Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research collaborators for hypothesis refinement, methodological planning, and technical analysis across multi-turn interactions. In this setting,...
arXiv:2604. 07343v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific hypothesis generation. However, evaluating generated hypotheses remains a challenge for trustworthy AI-enabled scientific workflows.
The Writerslogic team participated in the CLEF 2026 SimpleText shared task, tackling both text simplification (Task 1) and complexity spotting (Task 2). For simplification, they built a multi‑candidate pipeline with GPT‑4o‑mini, selecting the best candidate via a reference‑free heuristic, and their Claude Sonnet 4 submission achieved a SARI of 47.43 and BLEU of 14.21, ranking third overall on the Task 1 leaderboard. For complexity spotting, they fine‑tuned a DeBERTa‑v3‑large NLI model on 350 K labeled pairs, achieving a macro F1 of 0.8081 (0.8085 in an ensemble) on binary over‑generation identification and 0.804 accuracy on multi‑class error classification, placing them second among unique teams.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably assess scientific hypotheses by using a logit-based energy scoring method that leverages the model’s intrinsic confidence. Across 1,323 papers in 12 disciplines, this intrinsic scoring achieved a 33.0% Hit@1 rate, outperforming a prompted listwise ranking approach that scored 16.6%. The best result, a 1‑billion‑parameter model with logit-based energy scoring, reached 53.1% Hit@1, suggesting that confidence‑based evaluation could improve trustworthy AI‑enabled scientific discovery.
PaperGym is a framework that transforms each research paper into a training environment for AI research planning, using rubrics extracted from the paper’s method and experiments as a critic. It synthesizes research questions from the goal and background, and derives evaluation criteria from the method and experiments, reducing criterion leakage to 3.7%. Experiments with Qwen models show that training with PaperGym’s rubric improves benchmark performance by up to 5.6 points and outperforms existing datasets and fine‑tuning baselines.
SciRerankBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate rerankers in retrieval‑augmented large language models (RAG‑LLMs) for scientific literature question answering. It covers five scientific subjects and introduces three types of question‑context‑answer pairs—Noisy Contexts, Semantically Similar but Logically Irrelevant Contexts, and Counterfactual Contexts—to test noise resilience, relevance disambiguation, and factual consistency. The study evaluates 13 popular rerankers across five LLM families, offering detailed insights into their strengths and limitations.
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:2609.24574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Computational social science increasingly relies on large language models for text annotation, and the validity of published findings now rests on the...
arXiv:2607. 14109v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding.
arXiv:2607. 28301v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can equip large language models (LLMs) with domain knowledge for high-performance computing (HPC) tasks such as data race detection and benchmark question answering.
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.