Refusal Is Not Robustness: Auditing Confident Fabrication in Large Language Models on a Provably Uninformative Clinical Pain Speech Transcript
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
arXiv:2608.26167 (cs)
[Submitted on 16 Jul 2026]
Title:Refusal Is Not Robustness: Auditing Confident Fabrication in Large Language Models on a Provably Uninformative Clinical Pain Speech Transcript
View a PDF of the paper titled Refusal Is Not Robustness: Auditing Confident Fabrication in Large Language Models on a Provably Uninformative Clinical Pain Speech Transcript, by Sagnik De and Sreenija Pavuluri
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Hallucination and abstention benchmarks rarely establish that a model could not have known the correct answer, making it difficult to distinguish appropriate abstention from an unsupported prediction. Seven large language models were evaluated on the TAME Pain speech corpus. Participants read phonetically balanced Harvard Sentences while one hand was immersed in cold or warm water and reported pain only during periodic pain statements. This protocol generated 5,750 no signal Harvard Sentence utterances whose transcripts contained no lexical pain information and 1,294 signal pain statement utterances in which the pain rating was explicitly spoken. In the no signal arm, pain was recoverable from acoustic features (AUC 0.622, 95% CI 0.553 to 0.662), whereas transcript based prediction was near chance (AUC 0.489, 95% CI 0.418 to 0.504). Because automatic speech recognition removes the acoustic pain cues, any pain score inferred solely from the transcript is unsupported by the available evidence. Under cooperative prompting, six models abstained on nearly all no signal transcripts, correctly extracted spoken pain ratings in the positive control task with accuracies ranging from 0.939 to 1.00, and maintained an expected calibration error of at most 0.100. Under authority framed prompts, abstention became prompt dependent, with the same model ranging from 0.18 to 1.00 across equivalent prompt phrasings. Most models produced low confidence estimates when forced to answer, whereas Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 3.1 8B consistently generated confident pain scores with confident fabrication rates of 0.53 and 0.76, compared with at most 0.15 for all other models. No significant demographic effects were observed in forced responses, with all $p$ values greater than or equal to 0.20.
| Comments: | 14 pages, 14 figures |
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Audio and Speech Processing (eess.AS) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.26167 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2608.26167v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26167
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Refusal Is Not Robustness: Auditing Confident Fabrication in Large Language Models on a Provably Uninformative Clinical Pain Speech Transcript, by Sagnik De and Sreenija Pavuluri
Current browse context:
cs.AI
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
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 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
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
SLM-Conditioned Hierarchical Relation Routing for Labeled Property Graph Learning
Aug 28
-
NeuronFuzz: Safety Neuron Guided Fuzzing for LLM Safety Evaluation
Aug 28
-
Pruning Binarized Neural Networks: A Dedicated Framework and Globally Weighted Algorithms
Aug 28
-
Muon with Finite Newton-Schulz: The Smoothing Benefit in Nonsmooth Nonconvex Optimization
Aug 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.