arXiv:2607. 17384v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper provides an experimentally verified formal law for calculating the uplift that diversity of thought provides in Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles.
arXiv:2606. 29623v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rare events govern the safety profile of modern AI systems, yet their probabilities are extremely difficult to estimate: direct Monte Carlo requires prohibitive sample budgets.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2608. 14617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recurring proposal in legal AI is to improve case-outcome prediction by fusing uncertainty tools (evidence graphs with belief propagation, sequential Bayesian odds updating, Dempster-Shafer combination, and conformal prediction) into one pipeline.
arXiv:2608. 08126v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters, in tension with supervisory expectations that adverse decisions be explainable.
arXiv:2607. 03739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We release a benchmark and failure-mode-aware evaluation framework for grounded QA under coordinated retrieval poisoning.
arXiv:2607. 18063v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents process external content, exposing them to prompt injection and multi-turn manipulation.
arXiv:2606. 01490v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present a controlled experiment evaluating 12 multi-agent LLM collaboration topologies for software architecture design.
arXiv:2604. 24827v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Closed-source frontier labs do not disclose parameter counts.
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.
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:2608. 17124v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Combining the answers a large language model (LLM) samples for a question into one decision is a test-time information fusion problem, usually solved by majority voting.
arXiv:2606. 26158v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired and replaced with a more challenging version.