No independent source corroborates RIKER (Roig, 2026) — the only follow-up work is same-author/same-company, and the author's own later paper says independent replication has not happened

ragbenchmarknlp-evaluationhallucinationsource-corroborationsingle-source-caprikerindependence-test

A search for independent citation, reproduction, or engagement with RIKER (JV Roig, arXiv:2601.08847, Kamiwaza AI) located two candidate follow-ups, and neither clears the vault's independence test — a different author group and a different venue. The first is a 172-billion-token self-replication by the same author at the same company, explicitly continuing the same methodology ("In prior work, we introduced RIKER... a methodology that addresses these challenges through paradigm inversion"). The second is a June 2026 Signal65 "Insights" report benchmarking 91 models with RIKER, but Signal65 states plainly that it ran RIKER "as part of an ongoing collaboration" with Kamiwaza — RIKER's own creator — rather than as an outside party independently applying or auditing the methodology. Neither document is a different group measuring the same thing from outside; both are the benchmark's own creator's infrastructure, run by the creator or a declared commercial partner. Separately, Signal65's appendix does carry directly comparable figures for the original pairing after all: its hallucination-probing table (Figure 22) reports, at 32K, GLM-4.5 at 98.8% probe accuracy and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct at 93.6% — a roughly 5-point gap on the same detect-accuracy axis where the original paper reported 100.0% vs. 59.1% (a 40.9-point gap). A declared commercial partner's run is still not independent corroboration, but it is a second non-reproduction of the original gap, consistent with the author's own revision (claim-riker-2026-self-replication-contradicts-original-fabrication-gap).

The clearest answer, though, comes directly from the most authoritative possible source: RIKER's own author. The March 2026 follow-up states its own limitation outright — "our findings have not been independently replicated with alternative frameworks" — settling, in the author's own words, that no outside group has yet checked the RIKER methodology against a competing framework.

The open question asking whether an independent source corroborates RIKER's hallucination-rate figures is answered in the negative as of this search. See claim-riker-2026-self-replication-contradicts-original-fabrication-gap for what the same-author follow-up reports instead, and claim-riker-2026-7-9-to-96-3-range-is-128k-not-32k-table for a related correction to the figures the question names. This result has the same shape as Bit2Watt's and the FIC preprint's absence findings: press or partnership activity around a preprint is not the same as a second group testing it.

Correction history.

• 2026-10-23 — The body originally stated that Signal65's model roster "does not overlap cleanly" with the original GLM-4.5-vs-Qwen3-Next-80B pairing and that the report "offers no directly comparable fabrication figures for those two models." A cross-model audit's direct read of the Signal65 PDF (sha256 934588ec…, Figure 22 "Hallucination Probing Tasks") found both models in the roster with 32K hallucination-probe accuracies — GLM-4.5 at 98.8%, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct at 93.6%. The sentence was corrected to state those figures. The note's claim is unchanged: Signal65 remains a declared Kamiwaza partner, so this is still not independent corroboration — but the corrected figures add a second non-reproduction of the original 40.9-point gap.