Solving versus Verifying: Catching Contradictions in Tax Reasoning Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05928v1
• Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2026 06:38:02 GMT
• Title: Solving versus Verifying: Catching Contradictions in Tax Reasoning Systems
• Abstract summary: We study six recent models on SARA-derived tax cases under missing-fact and contradictory-fact perturbations.<n>We wire that verification call into a simple contradiction gate: one extra call that abstains when the model reports a conflict.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models now compute correct tax liabilities on over 90% of well-formed cases in statutory benchmarks, which makes them candidates for the tax-advisory and compliance systems that consume such an answer directly. Real legal inputs, however, are frequently defective: required facts are missing, or stated facts contradict one another. Accuracy on clean benchmarks says nothing about how a model behaves then, and a system that computes straight through a defective input returns a confident number with no sign that anything is wrong. This raises two questions: does a model asked to solve a case abstain when the input is defective, and when it does not, can the same model catch the defect when asked instead to verify the input? We study six recent models on SARA-derived tax cases under missing-fact and contradictory-fact perturbations. The strongest models abstain when a fact is missing but compute through injected contradictions, returning the clean-input answer 63-76% of the time with no signal of the conflict; asked instead to verify the same input, they flag most of those contradictions. We wire that verification call into a simple contradiction gate: one extra call that abstains when the model reports a conflict. Across all six models it recovers most of the missed contradiction abstention at a clean-accuracy cost of at most about 5 percentage points, with no training and no external tooling. High accuracy on well-formed inputs is therefore an incomplete measure of reliability, and the detection the solver misses is cheaply recoverable with a single self-check.

Related papers

• EviScope: Paired Counterfactual Evidence Diagnostics for Faithful and Efficient Grounded Language Models [0.0]
  Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory.<n>We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T12:18:19Z)
• Diagnosing Fine-Grained Inconsistency Classification in Financial Disclosure Text [3.2712318205295907]
  Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways.<n>We study this problem as fine-grained inconsistency.<n>A fine-tuned 300M encoder reaches 61.9% accuracy, compared with 61.5% for a LoRA-adapted Qwen3.5-9B model and 61.3% for GPT-adapted generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T01:03:53Z)
• Two Regimes of Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness: Behavioral Detection Fails Where Models Are Wrong [1.2744523252873352]
  Black-box (behavioral) detection of unfaithful CoT against FaithCoT-Bench's human annotations.<n>We find answer correctness structures the problem at every level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-26T04:43:53Z)
• 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)
• Denoising Iterative Self-Correction: Structured Verification Loops for Reliable LLM Reasoning [5.634990956257954]
  Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers.<n>We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted.<n>A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T20:23:14Z)
• MAIGO: Mitigating Lost-in-Conversation with History-Cleaned On-Policy Self-Distillation [51.32912774464992]
  Large language models often solve tasks from a fully specified prompt but degrade when the same requirements unfold over multiple turns.<n>We propose MAIGO, an on-policy self-distillation method that reduces this contamination using history-cleaned references from the model's own policy.<n>For middle turns, MAIGO removes prior assistant replies while preserving the user-visible sharded prefix; for answer turns, it distills from paired full-view references conditioned on the completed user-side dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T15:38:46Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• CoVerRL: Breaking the Consensus Trap in Label-Free Reasoning via Generator-Verifier Co-Evolution [52.691495954442985]
  CoVerRL is a framework where a single model alternates between generator and verifier roles, with each capability bootstrapping the other.<n> Experiments across Qwen and Llama model families demonstrate that CoVerRL outperforms label-free baselines by 4.7-5.9% on mathematical reasoning benchmarks.<n>Self-verification accuracy improves from around 55% to over 85%, confirming that both capabilities genuinely co-evolve.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T14:38:55Z)
• Decomposed Prompting Does Not Fix Knowledge Gaps, But Helps Models Say "I Don't Know" [47.930782177987446]
  Large language models often struggle to recognize their knowledge limits in closed-book question answering, leading to confident hallucinations.<n>We evaluate three task-equivalent prompting regimes: Direct, Assistive, and Incremental, across different model scales and multi-hop QA benchmarks.<n>Because factual knowledge is stable while hallucinations are agreement, cross-regime provides a precise signal of internal uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T18:39:58Z)
• When Small Models Are Right for Wrong Reasons: Process Verification for Trustworthy Agents [0.0]
  We reveal a critical reliability crisis: 50-69% of correct answers from small language models contain fundamentally flawed reasoning.<n>We introduce the Reasoning Integrity Score (RIS), a process-based metric validated with substantial inter-rater agreement.<n>We show RAG succeeds by grounding calculations in external evidence, reducing errors by 7.6%, while meta-cognition amplifies confusion without sufficient model capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-01T23:54:15Z)
• 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)
• Probing for Arithmetic Errors in Language Models [86.8227317662622]
  Internal activations in language models can be used to detect arithmetic errors.<n>We show that simple probes can accurately decode both the model's predicted output and the correct answer from hidden states.<n>We train lightweight error detectors that predict model correctness with over 90% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T16:27:50Z)
• GRACE: Discriminator-Guided Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [75.35436025709049]
  We propose Guiding chain-of-thought ReAsoning with a CorrectnEss Discriminator (GRACE) to steer the decoding process towards producing correct reasoning steps. GRACE employs a discriminator trained with a contrastive loss over correct and incorrect steps, which is used during decoding to score next-step candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T09:16:51Z)

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.