arXiv AI

Who Verifies the Benchmark? Decentralizing Trust in Large Language Model Evaluation

arXiv:2608. 07762v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM benchmarks can build an organization's reputation and attract customers, but only when results are transparent and verifiable.

arXiv AI
Jun 3

CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks

arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.

By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
arXiv AI
Jun 29

DMind Benchmark: Toward a Holistic Assessment of LLM Capabilities across the Web3 Domain

arXiv:2504. 16116v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The Web3 ecosystem, underpinned by cryptographic primitives and decentralized consensus, represents a high-stakes environment where software vulnerabilities and incentive misalignments translate directly into financial loss.

By Enhao Huang, Pengyu Sun, Shuxun Wang, Zixin Lin, Alex Chen, Kaichun Hu, Joey Ouyang, Frank Li, Zhiyu Zhang, Haobo Wang, Yiming Li, Zhan Qin, James Yi, Gang Zhao, Ziang Ling, Lowes Yang
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