Integrating the understanding and reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLM) with the self-learning capabilities of Reinforcement Learning (RL) enables more reliable driving performance under complex driving conditions. There has been a lot of work exploring LLM-Dominated RL methods in the field of autonomous driving motion planning. These methods, which utilize LLM to directly generate policies or provide decisive instructions during policy learning of RL agent, are centrally characterized by an over-reliance on LLM outputs. However, LLM outputs are susceptible to hallucinations. Evaluations show that state-of-theart LLM indicates a non-hallucination rate of only approximately 57.95% when assessed on essential driving-related tasks. Thus, in these methods, hallucinations from the LLM can directly jeopardize the performance of driving policies.

Integrating the understanding and reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLM) with the self-learning capabilities of Reinforcement Learning (RL) enables more reliable driving performance under complex driving conditions. There has been a lot of work exploring LLM-Dominated RL methods in the field of autonomous driving motion planning. These methods, which utilize LLM to directly generate policies or provide decisive instructions during policy learning of RL agent, are centrally characterized by an over-reliance on LLM outputs. However, LLM outputs are susceptible to hallucinations. Evaluations show that state-of-the-art LLM indicates a non-hallucination rate of only approximately 57.95\% when assessed on essential driving-related tasks. Thus, in these methods, hallucinations from the LLM can directly jeopardize the performance of driving policies.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a dominant AI paradigm due to their exceptional text understanding and generation capabilities. However, their tendency to generate inconsistent or erroneous outputs challenges their reliability, especially in high-stakes domains requiring accuracy and trustworthiness. Existing research primarily focuses on detecting and mitigating model misbehavior in general-purpose scenarios, often overlooking the potential of integrating domain-specific knowledge. In this work, we advance misbehavior detection by incorporating domain knowledge. The core idea is to design a general specification language that enables domain experts to customize domain-specific constraints in a lightweight and intuitive manner, supporting later runtime monitoring of LLM outputs.

Uncertainty quantification in Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for applications where safety and reliability are important. In particular, uncertainty can be used to improve the trustworthiness of LLMs by detecting factually incorrect model responses, commonly called hallucinations. Critically, one should seek to capture the model's semantic uncertainty, i.e., the uncertainty over the meanings of LLM outputs, rather than uncertainty over lexical or syntactic variations that do not affect answer correctness.To address this problem, we propose Kernel Language Entropy (KLE), a novel method for uncertainty estimation in white-and black-box LLMs. KLE defines positive semidefinite unit trace kernels to encode the semantic similarities of LLM outputs and quantifies uncertainty using the von Neumann entropy. It considers pairwise semantic dependencies between answers (or semantic clusters), providing more fine-grained uncertainty estimates than previous methods based on hard clustering of answers. We theoretically prove that KLE generalizes the previous state-of-the-art method called semantic entropy and empirically demonstrate that it improves uncertainty quantification performance across multiple natural language generation datasets and LLM architectures.

In their paper presented at AIES 2025, "Do Your Guardrails Even Guard?" Method for Evaluating Effectiveness of Moderation Guardrails in Aligning LLM Outputs with Expert User Expectations, Anindya Das Antar Xun Huan and Nikola Banovic propose a method to evaluate and select guardrails that best align LLM outputs with domain knowledge from subject-matter experts. Here, Anindya tells us more about their method, some case studies, and plans for future developments. Could you give us some background to your work - why are guardrails such an important area for study? Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) produce desirable outputs without harmful side effects and align with user expectations, organizational goals, and existing domain knowledge is crucial for their adoption in high-stakes decision-making. However, despite training on vast amounts of data, LLMs can still produce incorrect, misleading, or otherwise unexpected and undesirable outputs.

Hallucinations are outputs by Large Language Models (LLMs) that are factually incorrect yet appear plausible [1]. This paper investigates how such hallucinations influence users' trust in LLMs and users' interaction with LLMs. To explore this in everyday use, we conducted a qualitative study with 192 participants. Our findings show that hallucinations do not result in blanket mistrust but instead lead to context-sensitive trust calibration. Building on the calibrated trust model by Lee & See [2] and Afroogh et al.'s trust-related factors [3], we confirm expectancy [3], [4], prior experience [3], [4], [5], and user expertise & domain knowledge [3], [4] as userrelated (human) trust factors, and identify intuition as an additional factor relevant for hallucination detection. Additionally, we found that trust dynamics are further influenced by contextual factors, particularly perceived risk [3] and decision stakes [6]. Consequently, we validate the recursive trust calibration process proposed by Blöbaum [7] and extend it by including intuition as a user-related trust factor. Based on these insights, we propose practical recommendations for responsible and reflective LLM use.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating Automated Planning (AP) models has been widely explored; however, their application to Hierarchical Planning (HP) is still far from reaching the level of sophistication observed in non-hierarchical architectures. In this work, we try to address this gap. We present two main contributions. First, we propose L2HP, an extension of L2P (a library to LLM-driven PDDL models generation) that support HP model generation and follows a design philosophy of generality and extensibility. Second, we apply our framework to perform experiments where we compare the modeling capabilities of LLMs for AP and HP. On the PlanBench dataset, results show that parsing success is limited but comparable in both settings (around 36\%), while syntactic validity is substantially lower in the hierarchical case (1\% vs. 20\% of instances). These findings underscore the unique challenges HP presents for LLMs, highlighting the need for further research to improve the quality of generated HP models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve excellent performance in natural language reasoning tasks through pre-training on vast unstructured text, enabling them to understand the logic in natural language and generate logic-consistent responses. However, the representational differences between unstructured and structured knowledge make LLMs inherently struggle to maintain logic consistency, leading to \textit{Logic Drift} challenges in structured knowledge reasoning tasks such as Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA). Existing methods address this limitation by designing complex workflows embedded in prompts to guide LLM reasoning. Nevertheless, these approaches only provide input-level guidance and fail to fundamentally address the \textit{Logic Drift} in LLM outputs. Additionally, their inflexible reasoning workflows cannot adapt to different tasks and knowledge graphs. To enhance LLMs' logic consistency in structured knowledge reasoning, we specifically target the logits output from the autoregressive generation process. We propose the \textit{Logits-to-Logic} framework, which incorporates logits strengthening and logits filtering as core modules to correct logical defects in LLM outputs. Extensive experiments show that our approach significantly improves LLMs' logic consistency in structured knowledge reasoning and achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple KGQA benchmarks.

How do we make a meaningful comparison of a large language model's knowledge of the law in one place compared to another? Quantifying these differences is critical to understanding if the quality of the legal information obtained by users of LLM-based chatbots varies depending on their location. However, obtaining meaningful comparative metrics is challenging because legal institutions in different places are not themselves easily comparable. In this work we propose a methodology to obtain place-to-place metrics based on the comparative law concept of functionalism. We construct a dataset of factual scenarios drawn from Reddit posts by users seeking legal advice for family, housing, employment, crime and traffic issues. We use these to elicit a summary of a law from the LLM relevant to each scenario in Los Angeles, London and Sydney. These summaries, typically of a legislative provision, are manually evaluated for hallucinations. We show that the rate of hallucination of legal information by leading closed-source LLMs is significantly associated with place. This suggests that the quality of legal solutions provided by these models is not evenly distributed across geography. Additionally, we show a strong negative correlation between hallucination rate and the frequency of the majority response when the LLM is sampled multiple times, suggesting a measure of uncertainty of model predictions of legal facts.