arXiv:2608. 04714v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores are reported as properties of a model, yet the inference framework used to produce them, such as HuggingFace, vLLM, or Ollama, are considered non-influential and their names and versions are almost never disclosed.
arXiv:2607. 09172v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models are reshaping how software is developed and maintained.
arXiv:2606. 26836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run.
arXiv:2607. 20806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Lightweight large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed locally on personal computers and are expected to play a growing role in resource-constrained edge and mobile environments.
arXiv:2606. 12117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.
arXiv:2608. 11694v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A benchmark score comes from a single phrasing of each problem.
arXiv:2608. 09351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM accuracy but multiplies inference cost, making the accuracy gained per unit of compute the metric that matters in deployment.
arXiv:2607. 05475v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) on mobile devices enhances privacy and reduces latency, but is severely bottlenecked by hardware inefficiency.
The paper demonstrates that the number of candidates generated during test-time scaling of large language models does not fully capture the system cost. By comparing different generation schedules (e.g., one batched call versus multiple serial calls) while keeping the total candidate count fixed, the authors show that serial calls consume significantly more GPU energy and latency. The study suggests that reporting candidate count alone is insufficient; evaluations should also include generation schedule and GPU-level metrics.
arXiv:2608. 08029v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Khatri et al.
The paper presents a benchmark that compares seven long‑form generation frameworks across three granularities—single chapter, multi‑chapter, and whole book—using an anchor‑based LLM‑as‑a‑judge protocol to evaluate outlines directly. Results show no single framework dominates across all settings; performance depends on how well a framework’s output form matches the target granularity, with SuperWriter excelling in length‑constrained single‑chapter mode but losing advantage in whole‑book mode. The study finds only moderate correlation between outline and writing quality, supporting the idea that these two stages should be evaluated separately.
arXiv:2607. 15498v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The key-value (KV) cache is the main memory bottleneck in long-context large language model (LLM) inference.
arXiv:2608. 02639v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Production prompts rarely carry a single instruction.