arXiv:2609.23742v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Small open-source large language models (LLMs) in the 0.6B-4B parameter range are increasingly deployed for structured output generation (JSON, functio...
arXiv:2608.21074v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research workflows and software development pipelines, yet their output remains sensitive to in...
arXiv:2608. 07617v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific and technical writing depends on markup sources that must compile: LaTeX, Typst, and Markdown pipelines fail on missing delimiters, mismatched environments, broken imports, or package conflicts.
The paper presents a benchmark that compares seven long‑form generation frameworks across three granularities—single chapter, multi‑chapter, and whole book—using an anchor‑based LLM‑as‑a‑judge protocol to evaluate outlines directly. Results show no single framework dominates across all settings; performance depends on how well a framework’s output form matches the target granularity, with SuperWriter excelling in length‑constrained single‑chapter mode but losing advantage in whole‑book mode. The study finds only moderate correlation between outline and writing quality, supporting the idea that these two stages should be evaluated separately.
ToolRobustBench is a stage-wise diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate and diagnose failures in tool‑calling agents, which are large language models that select tools, provide structured arguments, and interpret tool feedback. The benchmark aligns four perturbation families—tool‑interface, user‑intent, tool‑output/observation, and runtime‑environment—with the tool‑use pipeline, attributing failures to specific stages such as tool selection, schema grounding, argument binding, and feedback handling. Experiments across 15,456 instances, 7 models, and 16 local tools reveal that while overall performance is high, robustness degrades significantly, especially under tool‑output/observation perturbations, and mixed‑family perturbations produce non‑additive failure patterns.
A long-form translation request can succeed at the API layer and still produce an unusable result. The output may be empty, truncated, filtered, dominated by source or prompt material, or interrupted after producing text worth keeping.
arXiv:2601. 04498v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Infographics are composite visual artifacts that combine data visualizations with textual and illustrative elements to communicate information.
arXiv:2608. 13547v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM coding agents issue Bash commands through interfaces that may serialize, wrap, and reparse model output.
arXiv:2607. 09665v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prompt wrappers often differ only in formatting, yet they can change model scores enough to flip leaderboard conclusions.
WeVisDoc is a two‑stage data‑centric framework designed to improve end‑to‑end document parsing. Stage I expands coverage by adding heterogeneous data and applying structure‑preserving degradation synthesis, while Stage II evaluates residual errors with a held‑out probe and uses those diagnostics to target data construction and token budget reallocation. The resulting WeVisDoc‑4B model achieves an overall score of 95.38 on OmniDocBench v1.6 and outperforms competing parsers across all evaluated settings, with Stage II delivering notable gains on degraded tracks.
arXiv:2601. 22025v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) applications differs from conventional software testing because outputs are probabilistic, semantically variable, and sensitive to prompt and model changes.
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.