Coherent Without Grounding, Grounded Without Success: Observability and Epistemic Failure
arXiv:2603.28371v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When an agent can articulate why something works, we typically take this as evidence of genuine understanding. This presupposes that effective action and correct explanation covary, and that coherent explanation reliably signals both. I argue that this assumption fails for contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). I introduce what I call the Bidirectional Coherence Paradox: competence and grounding not only dissociate but invert across epistemic conditions. In low-observability domains, LLMs often act successfully while misidentifying the mech — Camilo Chac\'on Sartori
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:When an agent can articulate why something works, we typically take this as evidence of genuine understanding. This presupposes that effective action and correct explanation covary, and that coherent explanation reliably signals both. I argue that this assumption fails for contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). I introduce what I call the Bidirectional Coherence Paradox: competence and grounding not only dissociate but invert across epistemic conditions. In low-observability domains, LLMs often act successfully while misidentifying the mechanisms that produce their success. In high-observability domains, they frequently generate explanations that accurately track observable causal structure yet fail to translate those diagnoses into effective intervention. In both cases, explanatory coherence remains intact, obscuring the underlying dissociation. Drawing on experiments in compiler optimization and hyperparameter tuning, I develop the Epistemic Triangle, a model of how priors, signals, and domain knowledge interact under varying observability. The results suggest that neither behavioral success nor explanatory accuracy alone suffices for attributing understanding. I argue that evaluating artificial epistemic agents requires a tripartite framework -- coherence, grounding, and a proper basing relation linking explanation to action. The systematic separation of knowing-that and knowing-how in LLMs thus challenges assumptions inherited from both epistemology and current AI evaluation practice.
Subjects:
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.28371 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2603.28371v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28371
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Related DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6168626
DOI(s) linking to related resources
Submission history
From: Camilo Chacón Sartori [view email] [v1] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 12:38:42 UTC (238 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv![[R] VOID: Video Object and Interaction Deletion (physically-consistent video inpainting)](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-neural-network-P6fqXULWLNUwjuxqUZnB3T.webp)
[R] VOID: Video Object and Interaction Deletion (physically-consistent video inpainting)
We present VOID, a model for video object removal that aims to handle *physical interactions*, not just appearance. Most existing video inpainting / object removal methods can fill in pixels behind an object (e.g., removing shadows or reflections), but they often fail when the removed object affects the dynamics of the scene. For example: - A domino chain is falling → removing the middle blocks should stop the chain - Two cars are about to crash → removing one car should prevent the collision Current models typically remove the object but leave its effects unchanged, resulting in physically implausible outputs. VOID addresses this by modeling counterfactual scene evolution: “What would the video look like if the object had never been there?” Key ideas: - Counterfactual training data: paire
Rivalry and collaboration attitudes: Study finds writers need both to thrive in the age of AI
When a screenwriter told New York University researchers last year that letting AI do her work would make her "miserable inside," she was onto something. A follow-up study from NYU s Tandon School of Engineering and Stern School of Business finds that the instinct to compete with generative AI, rather than simply embrace it, is associated with meaningful long-term benefits for writing professionals.
[D] Reviewer said he will increase his score but he hasn’t (yet)
Maybe someone here can help me figure this out. I have a reviewer who acknowledged my rebuttal and said they will increase their score*, but they haven’t. Their score is still 4, which was the initial score. Now I am very anxious about the AC reading this and thinking that they increased their score to 4 from a 3 ( meaning their initial thought was reject) because the other person who acknowledged and said they will increase their score did it on the spot at the same time, and I can see the updated score, but the other said they will but didn’t, and now I fear it will look like they did and that the 4 is the updated score ( meaning the initial score was a reject). I can answer to the rebuttal ( they said option A, fully resolved). I wonder if in my answer I should hint that they have yet t
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
Rivalry and collaboration attitudes: Study finds writers need both to thrive in the age of AI
When a screenwriter told New York University researchers last year that letting AI do her work would make her "miserable inside," she was onto something. A follow-up study from NYU s Tandon School of Engineering and Stern School of Business finds that the instinct to compete with generative AI, rather than simply embrace it, is associated with meaningful long-term benefits for writing professionals.
DynaVid: Learning to Generate Highly Dynamic Videos using Synthetic Motion Data
DynaVid addresses limitations in video diffusion models by using synthetic motion data represented as optical flow to improve realistic video synthesis with dynamic motions and fine-grained motion control. (2 upvotes on HuggingFace)
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!