arXiv:2608. 15046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A fraction of a point of benchmark accuracy is the usual evidence that a compressed model is equivalent to its original.
arXiv:2606. 23767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Headline accuracies on the Tuebingen cause-effect pairs are routinely compared across papers even though each is measured under its authors' own protocol -- different pair subsets, weightings, model-selection, and decision rates.
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
arXiv:2604. 18245v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models operate in protocols containing multiple calls, yet added calls are usually evaluated only by their net effect.
arXiv:2607. 04429v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The dominant practice in language model evaluation is to report a single accuracy number per model and declare the higher one better, without testing whether the gap could plausibly be sampling noise.
arXiv:2608. 07914v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Behavioral contamination detectors can return "no evidence" either because a benchmark is clean or because the audit has little power.
arXiv:2607. 29431v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly generate optimization models from natural language, but existing evaluation often reduces a generated model and its ground truth to a single equivalent/not-equivalent verdict or an execution-success rate--labels that are neither independently checkable nor faithful to the multiple distinct senses in which two formulations can agree.
arXiv:2607. 19257v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade.
arXiv:2608. 12652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark contamination is diagnosed today with n-gram overlap, with likelihood-based membership inference, or with canary strings, and each needs something usually unavailable: the training corpus, a well-chosen test statistic, or foresight at dataset release.
arXiv:2606. 24083v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: "Talk short.
Accuracy changes after language-model self-revision are usually interpreted as changes in reasoning. We show this can fail at the answer-extraction boundary, and test the failure causally rather than only observationally.
arXiv:2607. 28576v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Methods that make a language model plan, criticise and rewrite its own answer, reflect on mistakes, pick the best of several attempts, or debate with copies of itself nearly all make it generate far more text than a single chain of thought.
arXiv:2608. 06564v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Quantization is how large language models are actually deployed, and below four bits it hurts.