HFEPX · Eval paper review
Shou-Tzu Han, Rodrigue Rizk, KC Santosh
Published
Apr 2, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
25% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Apr 2, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations. We systematically evaluate three open-weight LLMs, Mistral-7B, Llama-3-8B, and Qwen2.5-7B, on 677 GSM8K problems paired with semantically equivalent variants generated through name substitution and number format paraphrasing. All three models exhibit substantial answer-flip rates (28.8%-45.1%), with number paraphrasing consistently more disruptive than name swaps. To trace the mechanistic basis of these failures, we introduce the Mechanistic Perturbation Diagnostics (MPD) framework, combining logit lens analysis, activation patching, component ablation, and the Cascading Amplification Index (CAI) into a unified diagnostic pipeline. CAI, a novel metric quantifying layer-wise divergence amplification, outperforms first divergence layer as a failure predictor for two of three architectures (AUC up to 0.679). Logit lens reveals that flipped samples diverge from correct predictions at significantly earlier layers than stable samples. Activation patching reveals a stark architectural divide in failure localizability: Llama-3 failures are recoverable by patching at specific layers (43/60 samples), while Mistral and Qwen failures are broadly distributed (3/60 and 0/60). Based on these diagnostic signals, we propose a mechanistic failure taxonomy (localized, distributed, and entangled) and validate it through targeted repair experiments: steering vectors and layer fine-tuning recover 12.2% of localized failures (Llama-3) but only 7.2% of entangled (Qwen) and 5.2% of distributed (Mistral) failures.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations."
GSM8K
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"We systematically evaluate three open-weight LLMs, Mistral-7B, Llama-3-8B, and Qwen2.5-7B, on 677 GSM8K problems paired with semantically equivalent variants generated through name substitution and number format paraphrasing."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations."
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: GSM8K
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.
