Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.05031

When LLMs Sit Above Diagnostic Tools: Unrealized Complementarity in Industrial Fault Diagnosis

Donghwan Kim
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly used as integration layers above specialized tools, but a stronger component does not necessarily produce a stronger combined system. Across five diagnostic datasets (bearing vibration, process monitoring, semiconductor equipment), we study whether an LLM can reliably use external diagnostic information; paired repeat calls separate advice effects from output instability. In all five, conflicting external information overturned initially correct LLM judgments. Among the four datasets with direct integration comparisons, none showed a consistent advantage for implicit LLM integration over the stronger standalone source. On a Tennessee Eastman confirmation set whose protocol was fixed before evaluation, unaided accuracy was 64.67%, implicit LLM-specialist integration 77.43%, and the specialist alone 83.33%. Specialist information improved the LLM by 12.8 points (95% interval 9.7 to 15.9), yet the integrated output stayed 5.9 points below the specialist (95% interval -12.0 to -0.7). A two-source selector oracle reached 92.76%, indicating complementarity that the integrated output did not fully realize. The integrated output missed 140 of 295 specialist corrections (47.5%) but lost 15 of 99 initially correct LLM judgments (15.2%). The deficit remained under prompt and specialist sensitivity analyses. Among CWRU cases solved under both evidence presentations, task-aligned physical evidence yielded lower estimates of susceptibility to incorrect advice in six of seven models (five intervals excluding zero); higher reasoning effort gave no reliable reduction in five models, and a separate four-model TEP analysis gave no clear evidence that it resolves the integration problem. Source quality and integration quality should be evaluated separately: an integration layer should be compared with its stronger standalone component, not only with the unaided LLM.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Donghwan Kim. 2026-10-04. When LLMs Sit Above Diagnostic Tools: Unrealized Complementarity in Industrial Fault Diagnosis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05031

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

FullFront: Benchmarking MLLMs Across the Full Front-End Engineering Workflow

Front-end engineering involves a complex workflow where engineers conceptualize designs, translate them into code, and iteratively refine the implementation. While recent benchmarks primarily focus on converting visual designs to code, we present FullFront, a benchmark designed to evaluate Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) \textbf{across the full front-end development pipeline}. FullFront assesses three fundamental tasks that map directly to the front-end engineering pipeline: Webpage Design (conceptualization phase), Webpage Perception QA (comprehension of visual organization and elements), and Webpage Code Generation (implementation phase). Unlike existing benchmarks that use either scraped websites with bloated code or oversimplified LLM-generated HTML, FullFront employs a novel, two-stage process to transform real-world webpages into clean, standardized HTML while maintaining diverse visual designs and avoiding copyright issues. Extensive testing of state-of-the-art MLLMs reveals significant limitations in page perception, code generation (particularly for image handling and layout), and interaction implementation. Our results quantitatively demonstrate performance disparities across models and tasks, and highlight a substantial gap between current MLLM capabilities and human expert performance in front-end engineering. The FullFront benchmark and code are available in https://github.com/Mikivishy/FullFront.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Sparse Autoencoders Can Capture Language-Specific Concepts Across Diverse Languages

Understanding the multilingual mechanisms of large language models (LLMs) provides insight into how they process different languages, yet this remains challenging. Existing studies often focus on individual neurons, but their polysemantic nature makes it difficult to isolate language-specific units from cross-lingual representations. To address this, we explore sparse autoencoders (SAEs) for their ability to learn monosemantic features that represent concrete and abstract concepts across languages in LLMs. While some of these features are language-independent, the presence of language-specific features remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce $\textit{SAE-LAPE}$, a method based on feature activation probability, to identify language-specific features within the feed-forward network. We find that many such features predominantly appear in the middle to late layers of the model and are interpretable. These features influence the model's multilingual performance and language output, and can be used for language identification with performance comparable to fastText, along with more interpretability. Our code and complete figures are available at https://github.com/LyzanderAndrylie/language-specific-features.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

MCA: Modality Composition Awareness for Robust Composed Multimodal Retrieval

Multimodal retrieval, which seeks to retrieve relevant content across modalities such as text or image, supports applications from AI search to contents production. Despite the success of separate-encoder approaches like CLIP aligning modality-specific embeddings with contrastive learning, recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) enable a unified encoder that directly processes composed inputs. While flexible and advanced, we identify that unified encoders trained with conventional contrastive learning are prone to learn modality shortcut, leading to poor robustness under distribution shifts. We propose a modality composition awareness framework to mitigate this issue. Concretely, it consists of a preference loss enforces multimodal embeddings to outperform their unimodal counterparts, and a composition regularization objective aligns multimodal embeddings with prototypes composed from its unimodal parts. These objectives explicitly model structural relationships between the composed representation and its unimodal counterparts. Experiments on various benchmarks show gains in out-of-distribution retrieval, highlighting modality composition awareness as a effective principle for robust composed multimodal retrieval when utilizing MLLMs as the unified encoder.

cs.CL↗