Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study introduces Probity, a benchmark designed to audit instability in document-grounded language models by distinguishing between missing evidence and computational errors. The research reveals that even when text windows are optimized to include all necessary information, inherent model instability persists, challenging assumptions about how benchmark design alone can ensure reliability. By releasing a comprehensive corpus of raw responses and an auditing tool, the authors provide critical infrastructure for evaluating the robustness of AI systems on complex financial documents.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

What the Window Does Not Contain: Auditing Provenance in a Document-Grounded Instability Benchmark

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.06147v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ask a language model the same question about the same document twenty times, and it sometimes returns two different answers. We built Probity, a benchmark of 60 tasks and 470 items from real venture-financing filings, to measure how often this happens. Then we audited our own corpus and found a defect any excerpt-built benchmark can carry: items whose evidence is missing from the window of text the model is shown. The audit flags 36 items and separates two failures a single flag would conflate: evidence genuinely absent from the window and answers that must be computed from numbers the window does supply. Flagged items change their answers far more often, wobbling at 0.255 against 0.087 on the 427 clean items, and excluding them cuts apparent cross-model agreement by about a fifth. Before testing whether the missing evidence explains the instability, we registered a prediction: re-cut each window to hold its evidence, and instability should fall below a set threshold. It failed: the repair moved wobble by 0.058, with an interval containing zero. We report the association as correlational. Almost all measurements sit where instability cannot show, which bounds what a corpus built for accuracy can say about stability. We release the corpus, all 112,800 raw responses, and the audit as a runnable check for any document benchmark.

Abstract:Ask a language model the same question about the same document twenty times, and it sometimes returns two different answers. We built Probity, a benchmark of 60 tasks and 470 items from real venture-financing filings, to measure how often this happens. Then we audited our own corpus and found a defect any excerpt-built benchmark can carry: items whose evidence is missing from the window of text the model is shown. The audit flags 36 items and separates two failures a single flag would conflate: evidence genuinely absent from the window and answers that must be computed from numbers the window does supply. Flagged items change their answers far more often, wobbling at 0.255 against 0.087 on the 427 clean items, and excluding them cuts apparent cross-model agreement by about a fifth. Before testing whether the missing evidence explains the instability, we registered a prediction: re-cut each window to hold its evidence, and instability should fall below a set threshold. It failed: the repair moved wobble by 0.058, with an interval containing zero. We report the association as correlational. Almost all measurements sit where instability cannot show, which bounds what a corpus built for accuracy can say about stability. We release the corpus, all 112,800 raw responses, and the audit as a runnable check for any document benchmark.

Accepted as a poster at the 11th Workshop on Financial Technology and NLP (FinNLP 2026), co-located with EMNLP 2026. Code and data: this https URL

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.06147 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.06147v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.06147 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 · 343 words

Related coverage