arXiv:2607. 11977v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In 2019, OpenAI released two million GPT-2 outputs-ungrammatical, half broken-to aid the detection of machine-generated text.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2608. 12342v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ensuring the accuracy of financial documents is critical for economic analysis, regulatory compliance, and corporate decision-making.
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
arXiv:2608.29966v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Domain adaptation of large language models increasingly depends on constructing high-quality training data, yet existing data-preparation pipelines typ...
arXiv:2606. 26294v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Self-improving agents are state-of-the-art (SOTA) on agentic coding benchmarks and have recently been extended to general domains.
arXiv:2607. 18064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents can now be left alone to improve software against a score.
arXiv:2609.01604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based evaluators of natural language generation (NLG) quality are widely deployed as scoring tools and as automated training signals, yet the int...
The paper introduces a calibrated instrument for rigorously measuring how inference optimizations—such as quantization, early‑exit, and speculative decoding—affect the output quality of large language models. It uses a formally calibrated LLM judge that verifies no systematic bias between statistically equivalent outputs and includes a null condition to ensure measured differences are zero. Applying this method, the authors find that a 4‑bit model is indistinguishable from its 16‑bit counterpart, while 3‑bit quantization and early‑exit techniques incur measurable quality losses that vary by language and task, and that token‑certainty‑based acceptance rules cannot reliably identify impactful errors.
arXiv:2608.29921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the mod...
Large language model optimization is an active research area, spanning quantization of model weights, early-exit methods for skipping layers, and speculative decoding. Each track uses its own quality...
arXiv:2606. 15577v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in complex mathematical optimization, even if the pragmatic user who triggers them is unaware of it.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency.