mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Drill-Down and Fabricate Test (DDFT): A Protocol for Measuring Epistemic Robustness in Language Models

arXiv 2512.23850 ↗First posted 29 Dec 2025cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Current language model evaluations measure what models know under ideal conditions but not how robustly they know it under realistic stress. Static benchmarks like MMLU and TruthfulQA cannot distinguish a model that lacks knowledge from one whose verification mechanisms collapse when information degrades or adversaries probe for weaknesses. We introduce the Drill-Down and Fabricate Test (DDFT), a protocol that measures epistemic robustness: a model's ability to maintain factual accuracy under progressive semantic compression and adversarial fabrication. We propose a two-system cognitive model comprising a Semantic System that generates fluent text and an Epistemic Verifier that validates factual accuracy. Our findings, based on evaluating 9 frontier models across 8 knowledge domains at 5 compression levels (1,800 turn-level evaluations), reveal that epistemic robustness is orthogonal to conventional design paradigms. Neither parameter count (r=0.083, p=0.832) nor architectural type (r=0.153, p=0.695) significantly predicts robustness, suggesting it emerges from training methodology and verification mechanisms distinct from current approaches. Error detection capability strongly predicts overall robustness (rho=-0.817, p=0.007), indicating this is the critical bottleneck. We find that flagship models exhibit brittleness despite their scale, while smaller models can achieve robust performance, challenging assumptions about the relationship between model size and reliability. The DDFT framework provides both theoretical foundation and practical tools for assessing epistemic robustness before deployment in critical applications.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Dec 2025.

Builds on

15 of 25 references.

References · 15

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  4. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  5. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  6. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
  7. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
  8. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  9. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
  10. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
  11. 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,135
  12. 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
3 more
  1. 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
  2. 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 807
  3. 2023HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 341

Built on by

Not cited yet.