Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 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

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Carole Lunny, Ian Goodman, Stefano Berrone, Connor TA Brenna, Emma K Reid, Ivan Perez-Neri, Shailesh Kolekar, Nityanand Jain, Ashwin Kamath, Lucas HCC Santos, Yulia Otmakhova, Heba Hussein, Diana M Cespedes, Gioia Dahdal, Salmaan Kanji. 2026-10-29. 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. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39070

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Invert4TVG: A Temporal Video Grounding Framework with Inversion Tasks Preserving Action Understanding Ability

Temporal Video Grounding (TVG) aims to localize video segments corresponding to a given textual query, which often describes human actions. However, we observe that current methods, usually optimizing for high temporal Intersection-over-Union (IoU), frequently struggle to accurately recognize or understand the underlying actions in both the video and query, thus reducing the effectiveness of these methods. To address this, we propose a novel TVG framework that integrates inversion-based TVG as auxiliary objectives to maintain the model's action understanding ability. We introduce three kinds of inversion TVG tasks derived from the original TVG annotations: (1) Verb Completion, predicting masked verbs (actions) in queries given video segments; (2) Action Recognition, identifying query-described actions; and (3) Video Description, generating descriptions containing query-relevant actions given video segments. These inversion tasks are entirely derived from the original TVG tasks and are probabilistically integrated with them within a reinforcement learning framework. By leveraging carefully designed reward functions, the model preserves its ability to understand actions, thereby improving the accuracy of temporal grounding. Experiments show our method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, achieving a 7.1\% improvement in R1@0.7 on Charades-STA for a 3B model.

cs.AI↗

Pharos-ESG: A Framework for Multimodal Parsing, Contextual Narration, and Hierarchical Labeling of ESG Report

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles are reshaping the foundations of global financial governance, transforming capital allocation architectures, regulatory frameworks, and systemic risk coordination mechanisms. However, as the core medium for assessing corporate ESG performance, the ESG reports present significant challenges for large-scale understanding, due to chaotic reading order from slide-like irregular layouts and implicit hierarchies arising from lengthy, weakly structured content. To address these challenges, we propose Pharos-ESG, a unified framework that transforms ESG reports into structured representations through multimodal parsing, contextual narration, and hierarchical labeling. It integrates a reading-order modeling module based on layout flow, hierarchy-aware segmentation guided by table-of-contents anchors, and a multi-modal aggregation pipeline that contextually transforms visual elements into coherent natural language. The framework further enriches its outputs with ESG, GRI, and sentiment labels, yielding annotations aligned with the analytical demands of financial research. Extensive experiments on annotated benchmarks demonstrate that Pharos-ESG consistently outperforms both dedicated document parsing systems and general-purpose multimodal models. In addition, we release Aurora-ESG, the first large-scale public dataset of ESG reports, spanning Mainland China, Hong Kong, and U.S. markets, featuring unified structured representations of multi-modal content, enriched with fine-grained layout and semantic annotations to better support ESG integration in financial governance and decision-making.

cs.AI↗

PRISM: Pushing the Frontier of Deep Think via Process Reward Model-Guided Inference

DEEPTHINK methods improve reasoning by generating, refining, and aggregating populations of candidate solutions, which enables strong performance on complex mathematical and scientific tasks. However, existing frameworks can still suffer from unreliable correctness signals during inference, which creates a population- enhancement bottleneck where deeper deliberation amplifies errors, suppresses correct minority solutions, and yields weak returns to additional compute. In this paper, we introduce a functional decomposition of DEEPTHINK systems and propose PRISM, a Process Reward Model (PRM)-guided inference algorithm that uses step-level verification to guide resampling, proposal acceptance, and solution aggregation. During refinement, PRISM uses PRM scores to guide population resampling and stochastic local refinement, which concentrates computation on higher-quality reasoning while preserving diversity. When paired with PRM- score-vote, a PRM-guided aggregation method, PRISM is competitive with or outperforms existing DEEPTHINK methods, reaching 90.0%, 75.4%, and 71.4% with gpt-oss-20b on AIME25, HMMT25, and GPQA Diamond, respectively, while exceeding gpt-oss-120b. Additionally, our analysis shows that PRISM produces consistent net-directional correction during refinement and maintains competitive accuracy when the initial population contains few correct candidates.

cs.AI↗