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.
By Jesse St. Amand, Callum Canavan, Sohaib Imran, Joseph Hewson, Aaron Lutz, Shi Feng, Puria Radmard, Lennie Wells
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
The study investigates bias in large language model (LLM) judges by having ten LLMs evaluate narrative constraint selections rather than generated text. Results show that self-preference largely disappears under blind evaluation when quality and evaluator severity are controlled, but self- and other-labels alone shift scores bidirectionally when quality is matched. The authors conclude that authorship attribution drives evaluation bias and that open-ended, ground‑truth‑free tasks can effectively study LLM judge behavior.
By Songeun Chae, Min Kim, Donghoon Jung, Seojin Choi, Seohyon Jung
arXiv:2606. 00467v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot annotation and LLM-as-a-judge tasks, yet their reliability hinges on how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions.
By Etienne Casanova, Rafal Kocielnik, R. Michael Alvarez
arXiv:2606.16011v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Standard accuracy benchmarks evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) reach correct answers. However, they do not test whether models maintain...
By Nafiseh Nikeghbal, Amir Hossein Kargaran, Shaghayegh Kolli, Jana Diesner
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...
By Qiming Bao, Ne\c{s}et \"Ozkan Tan, Siyuan Wang, Mark Gahegan
arXiv:2608. 19746v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personalized text generation aims to make LLMs write in a specific individual's style, yet existing benchmarks measure task accuracy or preference alignment rather than whether the model's output actually resembles the target author's writing.
By Yash Ganpat Sawant
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
By Ej Zhou, Lucas Resck, Zheng Hui, Anna Korhonen
arXiv:2606. 07810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability.
By Anish Laddha, Nitesh Pradhan, Gaurav Srivastava
arXiv:2607. 14111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations?
By Ely Hahami, Ishaan Sinha, Lavik Jain
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
arXiv:2609.37616v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Language models tend to agree with whatever a user asserts, and post-training increasingly targets this sycophancy so that models evaluate claims on th...
By Abhinav Rajeev Kumar (Lossfunk), Paras Chopra (Lossfunk)