overfeed.news
Anuncio

Agendator

Reservas online gratis para tu barbería o salón.

Página de reservas, agenda y recordatorios por email. Sin cookies ni anuncios para tus clientes.

Crear mi página gratis

Empresa

Meta

478documentos

25últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

Stale-Document Poisoning: When Outdated Retrieval Overrides Correct Model Answers

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is often used to address outdated knowledge by providing external evidence. But retrieval helps only when that evidence is still valid. We identify a temporal alignment failure, stale-document poisoning, in which outdated evidence makes a model wrong despite answering correctly without retrieval. We construct a benchmark of 317 verified knowledge reversals across medicine, law, software, and platform policy, grounded in dated official sources. Across 12 models, recent medical reversals are harder than long-established ones. More importantly, outdated retrieval flips 30% of Llama and 37% of Qwen answers even without instructions to trust the document; explicit follow instructions raise these rates to 66% and 75%. Across four open models and four domains, poisoning ranges from 17-91%, while matched up-to-date evidence is followed in 97-100% of trials. To isolate temporal applicability, we keep the historical evidence unchanged across 50 reversals and vary only the evaluation date. A clear pattern emerges: dates alone produce only modest adaptation, but when models are explicitly told when the old evidence stops applying, the larger models switch to the appropriate answer almost perfectly. Causal interventions confirm that this validity information directly shapes the final decision. The same internal components also support broader comparison tasks, suggesting that temporal applicability can recruit a general reasoning mechanism used for other comparisons. Finally, a fixed recency-aware hybrid re-ranker reduces poisoning by 4.6-10.0 points when dates are accurate, with gains that depend on reliable temporal metadata. Reliable RAG therefore requires selective trust: models must determine not only what retrieved evidence says, but whether it still applies.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Evolutionary Safety of Recursive Self-Improving AI: Taxonomy, Risk Discovery, and Evaluation

Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, with increasingly capable systems taking larger roles in reasoning, decision-making, scientific discovery, and autonomous development. As AI begins to participate in its own improvement, from model training and experience accumulation to agent evolution and automated AI development, the prospect of recursive self-improvement (RSI) is becoming increasingly relevant. This transition raises a fundamental safety question: how can safety be maintained when the system, its accumulated experience, and even the process producing its successors continue to change? We introduce Evolutionary Safety as a perspective for studying safety under persistent and recursive self-improvement. It concerns not only whether an AI system is safe at a particular moment, but how safety properties change, persist, accumulate, and propagate throughout evolution. We characterize recurring manifestations, including intent drift, error accumulation, experience contamination, safety-property erosion, evaluator drift, and risk propagation. We then develop a taxonomy spanning persistent agent state, model state, evaluation and environmental feedback, computational substrate, and meta-level update mechanisms. Building on this taxonomy, we examine how evolutionary risks can be discovered and evaluated across states, updates, trajectories, and lineages, and derive governance principles for modification, selection, authorization, provenance, and recovery. Finally, we outline open problems toward maintaining safety guarantees as AI systems become increasingly persistent, adaptive, and recursively self-improving. Project resources and proposed evaluation systems are available at https://chaunceykung.github.io/evolutionary-safety-rsi.

en
arXiv AI Papers

R-DEIM Net: An Efficient Rationale-Augmented Dual-Expert Interaction Model for Paraphrase Detection

Recent advances in paraphrase detection reveal a fundamental trade-off: large language models achieve high accuracy but require high computation, while efficient Siamese-BERT variants offer practical scalability with reduced transparency in rationale generation. We present R-DEIM Net, a 76M-parameter dual-expert architecture exploring whether moderate-scale models can achieve competitive accuracy on paraphrase detection while enabling human-readable rationale generation. The architecture combines two specialized components: an Interaction Expert that captures token-level similarity patterns through multi-scale 2D convolutions and attention head allowing variable input length, and a Reasoning Expert that uses a Flan-T5-small decoder to generate rationales as auxiliary supervision. Rather than re-encoding generated text, we extract and pool decoder hidden states as complementary features for classification. On the Quora Question Pairs dataset, R-DEIM Net achieves 90.07\% accuracy and 90.16\% F1-score via 10-fold cross-validation. This represents competitive performance with strong transformer-based baselines (e.g., MFAE BERT: 90.54\% accuracy) and recent large language model based approaches (LLaMA-70B) while using a substantially smaller parameter budget. The model generates rationales alongside predictions, providing potential for auxiliary human-readable descriptions.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Return or Revise? Learning When Revision Helps Retrieval-Augmented QA

We consider the decision of whether to return an existing draft answer or revise it using retrieved evidence, as in answer-revision systems. Draft confidence estimates whether the current answer is correct, but the decision requires estimating the effect of a specified revision. For offline training and evaluation, we grade both the returned draft and its candidate revision under the same correctness judge, which makes repair, harm, and the gap to an oracle observable. We call this paired effect its recoverability, and we train policies to predict it before revision. On 25,870 held-out open-domain questions across three revision setups, a scorer trained on the paired outcome has greater area under the accuracy--revision-rate curve than a matched draft-correctness scorer in all nine Llama setup--seed fits, and gains 0.23--0.68 accuracy points on average at development-selected thresholds, a difference significant across training runs only for dense retrieval. The resulting policy improves on always revising and on average closes more than a third of the oracle gap, although it still applies 38--46% of the harmful revisions. When a draft-free standard-RAG answer is also available, however, choosing between the draft and that answer is stronger by about two points for Llama and four for OLMo, and adding candidate revision as a third option yields no significant gain. Recoverability describes one revision; its value as an available action also depends on the alternatives.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Just Ask Jev: Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Decisions as a Zero-Shot Detector of AI Alignment Failures

Detectors of alignment failures screen deployed language models and score alignment benchmarks. Most are generative judges that spend a decoding pass on every criterion, and classifiers that read token probabilities, such as Llama Guard, still score one fixed label per call. Jev, a model trained with reinforcement learning for calibrated decisions (RLCD), answers many typed questions about one input with calibrated probabilities in a single call. Whether it detects alignment failures has not been measured. We present RLCDAlignBench, which benchmarks Jev on ten alignment failures: sycophancy, jailbreaks, deception, prompt injection, hallucination, privacy violation, social bias, reward hacking, concealing uncertainty, and power seeking. It spans 44 benchmarks and five target models, labelled by each benchmark's scorer and, on two, by humans. Many of these failures are relational, defined against a reference, such as the user's belief or an injected instruction, that the response alone does not reveal. Our key idea is therefore to vary what Jev is asked separately from what it sees: the question's wording and answer type on one side, the fields of the input on the other. A single generic question reaches a median AUROC of 0.886 zero-shot and beats supervised baselines on most benchmarks. Question wording matters little, while context matters more, mostly through fields that encode the label. Jev matches the reference scorer's agreement with human labels, surfaces label defects in existing benchmarks, and costs 63x less than LLM-judge scorers. Code and data: https://github.com/sumleo/RLCDAlignBench.

en