本文にスキップ
AI News HubLIVE
原典の内容 · 翻訳・分析待ち2 分で読了

翻訳待ち:What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA

記事の要約

AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。ソース概要:arXiv:2610.00018v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Role-specialized QA pipelines increasingly pass rationales from a reasoner to a verifier, but it is unclear what this message actually buys: better answers, stronger support assessment, or a new failure surface. We introduce a message-intervention diagnostic that fixes the evidence and candidate answer while varying only the rationale passed across the reasoner-to-verifier boundary. On 400 MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultiHopQA examples with DeepSeek as generator and verifier, faithful rationales add almost no answer accuracy over no rationale, while corrupted rationales strongly alter support judgments. Under a blind verifier prompt, harmless paraphrases shift support by only 0--2.5%, whereas corrupte…

ソースarXiv AI著者: Jiameng Zhang, Hongqiu Wu
翻訳待ち:What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA
誤りを報告

訂正窓口はまだ利用できません。記事情報をコピーして保存できます。

訂正案内
本文へ

AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。

[Submitted on 27 Jul 2026] Title:What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA View a PDF of the paper titled What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA, by Jiameng Zhang and 1 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Role-specialized QA pipelines increasingly pass rationales from a reasoner to a verifier, but it is unclear what this message actually buys: better answers, stronger support assessment, or a new failure surface. We introduce a message-intervention diagnostic that fixes the evidence and candidate answer while varying only the rationale passed across the reasoner-to-verifier boundary. On 400 MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultiHopQA examples with DeepSeek as generator and verifier, faithful rationales add almost no answer accuracy over no rationale, while corrupted rationales strongly alter support judgments. Under a blind verifier prompt, harmless paraphrases shift support by only 0--2.5%, whereas corrupted rationales shift support by 10--22%; an explicit rationale-checking prompt amplifies the same pattern to 34--55%. Final answers move less (2--30%), and only 2.9--35.3% of corrupted support flips co-occur with answer changes. Human audits show why this matters: 16/42 valid corruptions are corruption-overtrust cases, and blind humans reject or mark unclear 9/10 audited corrupted rationales that the model accepts. Cross-model and task-boundary checks show when the channel is active, amplified, inert, or folded into the task label. Rationale sharing should be evaluated as a verification-message mechanism, not merely as a route to higher answer accuracy. Comments: 14 pages, 6 figures, 9 tables. Preprint Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2610.00018 [cs.AI] (or arXiv:2610.00018v1 [cs.AI] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00018 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Jiameng Zhang [view email] [v1] Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:52:20 UTC (1,405 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA, by Jiameng Zhang and 1 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.AI new | recent | 2026-10 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators 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. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

要点と分析を開く

記事インテリジェンス

研究者上級

要点

  • AI 生成が一時的に利用できないため、ソース内容とフォールバックメタデータを保存しました。
  • arXiv:2610.00018v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Role-specialized QA pipelines increasingly pass rationales from a reasoner to a verifier, but it is unclear what this message actua…

要点と分析は自動生成され、誤りを含む場合があります。原典をご確認ください。