arXiv:2608. 07786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Open-weight large language models (LLMs) are increasingly developed through complex, multi-stage pipelines, leading to intricate lineage relationships that reflect model origin, ownership, and evolution.
By Yiwei Chen, Bingqi Shang, Sijia Liu
arXiv:2608. 14929v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-weight language models are fine-tuned, quantized, pruned, and merged, yet their provenance is often undocumented.
By Aman Singh Thakur, Rayan Khoury
arXiv:2607. 10617v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The lineage graph of open-weight language models is self-reported: Hugging Face's base_model metadata field is optional and unverified, and over 60% of Hub models document no parentage at all.
By Muhammad Awais Bin Adil, Saad Aamir
The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.
By Vinay Kumar Chaganti
arXiv:2607. 10252v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consumed through opaque serving chains - API aggregators, resellers, and inference providers - in which the client has no technical means to confirm that the model answering is the model advertised, and recent audits show that a substantial fraction of commercial endpoints deviate from the vendor's reference weights.
By Tomas Bruckner
arXiv:2609. 31181v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black-box model identification works by scoring a model's response to natural-language prompts.
By Nicol\'as Vera Z\'u\~niga
arXiv:2606. 31272v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents increasingly acquire and execute skills at runtime: bundles of prompt instructions, executable code, and tool declarations fetched from marketplaces and other agents.
By Hongliang Liu, Yuhao Wu, Tung-Ling Li
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:2606. 27242v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training-free source selection for LLM families with shared vocabularies arises in scientific string domains such as SMILES, protein, and genomic sequences, where candidate corpora share a tokenizer but differ in prediction targets.
By John Sweeney
The study evaluates whether prompt‑token counts can reliably identify the lineage of large language models served via APIs. Using a frozen‑threshold approach on 24 labeled endpoint pairs, the authors find that token‑count consistency perfectly separates development pairs but only half of the holdout pairs meet the strict repeatability criteria, yielding moderate accuracy and perfect specificity. The results confirm token‑count consistency as a fingerprint of shared tokenization stacks but reject it as a standalone test for model‑family attribution.
By Bo Chen
arXiv:2606. 19625v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
By Glenn Matlin, Chandreyi Chakraborty, Saehee Eom, Mika Okamoto, Rayan Castilla, Louis Jaburi, Alvin Deng, Taywon Min, Lucia Quirke, Stella Biderman, Mark Riedl
arXiv:2608. 00144v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Membership inference (MIA) on language models is usually summarised by an aggregate ROC-AUC, but such evaluations are confounded: model-free blind baselines separate members from non-members from surface text alone.
By Victor Maricato