arXiv AI

Inducing Reward-Free Judging Rubrics that Reduce Over-Crediting in Agent Evaluation

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.

arXiv Machine Learning

Jul 8

More Convincing, Not More Correct: Self-Play Reward Hacking of Reference-Free LLM Judges

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.

By Chenyu Zhou

llms reinforcement-learning

arXiv AI

6d ago

Rubric Dropout: A Simple Way to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Rubric-as-Reward RL

arXiv:2608. 11669v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer.

By Minglai Yang, Xinyu Guo, Utkarsh Tyagi, Mian Zhang, Razvan Dumitru, Sunjie Hou, Yunzhong He, Daniel Yue Zhang, Ying Liu

llms reinforcement-learning benchmarks safety

Hugging Face Trending Papers

Jul 30

Share the Judge, Learn the Deferral: Where Specialization Helps LLM Evaluation

Agentic systems have widened the gap between producing candidate outputs and reviewing them. This paper asks a practical architectural question: should domain specialization be built into an evaluator's weights, or into the rule that decides when its judgment can be trusted?

llms agents fine-tuning

arXiv Machine Learning

Jul 21

When Can You Debias an LLM Judge? Identifiability Limits, a Test, and Designs for Top-k Ranking

arXiv:2607. 02104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise.

By Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao

llms safety

arXiv AI

Jul 17

Instrument Effects in Language-Model Honesty Evaluation: An Auditable Single-System Demonstration

arXiv:2607. 14399v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluations of language-model honesty read the model's verdicts as evidence about the model.

By Justin Bronder (Corabo Inc.)

llms

arXiv Machine Learning

6d ago

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

llms rag nlp reinforcement-learning benchmarks

arXiv Machine Learning

Jun 3

Mitigating False Credit Propagation: Probabilistic Graphical Reward Aggregation for Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning

arXiv:2606. 03361v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubric-based rewards are increasingly used for open-ended language model post-training, but criterion-level scores are often aggregated as independent utilities.

By Can Lv, Mingju Chen, Heng Chang, Shiji Zhou

llms reinforcement-learning

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

llms benchmarks safety

arXiv AI

Jul 17

Reward-Free Evolving Agents via Pairwise Validator

arXiv:2607. 14408v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A self-evolving agentic loop repeatedly proposes a tweaked version of an agent (its prompt template or program) and accepts or rejects the change based on a per-iteration quality signal.

By Minghao Liu, Yu Wang, Jiayun Wang, Wei Wei

llms agents

arXiv AI

Jul 15

Who Grades the Grader? Co-Evolving Evaluation Metrics and Skills for Self-Improving LLM Agents

arXiv:2607. 12790v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists.

By Xing Zhang, Guanghui Wang, Yanwei Cui, Ziyuan Li, Wei Qiu, Bing Zhu, Peiyang He

llms agents benchmarks safety data-engineering

arXiv AI

Aug 7

OSReward: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Cross-Platform Computer-Use Reward Models

arXiv:2607. 28609v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Computer-using agents (CUAs) are advancing rapidly across the digital world.

By Qiushi Sun, Kanzhi Cheng, Yian Wang, Bowen Yang, Hang Yan, Liheng Chen, Fangzhi Xu, Zichen Ding, Nuo Chen, Jialin Cao, Xingdong Gong, Zehao Li, Kaiming Jin, Xinfeng Yuan, Zhoumianze Liu, Jingyang Gong, Zhangyue Yin, Jiahui Gao, Zhiyong Wu, Tianbao Xie, Jianbing Zhang, Ben Kao, Lingpeng Kong

llms agents reinforcement-learning multimodal benchmarks safety

arXiv AI

Jun 9

SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?

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

llms agents nlp benchmarks safety

Related stories