跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 07:38 — 2026-11-04 07:38(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.39070

When the Same Prompt Gives Different Answers (and the Same Answer Isn't Always Right): A Taxonomy of Failure Mechanisms, Testing, and Mitigation Strategies for LLM-Assisted Evidence Synthesis Read-and-Evaluate Tasks

Carole Lunny, Ian Goodman, Stefano Berrone, Connor TA Brenna, Emma K Reid, Ivan Perez-Neri, Shailesh Kolekar, Nityanand Jain 等 15 位作者

LLM read-and-evaluate tasks include study screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and critical appraisal in the evidence synthesis field. These task differ in the amount of LLM interpretation they require. Some tasks involve retrieving relatively simple information, such as an author name, sample size, or publication year. Others require the LLM to read source material, interpret it against predefined criteria, and make a judgement. Researchers should assess whether LLM judgements are accurate, supported by appropriate source evidence, and reproducible under specified conditions. A correct judgement does not necessarily indicate that the underlying evaluation process is reliable. We developed a taxonomy for identifying mechanisms that may compromise these properties and for informing the selection and reporting of appropriate evaluation methods. The taxonomy outlines potential ways that LLM judgments from read-and-evaluate tasks can fail, called TRAILS (Taxonomy of Reliability And Instability in LLM-assisted evidence Synthesis). The TRAILS taxonomy addresses two complementary questions. First, what mechanisms can cause the same read-and-evaluate task to produce different judgements across repeated LLM runs? Second, what mechanisms can systematically affect the judgement or required output in a way that is not apparent from the judgement itself? This study presents 38 mechanisms and identifies the deployment settings in which each can operate, approaches for testing them, and mitigation strategies. We also show why repeatability or accuracy does not rule out a hidden judgement failure and why human evaluation should assess whether a judgement is grounded in the supplied evidence, independent of inappropriate external influence, and produced through a process that can be examined and verified.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI · cs.PF · stat.ME
arXiv ↗PDF ↗