arXiv subjects

Andreas Vlachos

Publications and source records attributed to Andreas Vlachos.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Do Language Models Update their Forecasts with New Information?

Prior work has largely treated future event prediction as a static task, failing to consider how forecasts should evolve as new evidence emerges. To address this gap, we introduce EvolveCast, a framework for evaluating whether large language models (LLMs) appropriately revise their predictions in response to new information. In particular, EvolveCast assesses whether models adjust their forecasts when presented with evidence released after their training cutoff, using human forecasters as a comparative reference for prediction shifts and confidence calibration. We find that while models often track the correct update direction, their quantitative shifts remain heavily under-responsive. Furthermore, both verbalized and logits-based confidence estimates are poorly calibrated compared to the human reference standard. These findings suggest current LLMs are fundamentally limited in their response to new evidence; models treat new information as mere retrieval context rather than as variables that dynamically shift posterior probabilities. EvolveCast highlights the critical need for robust mechanisms to incorporate external knowledge into dynamic belief updating.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating the Semantic Specificity of Representation Steering in Language Models

Localized Representation Steering (LRS) is widely used to correct reasoning pathologies in large language models. However, standard benchmark evaluations can easily be fooled by superficial label overrides, creating a false impression of reasoning circuit repairs. In this work, we propose Cross-Rule Transfer (CRT), a diagnostic framework that audits representational interventions by evaluating them on rule families where the model is natively competent. Evaluating late-layer LRS for a widespread logical failure, contradiction blindness, reveals that the intervention merely injects a global label bias: applying the steering vector to rules the model already handles correctly (99.6% baseline) degrades performance to 40.4% by forcing false contradiction predictions. We support this diagnosis with four complementary controls (direct logit bias equivalence, control vector label-flipping, cross-model grafting, and early-layer steering checks), providing a rigorous methodology to distinguish genuine reasoning repairs from superficial label overrides.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

DeliChess: A Multi-party Dialogue Dataset for Deliberation in Chess Puzzle Solving

Multi-party dialogue is a critical setting for studying collaborative reasoning and decision-making, yet existing datasets rarely focus on structured, reasoning-intensive tasks. We introduce DeliChess, a dataset of group deliberation dialogues in which participants collaboratively solve multiple-choice chess puzzles. Participants first answer independently, then engage in multi-party deliberation and revise their individual answers. The dataset comprises 107 dialogues with full transcripts, pre- and post-deliberation choices, and utterance-level annotations of communicative function, epistemic stance, and usefulness for supporting deliberation. Our analyses show that greater diversity in initial solution quality is associated with larger gains, while answer trajectories reveal how deliberation can recover, discover, or lose strong answers. Cases in which groups surpass every independent answer are associated with sustained reasoning and epistemic openness. We further propose a diagnostic action-selection task and find that the tested LLMs show only weak agreement with human-attested helpful actions. Together, our dataset provides a testbed for modelling group reasoning, dialogue dynamics, and conditions for effective deliberation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Jury Duty: Calibration and Orientation Failures in MLLM-as-a-Judge Under Cultural Ambiguity

MLLM-as-a-Judge is conventionally validated by agreement with human annotations, but this metric is undefined when the human pool is culturally heterogeneous. We introduce VOIR DIRE, a multimodal benchmark of 626 culturally paired image--prompt artifacts spanning U.S. and mainland Chinese contexts across food, fashion, and architecture, with annotator pools that are within-pool reliable (a = 0.86/0.74) but cross-pool divergent on evaluation (Q1 r = -0.12). Across six MLLMs, the bias decomposes into two failures: a positivity-floor calibration failure (compressed scale use) and an orientation failure (default to one cultural norm). On this corpus, where contested items are sampled to split the two pools, the floor mechanically validates the more-permissive Chinese reading; persona prompting partially recovers calibration, but the orientation residual survives, evidence the tilt is not reducible to scale compression. Reference-pool in-context demonstrations deepen the orientation residual and inflate the high end rather than restoring use of the low end. Model origin adds a small additive tilt (~0.10 MAE) that is approximately invariant under demonstration. We recommend reporting alignment against each reference pool separately and treating cross-pool divergence as a judge property.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

WorldReasoner: Evaluating Whether Language Model Agents Forecast Events with Valid Reasoning

