arXiv:2607. 04429v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The dominant practice in language model evaluation is to report a single accuracy number per model and declare the higher one better, without testing whether the gap could plausibly be sampling noise.
arXiv:2608. 15046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A fraction of a point of benchmark accuracy is the usual evidence that a compressed model is equivalent to its original.
arXiv:2609.35815v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers across academia increasingly base significance claims on LLM judge scores and small-sample AI evaluations. Yet without well-calibrated co...
Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
arXiv:2609.39229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatic evaluation of faithfulness increasingly relies on a large language model acting as a judge, yet the most reliable judges are proprietary fr...
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
The paper argues that traditional global calibration metrics, such as Expected Calibration Error and Brier Score, are confounded by differences in model accuracy when comparing large language models. It introduces ACE, an accuracy‑controlled evaluation framework that offers Instance‑Aligned, Distribution‑Aligned, and Candidate‑Aligned views to provide fairer cross‑model comparisons. Experiments across various benchmarks reveal that many reported calibration advantages disappear after accuracy control and that model rankings often reverse, indicating that raw global metrics are unreliable for cross‑model calibration assessment.
arXiv:2511. 04689v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically requires thousands of benchmark items, making the process expensive, slow, and increasingly impractical at scale.
arXiv:2607. 28576v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Methods that make a language model plan, criticise and rewrite its own answer, reflect on mistakes, pick the best of several attempts, or debate with copies of itself nearly all make it generate far more text than a single chain of thought.
arXiv:2609.00654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scien...
The paper introduces Janus, a method for validating error patterns in language models by comparing error rates across predefined yes/no properties and using shuffled decoy labels to set significance thresholds. Janus requires that a pattern’s error difference surpasses the decoy-derived threshold and is replicated on held‑out data before reporting. Experiments on a controlled code‑finding task confirm several meaningful error patterns, while on MuSiQue and LongBench v2 Janus reports no confirmed patterns for the tested properties, contrasting with standard shuffling tests that sometimes confirm patterns.