arXiv subjects

Fabrizio Davide

Publications and source records attributed to Fabrizio Davide.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Knowing, and Saying It Only When Asked: LLM Endognostics and the Schizognosis of Minerva-7B

Evaluating an aligned language model by reading its answers assumes the answers carry the distinction the evaluator cares about. We introduce LLM endognostics, a white-box internal auditing framework designed to extract and causally manipulate latent knowledge within the residual stream. Applied to Minerva-7B-Instruct-v1.0 on 124 minimal prompt pairs over 12 categories of professional risk, behavioral evaluation fails on most of the set: the model acts identically on 63.7% of the pairs (95% CI [55.0%, 71.6%]), complying with or refusing both members. Yet, projecting the residual stream onto the vocabulary by a Jacobian lens reveals a statistically significant Contrastive Endognostic Margin, proving the model maintains robust risk differentiation internally. In a second protocol crossing 25 facts with five linguistic framings, we show that the model conforms to presupposed falsehoods in 72% of cases, despite representing the true entity in its latent layers. Surgically ablating the direction of the planted falsehood restores the correct answer in 11 of 25 suppressed cases (McNemar p = 0.0010), validated by blind human annotation (binary agreement kappa = 0.68). In contrast, an out-of-sample linear probe achieves 77% accuracy at layer 10, but its orthogonal ablation yields a 0% recovery rate. This establishes a fundamental theoretical dissociation: abstract linear representation does not imply causal control over verbalization. Our main contribution is the formalization of endognostics to prove that behavioral evaluation and internal reading systematically disagree in the common case, and that linear decodability is decoupled from causal control.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Large Language Models for Automated Assessment of Student Essays in Higher Education

This study investigates the reliability and validity of five advanced Large Language Models (LLMs), Claude 3.5, DeepSeek v2, Gemini 2.5, GPT-4, and Mistral 24B, for automated essay scoring in a real world higher education context. A total of 67 Italian-language student essays, written as part of a university psychology course, were evaluated using a four-criterion rubric (Pertinence, Coherence, Originality, Feasibility). Each model scored all essays across three prompt replications to assess intra-model stability. Human-LLM agreement was consistently low and non-significant (Quadratic Weighted Kappa), and within-model reliability across replications was similarly weak (median Kendall's W < 0.30). Systematic scoring divergences emerged, including a tendency to inflate Coherence and inconsistent handling of context-dependent dimensions. Inter-model agreement analysis revealed moderate convergence for Coherence and Originality, but negligible concordance for Pertinence and Feasibility. Although limited in scope, these findings suggest that current LLMs may struggle to replicate human judgment in tasks requiring disciplinary insight and contextual sensitivity. Human oversight remains critical when evaluating open-ended academic work, particularly in interpretive domains.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

AI Predicts AGI: Leveraging AGI Forecasting and Peer Review to Explore LLMs' Complex Reasoning Capabilities

We tasked 16 state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) with estimating the likelihood of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) emerging by 2030. To assess the quality of these forecasts, we implemented an automated peer review process (LLM-PR). The LLMs' estimates varied widely, ranging from 3% (Reka- Core) to 47.6% (GPT-4o), with a median of 12.5%. These estimates closely align with a recent expert survey that projected a 10% likelihood of AGI by 2027, underscoring the relevance of LLMs in forecasting complex, speculative scenarios. The LLM-PR process demonstrated strong reliability, evidenced by a high Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC = 0.79), reflecting notable consistency in scoring across the models. Among the models, Pplx-70b-online emerged as the top performer, while Gemini-1.5-pro-api ranked the lowest. A cross-comparison with external benchmarks, such as LMSYS Chatbot Arena, revealed that LLM rankings remained consistent across different evaluation methods, suggesting that existing benchmarks may not encapsulate some of the skills relevant for AGI prediction. We further explored the use of weighting schemes based on external benchmarks, optimizing the alignment of LLMs' predictions with human expert forecasts. This analysis led to the development of a new, 'AGI benchmark' designed to highlight performance differences in AGI-related tasks. Our findings offer insights into LLMs' capabilities in speculative, interdisciplinary forecasting tasks and emphasize the growing need for innovative evaluation frameworks for assessing AI performance in complex, uncertain real-world scenarios.

cs.AI↗