The paper investigates how reliable large language models (LLMs) are when used as judges to evaluate entity alignment (EA) systems, which match equivalent entities across knowledge graphs. Through systematic benchmarking across three frontier LLMs, three datasets, and four EA systems, the study identifies a failure mode called anchor bias, where judges invert discrimination when the system’s decision label is visible. The authors show that a label‑free evaluation protocol restores high discrimination accuracy, while visible labels cause significant score shifts, especially in stronger models—a phenomenon they term the frontier model paradox. They also provide a new biomedical EA benchmark (MeSH–SNOMED CT) and an open‑source framework for auditing LLM judge reliability.
By Vaibhava Lakshmi Ravideshik, Mayank Kejriwal
Entity Alignment (EA) identifies equivalent entities across knowledge graphs and is critical for knowledge base integration and ontology merging. Evaluating EA systems at scale requires expensive expe...
The paper investigates the reliability of ranking tables produced by small-sample evaluations of large language models (LLMs). Using LLM‑inferred prompt structure across eight model variants, the authors find that prompt‑structure recovery is highly unstable, with only the bottom of the ranking consistently reproducible. They demonstrate that standard evaluation practices can misrepresent model performance and propose reporting practices to improve transparency.
By Dipankar Sarkar
AMLworld-Compact introduces an importance‑weighted downsampling protocol for evaluating large language models on AMLworld’s test splits, retaining all illicit transactions while sampling benign ones from supervised‑score strata. The HT‑Coreset method reduces evaluation targets by 271× on HI‑Small and 611× on LI‑Small, providing unbiased confusion‑count estimates with exact recall and ratio estimates for precision and F1. Experiments with boosted‑tree strata and Graph Feature Preprocessor features show lower F1 RMSE compared to uniform sampling, and audit tools reveal that lexical checks do not reliably indicate correctness of model outputs.
By Natapong Nitarach, Phume Ngampornsukswadi, Pittawat Taveekitworachai, Surapon Nonesung, Warit Sirichotedumrong, Kunat Pipatanakul
arXiv:2607. 24878v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Phenotype-driven diagnostic benchmarks usually report the rank of the reference disease, but they rarely reveal which plausible alternatives are ranked above it or what evidence a tool-using model examines before making its decision.
By Guiling Guo, Jia Yang, Jiahao Xu, Shuyuan Zheng, Zhonghai Sun, Qiyuan Li
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
By Kaihua Ding
arXiv:2610.33262v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: We study efficient, adaptive auditing of categorical labels in a fixed dataset, motivated by biodiversity-credit programs in which expert verificatio...
By Fangyuan Lin, Noah Krever, Jakub \v{C}ern\'y, Lily Xu
The paper introduces Witness Overlap, a new method for determining directional provenance among open-weight model checkpoints. By using a third same-family checkpoint as a witness, the technique compares local geometry to infer which checkpoint is the parent of another, achieving 95.3% accuracy on 176 LLM checkpoints from 16 families. The authors also demonstrate robustness to weight noise and pruning, and extend the approach to VLM and diffusion families.
By Siyuan Li, Haoxuan Zeng, Xin Luo, Fernando Jia, Florence Li, Zhengyang Geng, Zico Kolter, Tai Sing Lee, Tianqin Li
JuryProbe is an empirical diagnostic tool designed to assess consensus risk in panels of reference‑free large language model judges used for factuality verification. It estimates risk by measuring false‑negative correlations and false‑consensus lift from a labeled calibration probe, and routes high‑risk majority decisions to judges with trusted references. The approach was validated on FEVER corruptions, showing that flagged decisions can be grounded without additional reference acquisition in most cases, while reducing false accepts by about 0.4% and avoiding 28% of reference acquisitions.
By Tianxin Zhou, Ruixi Lin
arXiv:2607. 22766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality.
By Yunting Song, Matthew Watson, Peter Grabowski, Jun Qin
The paper investigates a failure mode in Graph-JEPA, a joint‑embedding predictive model trained on a large scientific‑reasoning graph. Despite achieving high linear‑probe accuracy and effective rank, the learned representation contains almost no usable instance information, as shown by retrieval metrics. The authors diagnose the issue to variance allocation in the objective, propose a repair that restores near‑perfect information recovery, and demonstrate that the problem persists even after repair, highlighting limitations in the evaluation metrics used.
By Gollam Rabby, S\"oren Auer
The paper investigates the nature of agreement among repeated samples of large language models (LLMs), showing that strong agreement can arise even for incorrect answers. It introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, which is decomposed into a mechanical component driven solely by per‑case answer preferences and a residual component that captures preference‑unexplained agreement. Experiments on GPT‑4.1 and several open‑weight models demonstrate that mechanical agreement dominates in many settings, while the residual varies with benchmark type and sampling protocol.
By Lizhuo Zhang, Mengmeng Tang, Chenfeng Long, Xiaoyong Tang, Xiang Luo