Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.16244

More Rounds, More Noise: Why Multi-Turn Review Fails to Improve Cross-Context Verification

Song Tae-Eun
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Cross-Context Review (CCR) improves LLM verification by separating production and review into independent sessions. A natural extension is multi-turn review: letting the reviewer ask follow-up questions, receive author responses, and review again. We call this Dynamic Cross-Context Review (D-CCR). In a controlled experiment with 30 artifacts and 150 injected errors, we tested four D-CCR variants against the single-pass CCR baseline. Single-pass CCR (F1 = 0.376) significantly outperformed all multi-turn variants, including D-CCR-2b with question-and-answer exchange (F1 = 0.303, $p < 0.001$, $d = -0.59$). Multi-turn review increased recall (+0.08) but generated 62% more false positives (8.5 vs. 5.2), collapsing precision from 0.30 to 0.20. Two mechanisms drive this degradation: (1) false positive pressure -- reviewers in later rounds fabricate findings when the artifact's real errors have been exhausted, and (2) Review Target Drift -- reviewers provided with prior Q&A exchanges shift from reviewing the artifact to critiquing the conversation itself. Independent re-review without prior context (D-CCR-2c) performed worst (F1 = 0.263), confirming that mere repetition degrades rather than helps. The degradation stems from false positive pressure in additional rounds, not from information amount -- within multi-turn conditions, more information actually helps (D-CCR-2b > D-CCR-2a). The problem is not what the reviewer sees, but that reviewing again invites noise.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Song Tae-Eun. 2026-03-17. More Rounds, More Noise: Why Multi-Turn Review Fails to Improve Cross-Context Verification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16244

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Geometric Uncertainty for Detecting and Correcting Hallucinations in LLMs

Large language models are known to hallucinate, generating linguistically plausible but incorrect answers to questions. Uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a strategy to detect such behaviour, but existing methods lack a unified framework to assess reliability at both the prompt and answer level. We introduce a geometric framework which quantifies language model uncertainty at both levels by explicitly modelling a prompt-conditioned semantic distribution in answer embedding space. Our approach is black-box and sampling-based; we generate multiple answers per prompt, and use archetypal analysis to estimate a geometric support for the answer distribution. At the prompt level, we approximate the distribution entropy to quantify uncertainty; for each individual answer, we then use notions of atypicality to assess its reliability relative to the batch. We employ our framework to not only detect hallucinations but correct them, by selecting the batch example deemed most reliable. Experiments show that our framework performs comparably to or better than prior methods on short form question-answering datasets, and achieves superior results on medical datasets where hallucinations carry particularly critical risks. Beyond pure performance, we suggest the theoretical grounding of our work provides support for semantic distributions as useful objects of study for language model uncertainty.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Calibrated Confidence Expression for Radiology Report Generation

Safe deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) in radiology report generation requires not only accurate predictions but also clinically interpretable indicators of when outputs should be thoroughly reviewed, enabling selective radiologist verification and reducing the risk of hallucinated findings influencing clinical decisions. One intuitive approach to this is verbalized confidence, where the model explicitly states its certainty. However, current state-of-the-art language models are often overconfident, and research on calibration in multimodal settings such as radiology report generation is limited. To address this gap, we introduce ConRad (Confidence Calibration for Radiology Reports), a reinforcement learning framework for fine-tuning medical LVLMs to produce calibrated verbalized confidence estimates alongside radiology reports. We study two settings: a single report-level confidence score and a sentence-level variant assigning a confidence to each claim. Both are trained using the GRPO algorithm with reward functions based on the logarithmic scoring rule, which incentivizes truthful self-assessment by penalizing miscalibration and guarantees optimal calibration under reward maximization. Experimentally, ConRad substantially improves calibration and outperforms competing methods. In a clinical evaluation we show that ConRad's report level scores are well aligned with clinicians' judgment. By highlighting full reports or low-confidence statements for targeted review, ConRad can support safer clinical integration of AI-assistance for report generation.

cs.CL↗