Hugging Face Trending Papers

Prism-1: Position- and Rival-Independent Scoring for System One Models

arXiv AI
Oct 16

Prism-1: Position- and Rival-Independent Scoring for System One Models

Prism-1 introduces Position- and Rival-Independent Scoring for System One models, ensuring that option ordering and set changes do not affect decision probabilities. It achieves this by reading each option in its own block at shared positions, preserving softmax independence across options. Experiments on Qwen3-8B and Gemma 4 12B show Prism-1 maintains baseline accuracy while eliminating sensitivity to shuffling and irrelevant options.

By Yao Long Teng, Jianguo Huang, Yanchen Deng, Jiayi Cai, Bo An
arXiv AI
Oct 16

Verdict: Encode Once, Decide Many

Verdict-MQ is an open encoder that processes a single piece of state once and then answers multiple typed questions about that state, avoiding separate passes for each question. By using a structured attention mask, it ensures the state encoding is independent of question order and prevents questions from influencing one another. On the typed‑decisions benchmark, Verdict‑MQ outperforms a larger specialist model, achieving higher accuracy and better calibration, while on other benchmarks it shows mixed results compared to fine‑tuned baselines.

By Avdhesh Singh Chouhan, Jack Perry
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 8

Input-Blind Controls Produce Substantial Oracle Headroom for Layer Programs in Multiple-Choice Evaluation

The study investigates whether adaptive layer-skipping and repetition programs truly improve language‑model inference or merely exploit input‑blind controls. Using 32 such programs on Qwen3‑4B‑Base and Llama‑3.1‑8B across 4,413 multiple‑choice items, the authors compare real program gains to those from input‑blind perturbations and fixed letter offsets. Results show that input‑blind controls can produce comparable or even larger headroom, and that real programs only outperform controls in specific menu configurations, indicating that the apparent benefits may not be due to the actual layer computation choices.

By Yibei Guo, Rui Liu
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

Joint or Per-Option? Compact Encoders for Closed-Set Decisions from 17 Million to 1 Billion Parameters

The paper investigates how compact an encoder can be for closed‑set decision tasks in language‑model pipelines, comparing joint versus per‑option scoring. In a 32‑million‑parameter study, per‑option scoring outperforms joint scoring by 5.8 chance‑corrected skill points on a 37‑benchmark suite, and two external benchmarks corroborate this advantage. Across six released joint encoders ranging from 17 million to 1 billion parameters, the 68‑ and 150‑million‑parameter models surpass a 435‑million‑parameter DeBERTa‑v3 zero‑shot classifier on 209 overlapping tasks and match it on 145 unseen tasks, while the smallest model processes a median request in 14 ms versus 728 ms for the classifier.

By Tardelli Ronan Coelho Stekel
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 13

LODESTAR: Trustworthy Entropy Is Navigated, Not Merely Measured -- Reinforced Polarizer Keeps a Frozen LLM from Being Confidently Misled by the Wrong Evidence

arXiv:2608. 11922v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predictive-distribution entropy makes a strong selection rule in retrieval-augmented question answering: across five QA benchmarks, keeping the candidate answer that a frozen respondent LLM produces with the lowest answer-token entropy lifts mean answer $F_1$ from 0.

By Po-Jen Ko, Che-Cheng Wu, Hung-Chun Hsu, Li-Yang Chang, Chuan-Ju Wang
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 1

Listening to the Wise Few: Query-Key Alignment Unlocks Latent Correct Answers in Large Language Models

arXiv:2410.02343v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) routinely fail to output the correct option in multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) while encoding the answer int...

By Eduard Tulchinskii, Kristian Kuznetsov, Laida Kushnareva, Anastasia Voznyuk, Andrei Andriiainen, Irina Piontkovskaya, Evgeny Burnaev, Serguei Barannikov
arXiv AI
Jul 14

LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.

By Ning Liu