: Projectibility in AI evaluation [0.0]
  An AI benchmark result rarely reaches a consequential claim in one step.<n>Evaluators generalize it to further cases, interpret it as evidence of capability, extrapolate it to new tasks, transport it to another system or site.<n>This paper identifies a further problem: warranted links don't automatically make a warranted chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T18:07:04Z)
• Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery [95.44432473367836]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured.<n>We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discnative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence.<n>We introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:56:43Z)
• Pause or Fabricate? Training Language Models for Grounded Reasoning [50.104657152302956]
  We propose Grounded Reasoning via Interactive Reinforcement Learning (GRIL) for grounded reasoning under incomplete information.<n>GRIL decomposes the reasoning process into two stages: clarify and pause, which identifies whether the available information is sufficient, and grounded reasoning, which performs task solving once the necessary premises are established.<n>Experiments on GSM8K-Insufficient and MetaMATH-Insufficient show that GRIL significantly improves premise detection (up to 45%), leading to a 30% increase in task success while reducing average response length by over 20%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T16:45:29Z)
• From Fluent to Verifiable: Claim-Level Auditability for Deep Research Agents [8.49451413641847]
  We argue that as research generation becomes cheap, auditability becomes the bottleneck.<n>This perspective proposes claim-level auditability as a first-class design and evaluation target for deep research agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T19:39:15Z)
• Towards Inference-time Scaling for Continuous Space Reasoning [55.40260529506702]
  Inference-time scaling has proven effective for text-based reasoning in large language models.<n>This paper investigates whether such established techniques can be successfully adapted to reasoning in the continuous space.<n>We demonstrate the feasibility of generating diverse reasoning paths through dropout-based sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T05:53:41Z)
• Latent Veracity Inference for Identifying Errors in Stepwise Reasoning [78.29317733206643]
  We introduce Veracity Search (VS), a discrete search algorithm over veracity assignments.<n>It performs otherwise intractable inference in the posterior distribution over latent veracity values.<n>It generalizes VS, enabling accurate zero-shot veracity inference in novel contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T04:16:36Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• CASA: Causality-driven Argument Sufficiency Assessment [79.13496878681309]
  We propose CASA, a zero-shot causality-driven argument sufficiency assessment framework. PS measures how likely introducing the premise event would lead to the conclusion when both the premise and conclusion events are absent. Experiments on two logical fallacy detection datasets demonstrate that CASA accurately identifies insufficient arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T16:21:18Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)

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.