Forecasting real-world events requires language-model agents to reason under uncertainty from incomplete, time-bounded information. Yet evaluating whether agents genuinely forecast requires more than final-answer accuracy: a model may be correct by recalling memorized training facts, citing fabricated evidence, or producing an unsupported causal story. We present WorldReasoner, an evaluation framework for temporally valid event forecasting. Each task gives an agent a resolved forecasting question, a simulated forecast date, and access only to evidence available before that date; after resolution, the framework scores the submitted probability, cited evidence, and optional causal event graph. WorldReasoner reports three complementary axes: outcome quality against resolved answers, evidence quality over cited sources, and reasoning quality against post-resolution hindsight graphs. The benchmark is built by an agentic construction pipeline that generates forecasting questions, collects time-stamped evidence, and builds hindsight reference graphs at scale, yielding 345 resolved tasks derived from 14,141 articles with graphs covering 8,087 extracted events. Across six controlled agent settings, temporally valid retrieval is the strongest driver of outcome accuracy; causal graph construction improves key-event recovery; and correct graph-enabled forecasts are more strongly grounded in key events and relevant sources, yet agents still struggle to convert grounded evidence into calibrated probabilities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity

Multi-agent debate (MAD) is widely used to improve large language model (LLM) performance through test-time scaling, yet recent work shows that vanilla MAD often underperforms simple majority vote despite higher computational cost. Studies show that, under homogeneous agents and uniform belief updates, debate preserves expected correctness and therefore cannot reliably improve outcomes. Drawing on findings from human deliberation and collective decision-making, we identify two key mechanisms missing from vanilla MAD: (i) diversity of initial viewpoints and (ii) explicit, calibrated confidence communication. We propose two lightweight interventions. First, a diversity-aware initialisation that selects a more diverse pool of candidate answers, increasing the likelihood that a correct hypothesis is present at the start of debate. Second, a confidence-modulated debate protocol in which agents express calibrated confidence and condition their updates on others' confidence. We show theoretically that diversity-aware initialisation improves the prior probability of MAD success without changing the underlying update dynamics, while confidence-modulated updates enable debate to systematically drift to the correct hypothesis. Empirically, across six reasoning-oriented QA benchmarks, our methods consistently outperform vanilla MAD and majority vote. Our results connect human deliberation with LLM-based debate and demonstrate that simple, principled modifications can substantially enhance debate effectiveness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Role of Ambiguity in Error Prediction via Uncertainty Quantification

The task of Error Prediction, namely predicting whether a model output is correct, is commonly tackled with Uncertainty Quantification (UQ). However, while uncertainty metrics capture when models lack knowledge or capacity to make a prediction, they also reflect aleatoric uncertainty, which is inherent in the model input and context. This paper presents a method for improving error prediction for Large Language Models (LLMs), by disentangling input ambiguity from UQ signal. We conduct experiments on the task of Question Answering (QA) with six UQ metrics and show that UQ metrics are more predictive of errors on unambiguous instances than on questions with multiple plausible answers. We use Gated Experts and Selective Prediction to incorporate gold and predicted ambiguity labels into the error prediction pipeline. We find that ambiguity information improves error prediction scores across model families, training and evaluation paradigms, datasets (including allegedly unambiguous ones), and sources of aleatoric uncertainty, yielding improvements of over 10 points of PRR for individual UQ metrics on standard datasets.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SciPaths: Forecasting Pathways to Scientific Discovery

Scientific progress depends on sequences of enabling contributions, yet existing AI4Science benchmarks largely focus on citation prediction, literature retrieval, or idea generation rather than the dependencies that make progress possible. In this paper, we introduce discovery pathway forecasting: given a target scientific contribution and the prior literature available at a specified time, the task is to (1) identify the enabling contributions required to realize it and (2) ground each in prior work when such prior work exists. We present SciPaths, a benchmark of 262 expert-annotated gold pathways and 2,444 silver pathways constructed from machine learning and natural language processing papers, where each pathway records enabling contributions, roles, rationales, and prior-work groundings or unmapped decisions. Evaluating frontier and open-weight language models, we find that the best model reaches only 0.189 F1 under strict semantic matching, with core methodological dependencies hardest to recover. Prior-work grounding improves substantially when gold enabling contributions are provided, showing that decomposition quality is a major bottleneck for end-to-end pathway recovery. SciPaths therefore shifts evaluation toward a missing capability in scientific forecasting: reasoning backward from a target contribution to the enabling scientific building blocks and prior-work dependencies that make it feasible.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

LoVeC: Reinforcement Learning for Better Verbalized Confidence in Long-Form Generations

