analiza aiqbench
This study reveals a critical gap in current LLM evaluation metrics, showing that models often fail to reject physically impossible engineering problems even when they internally recognize the flaw. The research demonstrates that simply achieving high accuracy on valid inputs is insufficient; robust assessment must explicitly measure a model's ability to distinguish and refuse flawed premises without compromising its performance on correct tasks.
Language models can notice an impossible engineering problem yet still report it as solved
arXiv:2610.06668v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models draft engineering calculations, but answer accuracy does not show whether they reject an impossible problem. We tested 14 models on 30 pairs of mechanics problems, each with a valid version and one made impossible by changing a given value or assumption. Two independent solvers verified every answer key and showed that each flawed problem was physically impossible. We scored solving of valid problems separately from rejection of their flawed counterparts. Each reply required a "solved" or "cannot solve" status; rejection meant "cannot solve" or withholding an answer. The initial prompts did not warn that problems could be flawed. Across three recent models, 12 of 90 replies failed to reject a flawed problem. In 11 of these replies, the model stated the flaw, answered a corrected problem and still reported the original as "solved", according to artificial intelligence raters and numerical checks. We later retested four models from one provider, offering "flawed" instead of "cannot solve" and asking them to name and explain the defect. Three models showed statistically significant increases in rejection, but valid-problem solving fell in three. Evaluations therefore need to score both versions and distinguish flaw recognition from the reported status.
Abstract:Language models draft engineering calculations, but answer accuracy does not show whether they reject an impossible problem. We tested 14 models on 30 pairs of mechanics problems, each with a valid version and one made impossible by changing a given value or assumption. Two independent solvers verified every answer key and showed that each flawed problem was physically impossible. We scored solving of valid problems separately from rejection of their flawed counterparts. Each reply required a "solved" or "cannot solve" status; rejection meant "cannot solve" or withholding an answer. The initial prompts did not warn that problems could be flawed. Across three recent models, 12 of 90 replies failed to reject a flawed problem. In 11 of these replies, the model stated the flaw, answered a corrected problem and still reported the original as "solved", according to artificial intelligence raters and numerical checks. We later retested four models from one provider, offering "flawed" instead of "cannot solve" and asking them to name and explain the defect. Three models showed statistically significant increases in rejection, but valid-problem solving fell in three. Evaluations therefore need to score both versions and distinguish flaw recognition from the reported status.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.06668 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.06668v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06668 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Fig1_outcomes.csv
Fig4_solving.csv
Fig5_contrasts.csv
Fig5_rejection.csv
Fig5_warning.csv
Fig6_reliability.csv
Fig6_time_tokens.csv
(3 additional files not shown) You must enabled JavaScript to view entire file list.
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 320 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · 15 iul. 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · 24 sept. 2026