arXiv:2608. 01559v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Adversarial self-play is an appealing recipe for legal reasoning: have a student model draft an argument, have an adversary attack it, and reward the student when its argument survives the attack.
arXiv:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
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.
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
Reinforcement learning increasingly relies on an LLM judge to score each rubric criterion, and that judge acts as the reward model during training. Before such a signal can be trusted, we need to know how capable the judge must be and how biased it is.
The paper shows that fine‑tuning a large language model (LLM) with a debate framework—where a generator and a critic compete and a weaker LLM judge adjudicates—reduces reward hacking compared to standard reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF). In experiments on mathematics tasks, the debate approach keeps the judge’s performance stable, achieving a 45% higher peak validation accuracy than the RLAIF baseline and mitigating the rapid exploitation of judge errors. Additional findings indicate that weakening the judge speeds hacking unless countered by extra debate rounds, that debate can override misalignment prompts, and that word‑limit constraints on critiques help balance the game and prevent judge hacking. whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates a practical method to curb reward hacking in RL‑based AI systems, addressing a key obstacle for safely scaling AI oversight."
arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.
arXiv:2608. 06012v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search-agent rewards mix answer quality, citation grounding, tool cost, and anti-hacking terms; a high score therefore need not imply that cited evidence was retrieved, and added penalties can cancel.
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.
The paper introduces the concept of proof‑carrying cognition, aiming to close the verification gap in language‑model reasoning by using reality‑settled rewards. It presents a theoretical framework linking verifier‑gold correlation to compute‑capability trade‑offs, demonstrates that unsound verifiers degrade under best‑of‑N selection while sound verifiers improve, and proposes a new benchmark metric, Soundness‑under‑Pressure, for evaluating reality‑settled reasoning systems.
The paper introduces ImpossibleRubrics, a benchmark of 169 impossible tasks designed to test the robustness of language‑model‑generated rubrics as reward signals. Each task is paired with a verifiable oracle certificate that defines what constitutes an honest answer, and the benchmark includes 48 answerable controls. Experiments show that many rubric generators are exploited frequently—up to 36% on a stress cut—highlighting a significant gap in rubric quality rather than task difficulty, and that generic rubrics can be more vulnerable than tailored ones.
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.