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.
arXiv:2608. 15980v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Preference benchmarks are built by hiring annotators, and the identity of those annotators is treated as an implementation detail.
The paper investigates how the order of candidate documents in a prompt affects the decisions made by large‑language‑model (LLM) scorers, even when their ranking quality is similar. It shows that five scorers with only a 0.010 nDCG@10 difference can produce retained‑set overlaps as low as 0.66–0.84, and that existing rerankers still exhibit significant order dependence. The authors propose Order‑Consistency SFT (OC‑SFT), a training method that reduces this dependence, maintaining ranking quality while improving decision stability across multiple tasks.
arXiv:2608.22432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual LLM judges produce different evaluator-backbone rankings depending on the prompt language: on an eight-language Agent-as-a-Judge benchma...
A stable compression score can still select the worse model. In our dense study, a split-half reliable path-quadratic score predicted a 16.
arXiv:2607. 22585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Public leaderboards for coding agents typically rank systems by model name and pass rate, while the surrounding harness (the scaffold that issues tools, manages context, and decides when to stop) is often under-specified.
arXiv:2608. 03887v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fine-tuning a large language model on new data degrades what it previously learned.
arXiv:2607. 09739v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study LLM benchmark coreset selection: selecting a small subset of prompts over multiple benchmarks whose induced model scores and rankings approximate those obtained from the full benchmark suite.
arXiv:2606. 05104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets.
arXiv:2608. 14509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt.
FlavourBench is an automated benchmark that evaluates language models on culinary tasks by providing a versioned, executable ground truth system. Each task presents eight ingredients and asks the model to propose a three‑ingredient portfolio, with all 56 possible portfolios scored by the Epicure system before model execution. The benchmark assesses 27 frontier endpoints across 534 tasks, yielding a FlavourBench Score that averages frozen task scores across families, and includes extensive statistical analysis and reproducible data releases.
OraclePhys is a fine‑tuning framework for large language models on structural mechanics, comprising a graded benchmark (OraclePhys‑Bench), a 30K supervision dataset (OraclePhys‑30K), and a controlled training study. The study shows that the form of the label’s answer, rather than its length, determines what the model learns, and that certain training objectives can produce models that match or exceed existing LLMs on spatial structural response tasks. The trained 8B model reaches the data‑precision frontier, outperforming zero‑shot and 32‑shot baselines at a specialist level.