arXiv:2607. 29252v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliable evaluation of open-ended LLM outputs requires fine-grained rubrics, yet expert curation is costly and difficult to scale.
arXiv:2603. 00077v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Rubric-based LLM judges have become indispensable for evaluating and optimizing systems on non-verifiable tasks, where success cannot be reduced to exact programmatic checks.
arXiv:2608. 04077v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating financial AI agents requires criteria aligned with real professional work.
Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs. In this work, we identify verification, the ability to determine the correctness of a solution, as a new scaling axis.
arXiv:2607. 05391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs.
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:2606. 09118v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM capabilities advance rapidly, the evaluation methods used to assess them increasingly lag behind.
Using LLMs as judges has become standard practice for evaluating model outputs at scale. This is particularly common for subjective, open-ended tasks such as assessing helpfulness or alignment, where no single reference answer exists.
arXiv:2604. 22891v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on.
arXiv:2607. 24889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial models combine public disclosures with analyst assumptions to produce forecasts and valuations.
arXiv:2607. 16239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI judges offer a scalable, low-cost alternative to human evaluation, but their outputs can be biased relative to human preferences and highly item-dependent, varying across judges, tasks, and domains.
arXiv:2606. 09165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety judges are increasingly deployed to evaluate model outputs against evolving criteria, yet recent meta-evaluation work shows they remain brittle under prompt and rubric variation, with false negative-rate swings of up to 0.
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.