mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Replication Without Persistence in Hosted LLMs: Measurement Sensitivity in Action-Time Belief Evaluation

arXiv 2609.22478 ↗First posted 18 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Behavioural evaluations of hosted language models can vary because the evaluated service, the measurement instrument, or both differ across runs. We separate three validation questions: whether a prior finding recurs on fresh data under its historical configuration (replication), whether the endpoint changes when the evaluation-and-inference configuration is rebuilt under the same identifier (measurement sensitivity), and whether the finding persists across subsequently tested identifiers under one common instrument (persistence). We study these questions in Regent Chess, a sequential environment in which a hidden, mutable state is recorded exactly, allowing stated beliefs to be scored against ground truth at action time; positive endpoint values mean worse performance than a matched-uniform comparator. The previously reported Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite deficit recurs on fresh games under its historical configuration (+0.0530, 95% CI [+0.0329,+0.0714]). In a back-to-back same-day H/R comparison under the same public identifier, the model-minus-uniform endpoint is 0.0429 lower under the rebuilt configuration (95% CI for the H-minus-R contrast [+0.0182,+0.0667]); all six configuration components vary jointly, so no component is isolated. Under rebuilt R, the prospectively frozen, interleaved same-window 4K comparison reverses sign between Gemini 3.1 and Gemini 3.7, identifiers that differ in release and product tier; additional descriptive and exploratory cells show the same directional pattern. Any additional serving-period contribution remains unresolved (-0.0166, [-0.0483,+0.0157]). Replication, measurement sensitivity, and persistence can therefore yield different conclusions within one evaluation, motivating explicit indexing of hosted-model behavioural claims by tested identifier, serving period, measurement instrument, and inference configuration.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2026.

Builds on

12 of 15 references.

References · 12

  1. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  2. 2024Taming Overconfidence in LLMs: Reward Calibration in RLHFcited by 112
  3. 2025Calibrating Verbalized Confidence with Self-Generated Distractorscited by 14
  4. 2025WOLF: Werewolf-based Observations for LLM Deception and Falsehoodscited by 13
  5. 2026Agent-BRACE: Decoupling Beliefs from Actions in Long-Horizon Tasks via Verbalized State Uncertaintycited by 10
  6. 2026BayesBench: Evaluating LLM Belief Trajectories Under Multi-Turn Evidence Accumulationcited by 7
  7. 2025When Benchmarks Age: Temporal Misalignment through Large Language Model Factuality Evaluationcited by 6
  8. 2026Same Answer, Different Confidence: Protocol Sensitivity in LLM Confidence Calibrationcited by 6
  9. 2026Probing Materials Knowledge in LLMs: From Latent Embeddings to Reliable Predictionscited by 2
  10. 2026MafiaScope: Non-Invasive, Time-Resolved Belief Probing for LLM Agents in Social Deduction Gamescited by 2
  11. 2026ConfidenceBench: Evaluating Confidence Calibration in Large Language Modelscited by 2
  12. 2026Confident at the moment of action: belief miscalibration in LLM play under hidden informationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.