aiqbench analysis
This study exposes a critical vulnerability in LLMs where models confidently fabricate pain scores from transcripts that lack the necessary acoustic evidence, distinguishing true abstention from hallucination. The findings highlight how prompt framing significantly impacts model reliability, with specific architectures like Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 3.1 8B demonstrating notably higher rates of confident fabrication under authority-based instructions. For developers deploying AI in sensitive domains like healthcare, this underscores the urgent need for robust auditing protocols that verify whether a model's confidence is grounded in actual data availability rather than statistical artifact.
Refusal Is Not Robustness: Auditing Confident Fabrication in Large Language Models on a Provably Uninformative Clinical Pain Speech Transcript
arXiv:2608.26167v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hallucination and abstention benchmarks rarely establish that a model could not have known the correct answer, making it difficult to distinguish appropriate abstention from an unsupported prediction. Seven large language models were evaluated on the TAME Pain speech corpus. Participants read phonetically balanced Harvard Sentences while one hand was immersed in cold or warm water and reported pain only during periodic pain statements. This protocol generated 5,750 no signal Harvard Sentence utterances whose transcripts contained no lexical pain information and 1,294 signal pain statement utterances in which the pain rating was explicitly spoken. In the no signal arm, pain was recoverable from acoustic features (AUC 0.622, 95% CI 0.553 to 0.662), whereas transcript based prediction was near chance (AUC 0.489, 95% CI 0.418 to 0.504). Because automatic speech recognition removes the acoustic pain cues, any pain score inferred solely from the transcript is unsupported by the available evidence. Under cooperative prompting, six models abstained on nearly all no signal transcripts, correctly extracted spoken pain ratings in the positive control task with accuracies ranging from 0.939 to 1.00, and maintained an expected calibration error of at most 0.100. Under authority framed prompts, abstention became prompt dependent, with the same model ranging from 0.18 to 1.00 across equivalent prompt phrasings. Most models produced low confidence estimates when forced to answer, whereas Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 3.1 8B consistently generated confident pain scores with confident fabrication rates of 0.53 and 0.76, compared with at most 0.15 for all other models. No significant demographic effects were observed in forced responses, with all $p$ values greater than or equal to 0.20.
Abstract:Hallucination and abstention benchmarks rarely establish that a model could not have known the correct answer, making it difficult to distinguish appropriate abstention from an unsupported prediction. Seven large language models were evaluated on the TAME Pain speech corpus. Participants read phonetically balanced Harvard Sentences while one hand was immersed in cold or warm water and reported pain only during periodic pain statements. This protocol generated 5,750 no signal Harvard Sentence utterances whose transcripts contained no lexical pain information and 1,294 signal pain statement utterances in which the pain rating was explicitly spoken. In the no signal arm, pain was recoverable from acoustic features (AUC 0.622, 95% CI 0.553 to 0.662), whereas transcript based prediction was near chance (AUC 0.489, 95% CI 0.418 to 0.504). Because automatic speech recognition removes the acoustic pain cues, any pain score inferred solely from the transcript is unsupported by the available evidence. Under cooperative prompting, six models abstained on nearly all no signal transcripts, correctly extracted spoken pain ratings in the positive control task with accuracies ranging from 0.939 to 1.00, and maintained an expected calibration error of at most 0.100. Under authority framed prompts, abstention became prompt dependent, with the same model ranging from 0.18 to 1.00 across equivalent prompt phrasings. Most models produced low confidence estimates when forced to answer, whereas Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 3.1 8B consistently generated confident pain scores with confident fabrication rates of 0.53 and 0.76, compared with at most 0.15 for all other models. No significant demographic effects were observed in forced responses, with all $p$ values greater than or equal to 0.20.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Audio and Speech Processing (eess.AS)
arXiv:2608.26167 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.26167v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26167 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 372 words
Related coverage

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

What We Learned Trying to Catch AI Liars: An Aletheia's Quest Retrospective
EleutherAI · Aug 25, 2026

Does distilling Claude carry the persona with it?
LessWrong · Jul 24, 2026