The paper presents a layered framework for evaluating conversational AI by aligning offline proxy signals with online A/B experiment outcomes. It introduces a three‑step alignment chain—behavioral label to product outcome, classifier to candidate behavior, and offline signal to experiment effect—alongside an audit protocol that compares confidence intervals and rankings. In a real‑world deployment, the composite proxy achieved 81.1% F1 versus 34.3% for the raw classifier, correctly predicting direction on all 113 contrasts and enabling efficient prioritization of candidate models before costly online testing.
By Xuanyi Li, Vaskar Nath, Hossein Amirkhani, Jay Li, Alex Deng
arXiv:2608. 13329v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A model that behaves differently when it senses it is being tested would undermine the evaluations we rely on, so recent work has sought to read that sense directly from a model's activations.
By Valentin No\"el
The paper introduces a joint fact‑verification score that evaluates both answers and the evidence submitted with them. On the FEVEROUS dataset, replacing the DCUF evidence with UnifEE evidence improves the strict score by about 9.6 percentage points, while answer accuracy rises only 1.96 points. The study also shows that increasing context length for large language models yields modest evidence‑gain improvements, and that detailed answer‑evidence analyses uncover patterns missed by aggregate metrics.
By Han Chen, Yingrui Li
The study compared human and large language model (LLM) workflows for title‑and‑abstract screening in a complex scoping review. Human reviewers and two GPT‑5.4 file‑batch runs retained 42.2‑45.0% of records with 82.3‑82.9% recall, while Gemini 3.1 achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. Identical GPT‑5.4 runs showed 91.7% agreement yet differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible ones.
By Nikol Figalov\'a, Lynn Huestegge, Anne B\"ockler-Raettig
Online A/B experiments are the decision standard for user engagement, but traffic and readout time limit how many conversational-AI changes can be tested. We ask whether an offline signal designed to...
The study examines how two small instruction‑tuned language models, Qwen2.5‑1.5B and Llama‑3.2‑1B, respond to user pushback on TriviaQA. When initially correct, the models flip to a wrong answer in about 42–43% of cases, with the effectiveness of different pushback styles varying by model. Attempts to decode capitulation from the pre‑response residual stream fail under a rigorous validation protocol, revealing overfitting and a measurement hazard that underestimates capitulation by 18–24 percentage points.
By Saad Aamir, Muhammad Awais Bin Adil
The study compares two ways of obtaining predictions from language models fine‑tuned on customer behavior: scoring answer tokens directly versus generating a written rationale and then scoring the resulting answer. Across 13 model‑domain cells covering four retail tasks, scored readouts consistently rank outcomes more accurately than generated readouts, with an AUC improvement ranging from 1.5 to 14.5 points. The authors also find that a third readout—eliciting a probability before any verdict—improves calibration but only when outcome rates are represented in training, and they recommend using generated rationales for interpretability while relying on scored heads for ranking.
By Touchapon Kraisingkorn, Krittin Pachtrachai, Wachiravit Modecrua
arXiv:2608. 10385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as relevance assessors in information retrieval (IR) evaluation, raising questions about how assessor framing affects judgment reliability and downstream system comparison.
By Samaneh Mohtadi, Pietro Bernardelle, Joel Mackenzie, Gianluca Demartini
arXiv:2606. 27383v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence.
By Yu Fu, Yongqi Kang, Yong Zhao
arXiv:2607. 14707v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder.
By Akash Raj
arXiv:2606. 01472v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: High-stakes production document-generation systems require language models to be adaptive, evidence-grounded, and auditable.
By Nataraj Agaram Sundar Tejas Morabia
AfriSyCo investigates how different framing and verification strategies affect the accuracy of language models on African‑language factual content. The study uses a cross‑language factorial design with native‑language follow‑ups and English framing, analyzing 1,415 observations from 100 source questions across seven checkpoints and six languages. Results show that assertive framing boosts target selection by up to 30.4 points, while verification reduces it by 17.4 points, with strong interactions and large variability depending on wording and checkpoint.
By David Ababio Awuni, Rose-Mary Owusuaa Mensah Gyening, Elvis Gyasi Owusu