arXiv Machine Learning

Calibrated Answers About Randomized Trials From a 4-Billion-Parameter Open Model: A Registered Test and a License-Clean Release

Fiorillo v0.5 is an open 4‑billion‑parameter model that reads a randomized trial article (cut to 6,144 tokens) and predicts whether an intervention significantly increased, decreased, or had no significant effect on an outcome. Fine‑tuned on 1,431 license‑clean training articles, it achieved an expected calibration error of 0.0168, log loss 0.8603 lower than the prior, and macro‑F1 of 0.9248 on a public test split of 1,218 prompts. The model’s release, licensed under Apache 2.0, met all four pre‑registered criteria on the Open Science Framework and was validated against the evaluated predictions.

arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 16

Calibrated Evidence Inference With a Small, Permissively Licensed Open Model

The paper presents a calibrated evidence inference model fine‑tuned from Qwen3‑4B‑Base using low‑rank adapters and a classification head to classify trial outcomes as significant increase, significant decrease, or no significant difference. Trained on 1,431 open‑access PubMed Central articles, the released model (Apache 2.0) achieves an expected calibration error of 0.017, a log loss lower than Gemma 4 31B‑it in zero‑shot settings, and a macro‑F1 of 0.925 on the test split. Accepting its top‑80 % most confident predictions yields only a 2.6 % error rate, and ablation studies show that article context influences answers while the title alone still provides useful signal.

By Johann Emmanuel Li
arXiv AI
Sep 1

Benchmark Contamination: A Taxonomy Organized by Defeated Mitigation

The paper introduces a new taxonomy for benchmark contamination that categorizes leakage by the mitigation it defeats—direct, derivative, temporal, distributional, and acquired—covering both training‑time and evaluation‑time scenarios. It proposes a four‑field disclosure protocol to record contamination status alongside benchmark scores, and provides a JSON schema, validator, and examples. An empirical study of 41 documents using a pre‑registered instrument shows limited reporting of contamination types and variable reliability, highlighting gaps in current disclosure practices.

By Johanna Angulo, V\'ictor Yeste, Hector Espinos-Morato
arXiv AI
4d ago

When PTQ Calibration Helps or Hurts: Dose-Driven Collapse and Validation-Gated Abstention in Quantized Text Embedders

The paper investigates when post‑training quantization (PTQ) calibration helps or hurts text embedders, focusing on the amount of calibration (dose) and whether to calibrate at all. Across three models and 161 calibration runs at 4‑bit weight quantization, the effect ranges from significant gains to catastrophic degradation, driven mainly by the functional displacement of the quantized model. A validation‑gated abstention rule is proposed that avoids harmful calibrations while capturing most benefits, highlighting the trade‑off between safety and opportunity.

By Hyojung Han, Ryangkyung Kang, Youngeun Kim, Seung-Hun Jeon
arXiv AI
Oct 2

Jev in Medicine: A Benchmark Evaluation

The study evaluates Jev 1.13, a non‑generative model that selects from predefined answer options, on four medical benchmarks: MetaMedQA, PubMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and the NEJM Case Challenges. Jev’s top‑1 accuracy matches GPT‑6 Sol with medium reasoning on PubMedQA but falls behind on MetaMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and NEJM cases. While Jev shows strong calibration on MetaMedQA and is fast and inexpensive, its performance on examination and complex diagnostic tasks is substantially lower, indicating the need for task‑specific validation before clinical deployment.

By Alfredo Madrid-Garc\'ia, Beatriz Merino-Barbancho
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Option-Aware Retrieval and Task-Specific VLM Adaptation for Medical VQA

The paper presents a system for the MedReason 2026 challenge that tackles both multiple‑choice and open‑ended medical visual question answering using offline, containerized inference. Key findings include that comparing answer semantics rather than labels boosts retrieval‑only accuracy from 20.0 % to 57.5 % on a 200‑case holdout, and that varying the number of in‑prompt retrieved examples has minimal impact on final accuracy (93.5 %–94.0 %). The final system achieves 94.0 % MCQ accuracy on the development set and 93.20 % on the official pre‑evaluation, far surpassing the off‑the‑shelf baseline. "whyItMatters":"The results demonstrate that semantic‑aware retrieval and careful adapter tuning can dramatically improve medical VQA performance, offering a practical approach for high‑accuracy, offline inference in clinical settings."

By Tristan Kirscher (ICube, Institut Strauss), Niklas C. Koser (CAU), Soren Pirk (CAU)
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Where LLM Graders Succeed and Break: Evidence from Two Computer-Science Exams

The study evaluates large language model (LLM) graders on two computer‑science exams, testing 171 configurations of closed‑ and open‑weights models. While the best LLM configuration achieved a mean absolute error of 1.64/35—better than the 2.61/35 error between two human graders—its performance was highly sensitive to the prompt. A short "strict grader" preamble caused most open‑weight models to exceed acceptable error thresholds or stop grading entirely, whereas fine‑tuning with a single LoRA adapter restored parity with human graders and reduced sensitivity to harsh prompts.

By Ali Habibullah, Yazan Alshoibi, Mohammad Alshiekh, Salman Khan, Naeemullah Khan
arXiv AI
Jun 6

Answer Presence Drives RAG Rewriting Gains

arXiv:2606. 05633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM \emph{rewriter} before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality.

By Yuejie Li, Yueying Hua, Ke Yang, Li Zhang, Yueping He, Yueping He, Ruiqi Li, Bolin Chen, Tao Wang, Bowen Li, Chengjun Mao
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Sequential knowledge editing breaks a model's ability to tell good evidence from bad, without costing it accuracy

The paper investigates how sequential knowledge editing can degrade a language model’s ability to discern reliable evidence from unreliable evidence without affecting overall accuracy. Using a conservatively tuned LoRA on Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct, the authors show that after 1,000 edits the model’s arbitration score for untouched facts drops by 36%, leading to higher error rates on its most confident decisions, while MMLU accuracy remains unchanged. The study also finds that in some model‑method combinations, sequential edits can reduce MMLU to chance levels even though edit success and locality remain perfect.

By Atul Anand