Hallucination remains a major challenge for the safe and trustworthy deployment of large language models (LLMs) in factual content generation. Prior work has explored confidence estimation as an effective approach to hallucination detection, but often relies on post-hoc self-consistency methods that require computationally expensive sampling. Verbalized confidence offers a more efficient alternative, but existing approaches are largely limited to short-form question answering (QA) tasks and do not generalize well to open-ended generation. In this paper, we propose LoVeC (Long-form Verbalized Confidence), a novel reinforcement learning based method that trains LLMs to append an on-the-fly numerical confidence score to each generated statement during long-form generation. The confidence score serves as a direct and interpretable signal of the factuality of generation. We introduce two evaluation settings, free-form tagging and iterative tagging, to assess different verbalized confidence estimation methods. Experiments on three long-form QA datasets show that our RL-trained models achieve better calibration and generalize robustly across domains. Also, our method is highly efficient, being 20 times faster than traditional self-consistency methods while achieving better calibration.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

TSVer: A Benchmark for Fact Verification Against Time-Series Evidence

Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking. While many systems have recently been developed to handle this form of evidence, their evaluation remains limited by existing datasets, which often lack structured evidence, provide insufficient justifications for verdicts, or rely on synthetic claims. In this paper, we introduce TSVer, a new benchmark dataset for fact verification focusing on temporal and numerical reasoning with time-series evidence. TSVer contains 304 real-world claims sourced from 41 fact-checking organizations and a curated database of 400 time series covering diverse domains. Each claim is annotated with time frames across all pertinent time series, along with a verdict and justifications reflecting how the evidence is used to reach the verdict. Using an LLM-assisted multi-step annotation process, we improve the quality of our annotations and achieve an inter-annotator agreement of kappa=0.77 on verdicts. We also develop a baseline for verifying claims against time-series evidence and show that even the state-of-the-art reasoning models like Gemini-2.5-Pro are challenged by time series, achieving a 63.57 accuracy score on verdicts and an Ev2R score of 47.36 on verdict justifications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Collaborative Evaluation of Deepfake Text with Deliberation-Enhancing Dialogue Systems

The proliferation of generative models has presented significant challenges in distinguishing authentic human-authored content from deepfake content. Collaborative human efforts, augmented by AI tools, present a promising solution. In this study, we explore the potential of DeepFakeDeLiBot, a deliberation-enhancing chatbot, to support groups in detecting deepfake text. Our findings reveal that group-based problem-solving significantly improves the accuracy of identifying machine-generated paragraphs compared to individual efforts. While engagement with DeepFakeDeLiBot does not yield substantial performance gains overall, it enhances group dynamics by fostering greater participant engagement, consensus building, and the frequency and diversity of reasoning-based utterances. Additionally, participants with higher perceived effectiveness of group collaboration exhibited performance benefits from DeepFakeDeLiBot. These findings underscore the potential of deliberative chatbots in fostering interactive and productive group dynamics while ensuring accuracy in collaborative deepfake text detection. \textit{Dataset and source code used in this study will be made publicly available upon acceptance of the manuscript.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Automatic Verification of Image-Text Claims (AVerImaTeC) Shared Task

The Automatic Verification of Image-Text Claims (AVerImaTeC) shared task aims to advance system development for retrieving evidence and verifying real-world image-text claims. Participants were allowed to either employ external knowledge sources, such as web search engines, or leverage the curated knowledge store provided by the organizers. System performance was evaluated using the AVerImaTeC score, defined as a conditional verdict accuracy in which a verdict is considered correct only when the associated evidence score exceeds a predefined threshold. The shared task attracted 14 submissions during the development phase and 6 submissions during the testing phase. All participating systems in the testing phase outperformed the baseline provided. The winning team, HUMANE, achieved an AVerImaTeC score of 0.5455. This paper provides a detailed description of the shared task, presents the complete evaluation results, and discusses key insights and lessons learned.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Multimodal Claim Extraction for Fact-Checking

Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) relies on claim extraction as a first step, yet existing methods largely overlook the multimodal nature of today's misinformation. Social media posts often combine short, informal text with images such as memes, screenshots, and photos, creating challenges that differ from both text-only claim extraction and well-studied multimodal tasks like image captioning or visual question answering. In this work, we present the first benchmark for multimodal claim extraction from social media, consisting of posts containing text and one or more images, annotated with gold-standard claims derived from real-world fact-checkers. We evaluate state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) under a three-part evaluation framework (semantic alignment, faithfulness, and decontextualization) and find that baseline MLLMs struggle to model rhetorical intent and contextual cues. To address this, we introduce MICE, an intent-aware framework which shows improvements in intent-critical cases.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Uncertainty Quantification for Evaluating Machine Translation Bias

The predictive uncertainty of machine translation (MT) models is typically used as a quality estimation proxy. In this work, we posit that apart from confidently translating when a single correct translation exists, models should also maintain uncertainty when the input is ambiguous. We use uncertainty to measure gender bias in MT systems. When the source sentence includes a lexeme whose gender is not overtly marked, but whose target-language equivalent requires gender specification, the model must infer the appropriate gender from the context and can be susceptible to biases. Prior work measured bias via gender accuracy, however it cannot be applied to ambiguous cases. Using semantic uncertainty, we are able to assess bias when translating both ambiguous and unambiguous source sentences, and find that high translation accuracy does not correlate with exhibiting uncertainty appropriately, and that debiasing affects the two cases differently.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Improving Zero-shot Sentence Decontextualisation with Content Selection and Planning

Extracting individual sentences from a document as evidence or reasoning steps is commonly done in many NLP tasks. However, extracted sentences often lack context necessary to make them understood, e.g., coreference and background information. To this end, we propose a content selection and planning framework for zero-shot decontextualisation, which determines what content should be mentioned and in what order for a sentence to be understood out of context. Specifically, given a potentially ambiguous sentence and its context, we first segment it into basic semantically-independent units. We then identify potentially ambiguous units from the given sentence, and extract relevant units from the context based on their discourse relations. Finally, we generate a content plan to rewrite the sentence by enriching each ambiguous unit with its relevant units. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach is competitive for sentence decontextualisation, producing sentences that exhibit better semantic integrity and discourse coherence, outperforming existing methods.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

TCP: a Benchmark for Temporal Constraint-Based Planning

Temporal reasoning and planning are essential capabilities for large language models (LLMs), yet most existing benchmarks evaluate them in isolation and under limited forms of complexity. To address this gap, we introduce the Temporal Constraint-based Planning (TCP) benchmark that jointly assesses both capabilities. Each instance in TCP features a naturalistic dialogue around a collaborative project, where diverse and interdependent temporal constraints are explicitly or implicitly expressed, and models must infer an optimal schedule that satisfies all constraints. To construct TCP, we generate abstract problem prototypes that are then paired with realistic scenarios from various domains and enriched into dialogues using an LLM. A human quality check is performed on a sampled subset to confirm the reliability of our benchmark. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and find that even the strongest models may struggle with TCP, highlighting its difficulty and revealing limitations in LLMs' temporal constraint-based planning abilities. We analyze underlying failure cases, open source our benchmark, and hope our findings can inspire future research.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Self-Exploring Language Models for Explainable Link Forecasting on Temporal Graphs via Reinforcement Learning

Forecasting future links is a central task in temporal graph (TG) reasoning, requiring models to leverage historical interactions to predict upcoming ones. Traditional neural approaches, such as temporal graph neural networks, achieve strong performance but lack explainability and cannot be applied to unseen graphs without retraining. Recent studies have begun to explore using large language models (LLMs) for graph reasoning, but most of them are constrained to static graphs or small synthetic TGs and lack the evaluation of the quality of reasoning traces generated by LLMs. In this work, we present Reasoning-Enhanced Learning for Temporal Graphs (ReaL-TG), a reinforcement learning framework that fine-tunes LLMs to perform explainable link forecasting on real-world TGs. ReaL-TG uses outcome-based reward to encourage models to self-explore reasoning strategies from graph structure and to produce explanations that directly justify their predictions. To enable evaluation on LLM-generated reasoning traces, we propose a new evaluation protocol combining ranking metrics with an LLM-as-a-Judge system that assesses both the quality of reasoning and the impact of hallucinations. Experiments with ReaL-TG-4B, obtained by fine-tuning Qwen3-4B under our framework, show that it outperforms much larger frontier LLMs, including GPT-5 mini, on ranking metrics, while producing high-quality explanations confirmed by both the LLM judge and human evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

AVerImaTeC: A Dataset for Automatic Verification of Image-Text Claims with Evidence from the Web

Textual claims are often accompanied by images to enhance their credibility and spread on social media, but this also raises concerns about the spread of misinformation. Existing datasets for automated verification of image-text claims remain limited, as they often consist of synthetic claims and lack evidence annotations to capture the reasoning behind the verdict. In this work, we introduce AVerImaTeC, a dataset consisting of 1,297 real-world image-text claims. Each claim is annotated with question-answer (QA) pairs containing evidence from the web, reflecting a decomposed reasoning regarding the verdict. We mitigate common challenges in fact-checking datasets such as contextual dependence, temporal leakage, and evidence insufficiency, via claim normalization, temporally constrained evidence annotation, and a two-stage sufficiency check. We assess the consistency of the annotation in AVerImaTeC via inter-annotator studies, achieving a $κ=0.742$ on verdicts and $74.7\%$ consistency on QA pairs. We also propose a novel evaluation method for evidence retrieval and conduct extensive experiments to establish baselines for verifying image-text claims using open-web evidence.

cs.CL↗