arXiv:2608. 02618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent studies have identified an ``Artificial Hivemind'' effect in Large Language Models (LLMs) causing models to converge on a narrow, homogenized consensus even for open questions.
arXiv:2608. 19437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many benchmarks track Large Language Model (LLM) performance on tasks with verifiable answers, but less is known about how LLM performance is evolving on open-ended tasks, where creativity, originality and diversity may matter as much as quality.
arXiv:2605. 28882v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important.
arXiv:2606. 00022v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Humor generation remains difficult not only because producing fluent, novel jokes is hard, but because "funny" is audience-dependent and supervision is noisy -- preferences vary with audience, context, and culture, and annotator agreement is often low.
arXiv:2510. 01171v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Post-training alignment often reduces LLM diversity, leading to a phenomenon known as mode collapse.
arXiv:2601. 22588v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design.
The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.
The paper investigates Self‑Generated Text Recognition (SGTR), the ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify their own outputs. By evaluating 13–21 models across 6 experimental designs, it shows that SGTR accuracy varies with evaluation format, conversation structure, and task domain, and that a quality‑heuristic bias dominates results. The study also finds that fine‑tuning for SGTR in one setting can generalize to others and may cause models to prefer their own outputs when judging, highlighting potential safety concerns.
arXiv:2606. 11762v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation, sparking growing interest in their creative potential.
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation, sparking growing interest in their creative potential. Realizing this potential requires systematic and scalable methods for evaluating creativity across diverse tasks.
arXiv:2601. 07055v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As high-quality data becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, self-evolution without curated training data has emerged as a promising paradigm.
arXiv:2410. 12341v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI-generated content increasingly populates the web, generative AI models are at growing risk of being trained on their own outputs, a process known as AI autophagy.