The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.
By Vinay Kumar Chaganti
arXiv:2609. 31181v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black-box model identification works by scoring a model's response to natural-language prompts.
By Nicol\'as Vera Z\'u\~niga
arXiv:2606. 23915v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practice often treats automatic metrics for attribution in LLM retrieval-augmented generation as interchangeable.
By Tianyu Ding, Aditya Nannapaneni, Juan Pablo De la Cruz Weinstein
arXiv:2609.24885v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When a language model answers from a curated corpus via graph-based retrieval, a large grounding uplift does not establish reasoning over the retrieved...
By John J. O'Hare
arXiv:2608.30023v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Generative engines such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity answer buyer questions directly and name a shortlist of brands inside the answer. Studying...
By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin, Daniil Dzemesjuk
arXiv:2608. 10008v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM recommenders for top-$K$ item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog.
By Srijith Ravikumar
arXiv:2608. 11922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy makes a strong selection rule in retrieval-augmented question answering: across five QA benchmarks, keeping the candidate answer that a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean answer $F_1$ from 0.
By Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Hung-Chun Hsu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang
The paper investigates whether panels of vision‑language models (VLMs) can reliably judge image aesthetics. It shows that a panel of holistic judges rarely outperforms its best member, but when each model scores images on five rubric‑defined dimensions and these dimension scores are fused across model families, the panel consistently beats the best single VLM on two datasets (EVA and PARA). The study demonstrates that the value of a panel depends on the type of input it receives, and that dimension‑based fusion yields measurable gains at the cost of additional labeling and API usage.
By Amit Jadhav, Shaurya Beriwala, Beomjin Kim
The study examines how large language models (LLMs) like GPT‑5.2, Gemini 3 Flash, and Perplexity sonar‑pro recommend brands across five industries. Using 50 brands and 250 queries repeated five times, the authors measured brand inclusion, recommendation share, competitive vacuum, and co‑mention asymmetry, finding that most queries mention at least one brand and that vacuum prevalence remained stable between February and September 2026. The analysis shows strong cross‑date consistency in recommendation patterns and no emergent clustering of brand mentions, though co‑mention structures deviate from null expectations.
By Dmitrij \.Zatuchin
The paper investigates whether confidence signals from fine‑tuned large language models can improve extractive question answering that relies heavily on retrieval. Experiments on four 7‑9B model families show that retrieval alone recovers 92–99.8% of the best possible accuracy, leaving little room for confidence‑based routing or adaptation to help. The sequence‑likelihood confidence metric, even after recalibration or temperature scaling, fails to provide a statistically significant benefit across different correctness criteria and answer lengths, and the study ultimately offers a set of pre‑specified negatives with explicit dependencies as its main contribution.
By Gunwoo Lee, Changmin Sung, Sang-Hwan Gwak, Ina Kim, Ji-Young Choi, Kyong-Ha Lee
The study evaluates how the choice of test boundary affects feature‑based hardware Trojan detection across Trust‑Hub families. Using a corpus of 49,124 gates from 16 netlists, the authors compare three test settings—pooled gates, a single netlist held out, and an entire host family held out—showing that performance drops markedly when a host family is excluded. The results demonstrate that sibling benchmark variants can inflate detection metrics, and the authors recommend reporting family‑aware holdouts alongside pooled scores.
By Hang Xiao, Chuhong Xu, Kainan Zhou, Gangzhen Qian, Lu Yi
arXiv:2608. 11922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy is a strong answer-selection rule in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for question answering: across five QA benchmarks, selecting the answer a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean $F_1$ from 0.
By Hung-Chun Hsu, Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang