arXiv:2609.24574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Computational social science increasingly relies on large language models for text annotation, and the validity of published findings now rests on the...
arXiv:2609.22133v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this paper, we show that LLM and human coding are observationally equivalent in terms of annotation quality: recent LLMs agree with expert coders at...
arXiv:2609.37647v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jev is a commercial System One model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed...
arXiv:2605. 11954v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs.
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."
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
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.
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.
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.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably assess scientific hypotheses by using a logit-based energy scoring method that leverages the model’s intrinsic confidence. Across 1,323 papers in 12 disciplines, this intrinsic scoring achieved a 33.0% Hit@1 rate, outperforming a prompted listwise ranking approach that scored 16.6%. The best result, a 1‑billion‑parameter model with logit-based energy scoring, reached 53.1% Hit@1, suggesting that confidence‑based evaluation could improve trustworthy AI‑enabled scientific discovery.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific hypothesis generation. However, evaluating generated hypotheses remains a challenge for trustworthy AI-enabled scientific workflows.
arXiv:2603. 23841v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity.