arXiv:2606. 18451v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Single-image-to-3D generators are improving quickly, but there is no agreed, human-free way to tell whether one generated mesh is better than another.
By Ali Asaria, Tony Salomone, Deep Gandhi
The paper investigates two strategies for improving large language model (LLM) evaluation: specialized judge weights and rule‑based deferral policies. Experiments on nearly 100,000 rubric‑conditioned samples show that correct rubrics boost accuracy, while incorrect ones hurt it, and that splitting training data into criterion‑specific experts can severely degrade performance unless the experts are warm‑started from a unified model. The authors demonstrate that lightweight deferral cascades can match or exceed the accuracy of larger standalone judges at a fraction of the compute cost, and they provide practical design rules for building efficient, reliable LLM evaluators.
By Ye Chen, Weining Zhang
arXiv:2606. 19162v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Score- and flow-matching models often rely on preference-based reinforcement learning for two purposes: aligning with subjective preferences and, surprisingly, recovering properties such as visual realism and coherent object structure that matching-based training is intended to learn from the data itself.
By Nicolas Beltran-Velez, Felix Friedrich, Zhang Xiaofeng, Reyhane Askari-Hemmat, Xiaochuang Han, Adriana Romero-Soriano, Michal Drozdzal
arXiv:2607. 02104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise.
By Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao
arXiv:2606. 25432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Inference efficiency is typically pursued by shrinking the model: distillation, pruning, quantization, and sparse routing each lower per-token cost while treating token count as fixed.
By DatologyAI, :, Matthew L. Leavitt, Siddharth Joshi, Haoli Yin, Rishabh Adiga, Haakon Mongstad, Alvin Deng, David Schwab, Bogdan Gaza, Ari Morcos
Inference efficiency is typically pursued by shrinking the model: distillation, pruning, quantization, and sparse routing each lower per-token cost while treating token count as fixed. But output length has been inflating, and it is precisely the component the standard toolkit leaves untouched.
VisionQ is a new benchmark for qualitative analysis in computer vision that evaluates vision‑language models (VLMs) on criterion‑conditioned visual discrimination. It is built from over 1,800 peer‑reviewed comparison figures in CVPR and ICCV papers, linking each image crop to author‑stated visual claims through 3,911 hand‑annotated data points. The benchmark includes a 51‑leaf taxonomy of visual criteria, a protocol that hides method identities and reports accuracy per criterion, and a DPO‑tuned Gemma‑4‑E4B judge that improves accuracy on a held‑out test set.
By Vu Dinh Xuan, Duc-Hai Nguyen, Minh-Dung Dao, Vu Quynh Giao, Quang Hong Nguyen, Binh-Son Hua, Barry O'Sullivan, David Murphy, Hoang D. Nguyen
Agentic systems have widened the gap between producing candidate outputs and reviewing them. This paper asks a practical architectural question: should domain specialization be built into an evaluator's weights, or into the rule that decides when its judgment can be trusted?
arXiv:2609.01244v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Every supervised fine-tuning run forces the same chain of decisions, such as learning rate, batch size, LoRA or full fine-tuning, how many epochs, whic...
By Charles O'Neill, Mudith Jayasekara, Harry Partridge
arXiv:2605.31351v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: AI-based Visually Impaired Assistance (VIA) remains challenging, largely due to the high cost of human evaluation. The VLM-as-a-Judge paradig...
By Yi Zhao, Siqi Wang, Zhe Hu, Yushi Li, Jing Li
arXiv:2609.01072v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Post-hoc calibration corrects reported confidence, yet a multiclass calibrator can also change the associated top-1 prediction. Accuracy captures only...
By Daehwan Kim, Haejun Chung, Ikbeom Jang
The paper evaluates the claim that vision‑language models (VLMs) outperform task‑specific vision backbones for UAV power‑line defect assessment using the ElecVQA‑Bench benchmark. Across various evaluation settings—partitioning, item sets, label spaces, replication, resolution, and side information—the performance gap between VLMs and traditional backbones is minimal or even reversed when controlling for resolution and token budget. The study concludes that VLM superiority is not universally supported and emphasizes the importance of rigorous benchmark audits.
By Linghao Zhang, Siyu Xiang, Junwei Kuang, Peiyu Yi