arXiv:2607. 05679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models (LMs) exhibit problematic biases, such as stereotypes.
arXiv:2608. 05726v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts.
arXiv:2606. 08417v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Diffusion and continuous flow-based language models have emerged as the leading non-autoregressive alternatives to language modeling.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias.
arXiv:2606. 07537v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models hallucinate--producing fluent, confident, factually wrong outputs--with a consistency that persists across generations and scales.
arXiv:2607. 03882v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly deployed as post-hoc explainers of AI-generated outputs, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably communicate probabilistic information in natural language.
arXiv:2606. 05486v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prompt ambiguity is a common source of failure in large language models, but is difficult to localize because it is a latent property of the prompt, while existing attribution methods are designed to explain observable outputs such as logits or generated tokens.
arXiv:2607. 19243v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.
arXiv:2606. 00467v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot annotation and LLM-as-a-judge tasks, yet their reliability hinges on how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions.
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods.
arXiv:2510. 21891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: To deploy large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes application domains that require substantively accurate responses to open-ended prompts, we need reliable, computationally inexpensive methods that assess the trustworthiness of long-form responses generated by LLMs.
arXiv:2608. 06908v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose Zero-phase Component Analysis (ZCA) whitening as a geometric pre-processing step for the Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT).
arXiv:2606. 23695v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Models in external knowledge, yet current evaluations rely on discrete heuristics that suffer from ''epistemic blindness'' - failing to distinguish genuine contextual information extraction from parametric memory recall.