#01Oct 22, 2026
cs.CL
How Ground Truth Shapes Retrieval Scores: Evidence-Aware Evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation System for Breast Lesions
Miguel Mochizuki Silva, Samuel Ismael, Mateus C. Dias and 3 more
Purpose: To describe an evidence-aware retrieval evaluation protocol for a clinical retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system over breast lesion management literature, addressing the dependence of retrieval scores on annotation coverage. Methods: An 18-document corpus and an 18-query development benchmark, with one Yes/No or WH-question per document, were used. Retrieval combined dense embeddings, BM25, and cross-encoder reranking. Chunk sizes of 128 to 1024 tokens, overlaps of 0 to 20%, and four retriever configurations were evaluated. Relevance was defined by evidence spans mapped to all containing chunks, treating overlapping chunks with equivalent evidence as relevant. Retrieval was evaluated using R-Precision, Recall@K, MRR, and nDCG@K. Separately, generation was assessed on a 512-token index at K=1 to 5 using DeepEval claim-level metrics, with deepseek-v4-pro as the LLM judge, and BLEU/ROUGE metrics. Results: The selected hybrid retriever, using 384-token chunks and 20% overlap, retrieved accepted evidence in the top three results for 17 of 18 queries. Recall@3, R-Precision, MRR@3, and nDCG@3 each reached 0.94. Ground-truth curation increased evidence spans from 25 to 37 and accepted chunk targets from 36 to 51 without changing retrieval rankings. Conclusion: Cross-encoder reranking achieved the highest retrieval scores. Expanded relevance annotations increased recognized evidence without changing rankings, highlighting annotation sensitivity. The small development set and retrieval-informed curation require independent validation, including radiologist assessment of evidence sufficiency.
#02Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
What Makes a Good Unmasking Policy? A Controlled Study of Learned Unmasking in Diffusion Language Models
Jinya Sakurai, Xun Xu, Jaehong Yoon
Masked diffusion language models generate tokens in parallel, but their efficiency depends on which predictions are committed. Learned unmasking policies improve the speed--accuracy trade-off, yet differ in supervision, inputs, and capacity, obscuring which choices matter. We view supervised policies as distilling a decoding procedure through a teacher and examine independently what the teacher labels as committable, on which states the policy imitates it, what the policy observes, and how much the number of function evaluations (NFE) must decrease to offset policy overhead. We find that labeling predictions matching the final output is overly permissive at low NFE, and hidden states are weak alone but can complement confidence. About a 10% NFE reduction suffices to offset policy overhead for policies up to 7.5M parameters across tested settings. We therefore train a policy on trajectory-contraction targets, which accept only commitments staying on a reference trajectory, using confidence and hidden states. On LLaDA-8B-Instruct, the resulting 856K-parameter policy achieves the best accuracy--NFE frontier and highest throughput on GSM8K, is competitive at moderate targets on MATH-500 and HumanEval, and largely transfers to Dream-7B-Instruct.
#03Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Contestable Agents for Data Governance: Recording Human Stewardship of AI-Generated Metadata Across Structured and Unstructured Systems
Humza Akhtar, Brian Freeman
Industrial organizations hold operational knowledge in structured records, such as telemetry, point lists, and transactions, and in unstructured sources, such as manuals, service notes, communications, and inspection reports. Governance programs often manage these sources separately. Classifying, linking, and documenting them depends on a small group of employees with deep domain knowledge. Agents built on large language models can propose metadata, cite documents, and flag quality issues, but unreviewed proposals can spread errors into downstream systems. A perfunctory approval leaves no record of what a reviewer checked. We present contestable governance: specialist agents produce scored, cited arguments for disputed metadata decisions; a steward can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before commit; and a governance record retains the evidence, interventions, and outcome. A versioned domain glossary supplies model-specific terms and acronym definitions to the agents. We describe the workflow, a triage path that reserves full argumentation for uncertain proposals while preserving review before commit, the scoring and record models, and a gate that controls which verified decisions become precedent. Two HVAC use cases illustrate the pattern: point classification using Brick Schema class labels, supported by an open reference implementation, and an illustrative warranty failure-mode decision linking claim fields and telemetry to service notes and revisioned bulletins.
#04Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Who Is Sycophantic to Whom? Confident LLMs, Human Deference, and the Collapse of Trust Calibration
Deepthika S, Pawni Yadav, B. Sankar
Research on sycophancy asks whether large language models (LLMs) bend towards what their users want to hear. We ask the reverse question: when an LLM is confident, consistent, and wrong, do users bend towards it? In a within-subjects experiment, 32 participants learned up to five science topics by chatting with five assistants built on the same model (GPT-5-mini). Unknown to participants, each assistant's briefing had 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100% of its facts replaced by plausible falsehoods, and every assistant spoke with full confidence. A surprise quiz after each topic offered the correct fact, the planted falsehood, and two distractors, with a confidence rating for every answer. Across 104 quizzes and 1,040 answers, scores fell from 7.4 to 2.9 out of 10, and the planted option was chosen on 60% of falsified items against 11% of correctly taught ones (odds ratio 12.5). Transcript coding showed that whenever the assistant stated a falsehood, it was adopted about 65% of the time at every falsification level. Absorbed falsehoods were held with high confidence (8.4/10), the modeled confidence advantage of right over wrong answers vanished, and the discrimination of confidence for correctness fell from an AUROC of 0.70 to chance, while post-task trust ratings barely moved. Participants tended to return to the chat more when the assistant was worse, but returning went with more absorption, not less, and 30% of all turns pasted quiz questions back to the source being checked. The assistant itself was almost never sycophantic and never conceded under pushback. We introduce a baseline-corrected Human Deference Index to quantify this human-side sycophancy and argue that trustworthiness is a property of the human-AI pair, that sycophancy evaluations should measure both directions, and that learning interfaces must make reliability legible claim by claim.
#05Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Simulated Control Evals
Jeffrey Olmo, David Zhang, Tyler Tracy
Control evaluations measure whether safeguards can prevent an AI model from causing undesired outcomes even when it is intentionally trying to do so. These evaluations typically use purpose-built control settings and extrapolate their results to a model's deployment. However, the effectiveness of safeguards in deployment can depend on features of environments and tasks that control settings do not represent. To broaden where control evaluations can be run, we introduce simulated control evaluations (SCEs), which use a language model to simulate tool responses in place of an environment. We evaluate SCEs on LinuxArena, where execution provides ground-truth outcomes. We compare SCE prediction errors with those from a separate control setting, BashArena, and with variation in control metrics within LinuxArena. For independently sampled evaluation and deployment task sets, SCEs predict safety with a root mean squared error of 3.6 percentage points across five monitors at a 5% audit budget, compared with 10.1 for BashArena. SCEs closely reproduce distributions of attack strategies, attacker reasoning, and monitor reasoning, with over tenfold lower KL divergence from execution than BashArena. SCEs explain 78-85% of the between-environment variance in attack success, monitor scores, and safety. This accuracy is sample efficient: SCEs predict safety with less error than BashArena using fewer than 5% as many task-pair draws as the deployment task set. Strategies discovered through simulation also improve monitor performance on held-out LinuxArena attacks, outperforming BashArena and approximately matching improvement from executed strategies. These results suggest that deployment-specific SCEs can be more predictive than control evaluations executed in separate control settings.