The paper introduces Jev, a reinforcement‑learning‑trained model that provides calibrated probability answers to typed questions about a single input in one call. Jev is evaluated on RLCDAlignBench, a benchmark covering ten alignment failures across 44 tests and five target models, achieving a median AUROC of 0.886 zero‑shot and outperforming supervised baselines on most tasks. The study shows that question wording has little impact, while contextual fields that encode labels are more influential, and that Jev matches human‑label agreement while being 63× cheaper than LLM‑judge scorers.
By Ruoqi Guo, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yuekang Li, Lida Zhao, Yutao Wu, Simin Chen, Ying Zhang, Leo Yu Zhang
The study investigates whether Jev, a typed classifier that outputs probabilities over allowed answers without generating text, can replace large language model (LLM) rubric judges. Across nine panels from seven benchmarks, Jev’s accuracy differed significantly from LLM judges in only 8 of 27 paired comparisons, performing best on binary criteria and worse only on graded ones, while most other comparisons were inconclusive. In terms of cost and speed, Jev was 29 to 325 times cheaper and 30 to 220 times faster than the flash‑tier LLM judges, and a cascade approach that defers uncertain Jev verdicts to an LLM yielded only modest gains.
whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that a lightweight classifier like Jev can serve as an efficient first‑stage evaluator, potentially reducing the reliance on expensive and slow LLM judges in automated grading pipelines."
By Delip Rao, Chris Callison-Burch
The study compares Jev, a typed classifier that outputs probabilities over allowed answers, with three flash-tier LLM rubric judges across nine panels from seven benchmarks. Jev’s accuracy differs significantly from an LLM judge in only 8 of 27 paired comparisons, performing best on binary criteria and worse only on graded ones, while most other comparisons are inconclusive. In terms of cost and speed, Jev is 29 to 325 times cheaper and 30 to 220 times faster than the LLM judges, and a cascade that defers uncertain Jev verdicts to an LLM yields only modest gains of up to 2.0 points over the best single judge.
arXiv:2608.22048v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed on local hardware for privacy, cost, and accessibility reasons. Yet many evaluations emphasize accuracy...
By Orion Powers, Daniella Seum, Khaled Slhoub
arXiv:2609.26550v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge scales evaluation, but reasoning judges are slow and costly. We study JEV-as-a-Judge: evaluation with JEV, a decision-only judge tha...
By Yubo Li, Yidi Miao, Ramayya Krishnan, Rema Padman
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
By Aubrey Brueckner, Darshil Patel, Yuhuan He, Timothy Kassis
arXiv:2608. 15445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a reward is correct on every training example yet consistent with more than one goal, a model can acquire an unintended one, a failure known as goal misgeneralization.
By Suyash Maniyar, Armaan Sandhu, Abhishek Mishra
arXiv:2606. 07810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability.
By Anish Laddha, Nitesh Pradhan, Gaurav Srivastava
arXiv:2608. 20106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce OenoBench, a wine-domain knowledge benchmark of 3,266 multiple-choice questions across six pillars (regions, grape varieties, viticulture, winemaking, producers, business) and four difficulty tiers.
By Nikita Khudov
LAVOIR is a single‑pass decision encoder that not only predicts answers to typed questions but also identifies which missing pieces of information (slots) would most improve its confidence. By placing candidate slots next to answer options, one forward pass yields both the decision distribution and the expected value of asking each slot, without requiring human labels. In controlled experiments, LAVOIR’s question policy matches a greedy oracle and improves accuracy by up to 14.1 points over never asking, while on real conversations it raises accuracy by 8.3 points with minimal questioning.
By Furkan Yilmaz, Habibe Aleyna Tasdemir, Muhammed Faruk Gozay
JevAdvBench introduces the first adversarial benchmark for reinforcement‑learning‑based calibrated decision (RLCD) models, providing 812 typed questions across 66 scenarios and a black‑box attack suite of 9,744 single‑edit variants. The benchmark evaluates attacks by comparing each perturbed decision to the model’s own clean decision and to an identical re‑run, revealing that rewording changes decisions by only 1.2 percentage points while certain injected opinions can flip 12.1% of decisions and lower confidence below 0.8 in 38% of cases. These findings demonstrate that RLCD models can be significantly misled by seemingly innocuous input edits, underscoring the need to treat the state as untrusted in applications.
By Jianyi Hu, Hangtao Zhang, Yi Liu, Yeqi Zeng, Li Zeng, Xianlong Wang, Rui Wang, Leo Yu Zhang
arXiv:2609.15618v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Our team, VANGUARD, presents IROH (Insightful Ranking of Humor), a three-stage retrieval system for JOKER Task 1 English at CLEF 2026, achieving firs...
By Ana-Maria Luisa Mocanu, Sebastian Mocanu, Ciprian-Octavian Truic\u{a}, Elena-Simona Apostol