The paper introduces PsyJev, a System‑1 model for psychological analysis that directly outputs distributions over answers conditioned on questions. It leverages the PsyJudgeBench benchmark, which contains 13 annotated datasets and 82 questions across six psychological domains, and employs a joint supervised training followed by Judgment‑Anchored RLCD to adapt logit‑space reward optimization. Experiments on Qwen3.5‑based models show that the 9B variant achieves an average test F1 of 67.56, outperforming the strongest external baseline by 2.54 points.
Self-disclosures on the Web support diverse psychological analyses, from recognizing expressed experiences to identifying symptom-relevant information. We study a shared, question-conditioned decision...
Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores.
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.
arXiv:2610.05370v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Generative reward models (GRMs) are important for LLM optimization. Unlike scalar reward models, GRMs generate natural-language critiques alongside...
arXiv:2608.30005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubric-based reinforcement learning extends RL beyond tasks with exact answers or rule-based verifiers by scoring responses against instance-specific c...
arXiv:2610.17827v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing approaches to training and evaluating search agents focus heavily on final-answer quality, largely neglecting how generated answers map back t...
arXiv:2606. 05174v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong promise in healthcare applications.
arXiv:2610.35142v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often produce plausible but incorrect answers, motivating reinforcement learning methods that reward correct answers, pena...
arXiv:2603. 23522v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended questions is difficult because response quality depends on the question's context.
The paper introduces RAG‑Stress, a diagnostic protocol that tests how retrieval‑augmented generation models handle misleading evidence. By fixing the question and reference answer, editing a single assertion to support an incorrect answer, and varying source‑priority policies and evidence positions, the study measures misleading rate (MR) and clean accuracy across fifteen systems on multiple QA datasets. Results show that prioritizing documents increases MR by 10.9–13.5 percentage points, with the highest MR when the misleading span appears at the end of the evidence.
The paper proposes a model-based evaluation framework that merges multidimensional item response theory (IRT) with question context embeddings to predict large language model (LLM) performance on unseen questions. By representing LLMs with latent capability profiles and incorporating question content to inform item characteristics, the approach improves prediction accuracy over model-free baselines in within-scenario settings and offers a richer description of capability variation than unidimensional models. However, the study also finds that this generalizability does not reliably extend to cross-scenario shifts, indicating a key limitation for broader application.
The paper introduces the concept of LLM‑specific utility, defining it as the performance gain a target large language model (LLM) achieves when provided with a passage compared to answering without evidence. A benchmark of utilitarian passages is built for four LLMs (Qwen3‑8B/14B/32B and Llama 3.1‑8B) across three QA datasets, revealing that each model benefits most from its own tailored evidence and that evidence optimized for other models is consistently suboptimal. The authors also create SpecUBench, a benchmark for LLM‑specific utility judgment, and show that current utility‑aware retrieval methods largely capture model‑agnostic usefulness, struggling to estimate LLM‑specific utility. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that retrieval‑augmented generation must consider model‑specific evidence selection to truly improve LLM performance, highlighting a gap in existing utility‑aware methods."