Walking on the DARKSIDE
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) do not natively track the path of exclusions that a coherent discourse demands. When an input rests on a fabricated authority, a misapplied mechanism, or a surreptitious analogy, an unsteered LLM tends to engage with it as if it were well-posed, and this affects its generation. POLANYI++, an LLM-steering method that uses heuristics, ontologies and problem-solving methods for tacit-knowledge extraction, produces an Extended Knowledge Graph (XKG) in OWL2, but when a sophisticated nonsensical input is reified into the graph alongside the legitimate triples, it gets hardly detectable by automated reasoners, since the XKG is generated jointly with the wrong assumptions. We introduce DARKSIDE, a coherence-auditing method on top of POLANYI++. DARKSIDE formalises an explicit data structure of accumulated exclusions over discourse time, complemented by a warrant axis that classifies each named referent as Warranted, Unattested, Misattributed or Fabricated. The method is anchored in nine theoretical fragments unified under a shared deep frame of path integrity. The resulting DARKPOLANYI is evaluated as a steering layer over Gemini 3 on BSBench, a 100-item adversarial corpus of sophisticated-sounding nonsense across multiple domains, with Claude Sonnet 4.6 as an independent judge. DARKPOLANYI scores 1.89/2 mean versus 0.95/2 for the unsteered Gemini 3 Pro baseline; on the 97 cases with valid judgments in both arms, paired McNemar gives a paired bootstrap mean-diff = +0.92 (95% CI [+0.75, +1.08], p = 0.0001). The evidence supports an architectural claim: when an LLM forward pass is wrapped in an ontology-mediated auditing, structurally inevitable hallucination can be partially recovered. The XKG functions as the missing memory that LLMs lack, and the warrant axis as an epistemic firewall.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.
Builds on
17 of 43 references.
References · 17
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2024Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Modelscited by 332
- 2023Reasoning or Reciting? Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Through Counterfactual Taskscited by 246
- 2025MultiChallenge: A Realistic Multi-Turn Conversation Evaluation Benchmark Challenging to Frontier LLMscited by 180
- 2023Self-contradictory Hallucinations of Large Language Models: Evaluation, Detection and Mitigationcited by 124
- 2024Does Spatial Cognition Emerge in Frontier Models?cited by 66
- 2023A Benchmark to Understand the Role of Knowledge Graphs on Large Language Model's Accuracy for Question Answering on Enterprise SQL Databasescited by 25
- 2025Finding Flawed Fictions: Evaluating Complex Reasoning in Language Models via Plot Hole Detectioncited by 24
- 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failurescited by 21
- 2025Remote Labor Index: Measuring AI Automation of Remote Workcited by 20
5 more
- 2026Intelligent AI Delegationcited by 18
- 2024Strong hallucinations from negation and how to fix themcited by 6
- 2024Neurosymbolic Graph Enrichment for Grounded World Modelscited by 6
- 2025Mary, the Cheeseburger-Eating Vegetarian: Do LLMs Recognize Incoherence in Narratives?cited by 2
- 2025Embedding Trust: Semantic Isotropy Predicts Nonfactuality in Long-Form Text Generationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.