arXiv:2606. 06946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present LoRA-MINT, a new methodology for Membership Inference Test (MINT) applied to recent Large Language Models (LLMs) fine-tuned for specific Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks through Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA).
Large Language Models (LLMs) raise growing concerns about privacy leakage and copyright compliance. Membership inference is a key tool for assessing such risks, but existing studies mainly focus on whether specific samples or sample-based data units are used for training.
arXiv:2607. 28801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples.
arXiv:2606. 02837v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited.
arXiv:2606. 04928v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications, raising critical questions for governance, accountability, and data provenance.
arXiv:2601. 17717v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for generating data across various modalities.
arXiv:2607. 22766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality.
arXiv:2606. 16110v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine unlearning has been extensively studied in response to growing privacy concerns and regulatory requirements.
The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.
LuxIT is a monolingual instruction‑tuning dataset for Luxembourgish, created by synthesizing instruction‑answer pairs from native texts using the DeepSeek‑R1‑0528 model and a quality‑assurance LLM‑as‑judge process. The resulting 227,507 high‑quality pairs were used to fine‑tune 14 LLMs (≤15 B parameters), yielding an average accuracy increase of +5.37 percentage points on standardized Luxembourgish proficiency exams and improvements in macro‑averaged F1 on nine of the fourteen downstream NLP tasks. These findings demonstrate that synthetic monolingual data can effectively enhance LLM performance in low‑resource languages and reveal the complex relationship between exam performance and practical NLP gains.
arXiv:2607. 19604v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Injecting factual knowledge into large language models (LLMs) reliably and at scale remains an open challenge.
The paper introduces Verbalization Training (VT), a technique that encourages large language models (LLMs) to openly express their evaluation awareness (EA) without directly supervising their internal beliefs. VT works by truncating model rollouts just before spontaneous verbalizations, creating training prefixes that signal awareness, and then applying a reinforcement learning objective to increase calibrated verbalization. Experiments on models such as Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, Kimi K2.6, and Inkling show that VT boosts verbalized EA by 2.4–2.9× while keeping latent EA and overall behavior largely unchanged, and a causal study confirms that VT-induced verbalizations reflect newly acquired meta‑knowledge.
arXiv:2605.24981v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotati...