arXiv:2601.05500v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmarking the capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores, whereas in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers there may be little difference between a random labeller and an expert. This characteristic also manifests when comparing models, where uncertainty obfuscates differences between poor and high performing models. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Using the probabilistic paradigm, we thus bring forth the concepts of expected accuracy and expected F1 and compare the estimated score an expert human or system can achieve given ground truth answer variability across 6 datasets and 9 models. The results lead to the recommendation that stratification by the probability of the ground truth answer becomes critical when expert performance is relatively low. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor -- uncertainty.

arXiv:2505.15062v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Knowledge extrapolation is the process of inferring novel information by combining and extending existing knowledge that is explicitly available. It is essential for solving complex questions in specialized domains where retrieving comprehensive external knowledge is impractical. We propose SAKE (Structured Agentic Knowledge Extrapolation), a RL powered agentic framework that trains LLMs to autonomously retrieve and extrapolate structured knowledge through tool-augmented reinforcement learning. SAKE defines two external KG tools: entity group construction and cross-group triplet retrieval. The model learns to interleave these 2 retrieval tools during a three-turn rollout: extracting key entities, filtering relevant concept groups, and associative reasoning by constructing new triplets through analogy. The entire pipeline is optimized end-to-end with GRPO using a curriculum reward, teaching the model what to retrieve and how to reason over it. Our experiments proved that SAKE fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B model surpasses GPT-3.5-Turbo with state-of-the-art agentic KG reasoning on both biomedical (75.4% vs. 70.1%) and commonsense (81.3% vs. 74.7%) benchmarks, while reducing token usage by over 90%. These results demonstrate that associative reasoning over incomplete structured knowledge does not requiring large models with complex, multi-step prompting, thus can be learned end-to-end by small, open-weight models through reinforcement learning with the right tools and training signal. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SAKE-7585.

arXiv:2603.29085v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) remain brittle on multi-hop question answering (MHQA), where answering requires combining evidence across documents through retrieval and reasoning. Iterative retrieval systems can fail by locking onto an early low-recall trajectory and amplifying downstream errors, while planning-only approaches may produce static query sets that cannot adapt when intermediate evidence changes. We propose \textbf{Planned Active Retrieval and Reasoning RAG (PAR$^2$-RAG)}, a two-stage framework that separates \emph{coverage} from \emph{commitment}. PAR$^2$-RAG first performs breadth-first anchoring to build a high-recall evidence frontier, then applies depth-first refinement with evidence sufficiency control in an iterative loop. Across four MHQA benchmarks, PAR$^2$-RAG consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art baselines, compared with IRCoT, PAR$^2$-RAG achieves up to \textbf{23.5\%} higher accuracy, with retrieval gains of up to \textbf{10.5\%} in NDCG.

arXiv:2510.02286v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite recent rapid progress in AI safety, current large language models remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks in multi-turn interaction settings, where attackers strategically adapt their prompts across conversation turns and pose a more critical yet realistic challenge. Existing approaches that discover safety vulnerabilities either rely on manual red-teaming with human experts or employ automated methods using pre-defined templates and human-curated attack data, with most focusing on single-turn attacks. However, these methods did not explore the vast space of possible multi-turn attacks, failing to consider novel attack trajectories that emerge from complex dialogue dynamics and strategic conversation planning. This gap is particularly critical given recent findings that LLMs exhibit significantly higher vulnerability to multi-turn attacks compared to single-turn attacks. We propose DialTree, an on-policy reinforcement learning framework integrated with tree search that autonomously discovers diverse multi-turn attack strategies by treating the dialogue as a sequential decision-making problem, enabling systematic exploration without manually curated data. Through extensive experiments, our approach not only achieves more than 44.2% higher ASR across 12 target models compared to previous state-of-the-art approaches, but also effectively uncovers new attack strategies by learning optimal dialogue policies that maximize attack success across multiple turns.

arXiv:2601.05500v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmarking the relative capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how - high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores, whereas in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers there may be little difference between a random labeller and an expert. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Using the probabilistic paradigm, we thus bring forth the concepts of expected accuracy and expected F1 to estimate the score an expert human or system can achieve given ground truth answer variability. Our work leads to the recommendation that when establishing the capability of a system, results should be stratified by probability of the ground truth answer, typically measured by the agreement rate of ground truth experts. Stratification becomes critical when the overall performance drops below a threshold of 80\%. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor -- uncertainty.