The paper proposes using large language models (LLMs) to identify disagreements among models as a way to focus expert effort on revising codebooks for large‑scale text annotation. Three expert feedback methods are evaluated: editing LLM‑generated revisions (Codebook Verifying), answering questions about disagreements (Question Answering), and labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on tutoring‑session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling achieves the highest LLM‑labeling accuracy (64.9%) compared to the expert‑revised codebook (57.8%), with Question Answering also outperforming the baseline (60.5%).
By Zeyu He, Zhuqian Zhou, Kirk Vanacore, Rene F. Kizilcec, Ting-Hao 'Kenneth' Huang
arXiv:2609.39334v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Test-time scaling has recently emerged as a powerful approach for improving LLM reasoning by allocating additional computation during inference, subs...
By Jinwoo Jeong (Korea University), Woohyung Choi (Korea University), Myeongjae Jeon (POSTECH), Jeongseob Ahn (Korea University)
arXiv:2606. 05792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: TLA+ has supported industrial verification at companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, yet writing correct TLA+ specifications from natural language still requires time and expertise, which limits adoption.
By Arslan Bisharat, Brian Ortiz, Eric Spencer, Khushboo Bhadauria, TaiNing Wang, George K. Thiruvathukal, Konstantin Laufer, Mohammed Abuhamad
arXiv:2608. 08512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates.
By Mahbub E Sobhani, Md. Faiyaz Abdullah Sayeedi, Fahmid Hasan Chowdhury, Md Adnan Arefeen, Farig Sadeque, Md. Faizul Bari, Swakkhar Shatabda
arXiv:2608.21074v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research workflows and software development pipelines, yet their output remains sensitive to in...
By Erik Thureck, Robert K\"uhnen, Tim Jacobowitz
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song
arXiv:2606. 08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes.
By Sayed Erfan Arefin
The paper "What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks" analyzes 14,767 arXiv submissions from 2022 to 2026 that introduce or update evaluation resources for large language models. It systematically maps changes in target systems, domains, evaluation materials, conditions, and scoring mechanisms, revealing a growing emphasis on action, interaction, and professional applications. The study also notes uneven development in model participation, with LLM-based scoring increasing in both agent and non-agent groups, while model-generated materials do not show a comparable rise.
By Chao Wang (Independent Researcher)
The paper introduces SWE-Flux, a repository‑level benchmark designed to test large language models’ ability to reason about runtime behavior. It contains 480 execution‑grounded instances from 12 real Python repositories, with gold answers automatically harvested from instrumented test executions. Evaluation of five LLMs shows the task remains difficult, with the best model achieving only 37% accuracy, and the benchmark can generate challenging variants through input perturbation.
By Hamed Taherkhani, Mohammad Abdollahi, Melika Sepidband, Hridya Dhulipala, Tien N. Nguyen, Hadi Hemmati
arXiv:2608.22048v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed on local hardware for privacy, cost, and accessibility reasons. Yet many evaluations emphasize accuracy...
By Orion Powers, Daniella Seum, Khaled Slhoub
arXiv:2608. 04714v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores are reported as properties of a model, yet the inference framework used to produce them, such as HuggingFace, vLLM, or Ollama, are considered non-influential and their names and versions are almost never disclosed.
By Shahed Masoudian, Passant Shafaei, Monorama Swain, Markus Schedl
arXiv:2608. 16795v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Systems that generate scientific research questions are evaluated today by expert scores, LLM-as-judge ratings, or curated case studies -- all subjective, none falsifiable.
By Hui Mao