MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FLARE: An Error Analysis Framework for Diagnosing LLM Classification Failures

2025· article· W7128477045 on OpenAlexaff
K.K. Madhavan, Luiza Antonie, Stacey D. Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicVLSI and Analog Circuit Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsError analysisError detection and correctionFeature (linguistics)Statistical analysisReliability (semiconductor)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Large Language Models return "Inconclusive" in classification tasks, practitioners are left without insight into what went wrong.This diagnostic gap can delay medical decisions, undermine content moderation, and mislead downstream systems.We present FLARE (Failure Location and Reasoning Evaluation), a framework that transforms opaque failures into seven actionable categories.Applied to 5,400 election-misinformation classifications, FLARE reveals a surprising result: Few-Shot prompting-widely considered a best practice-produced 38 more failures than Zero-Shot, with 70.8% due to simple parsing issues.By exposing hidden failure modes, FLARE addresses critical misunderstandings in LLM deployment with implications across domains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and Analog Circuit TestingFrench-language works237,207