arXiv:2607. 11890v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-ended surveys offer valuable insights, but they are notoriously difficult to analyze at scale.
arXiv:2609.24650v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readability assessment is essential for tailoring texts to intended audiences across educational, healthcare, and information retrieval domains. Howeve...
The paper introduces LLM‑PeerReview, an unsupervised ensemble method that selects the best response from multiple LLM-generated candidates by scoring each answer with several LLMs, aggregating those scores via averaging or a graphical model, and choosing the highest-scoring response. The approach is peer‑review inspired, transparent, and interpretable, and it outperforms the Smoothie‑Global model by 6.9%–7.3% across factual recall QA, math reasoning, and instruction‑following tasks. The authors also provide a curated benchmark suite of 12 ensemble methods evaluated on four datasets and three task families to aid reproducibility.
arXiv:2606. 23701v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Qualitative product feedback can reveal nuanced user experiences, but its implicit sentiment is difficult to measure.
arXiv:2605.30273v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in generating supportive responses for mental health queries, but improving their usefulness, empat...
arXiv:2608. 07208v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing measures of how much a text is about a concept read the surface of the text: dictionary word shares, topic proportions, embedding similarities.
arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
arXiv:2606. 05792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: TLA+ has supported industrial verification at companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, yet writing correct TLA+ specifications from natural language still requires time and expertise, which limits adoption.
The study examines how emotions are represented across layers of large language models (LLMs) by probing eight 1B–9B open‑weight models on three datasets (Twitter, Reddit, autobiographical narratives). It finds that the optimal probing layer varies systematically with the dataset, moving from near‑input layers to deeper layers, and that targeted forward‑pass interventions on these layers degrade performance more than random interventions. Additionally, the selected layers transfer across datasets and emotion categories, and early‑exit representations from these layers outperform full‑depth exits by an average of 6.9 percentage points.
arXiv:2608.30543v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for scaling qualitative analysis, but existing applications often provide limited methodological t...
arXiv:2607. 06482v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in data analysis often fail to reflect real-world settings.
The paper introduces GPTBIAS, a framework that uses powerful large language models like GPT‑4 to evaluate bias in other LLMs. It employs specially crafted prompts called Bias Attack Instructions to probe for bias and outputs a bias score along with detailed information such as bias types, affected demographics, keywords, reasons, and improvement suggestions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the framework’s effectiveness and usability.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can perform multi-coder qualitative coding by independently coding, debating, and reconciling disagreements. It quantifies the effectiveness of this approach across diverse datasets, identifying key factors—such as codebook length, data similarity, and agent disagreement—that influence coding accuracy. The study finds that intense, unresolved debates improve accuracy but that LLMs still lack adaptive responsiveness to context, leading to design recommendations for automated coding systems.