arXiv:2610.27901v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research collaborators for hypothesis refinement, methodological planning, and technical analys...
By Sasi Kiran Gaddipati, Gollam Rabby, S\"oren Auer
arXiv:2604. 07343v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values.
By Qiyao Ma, Dechen Gao, Rui Cai, Boqi Zhao, Hanchu Zhou, Junshan Zhang, Zhe Zhao
The Writerslogic team participated in the CLEF 2026 SimpleText shared task, tackling both text simplification (Task 1) and complexity spotting (Task 2). For simplification, they built a multi‑candidate pipeline with GPT‑4o‑mini, selecting the best candidate via a reference‑free heuristic, and their Claude Sonnet 4 submission achieved a SARI of 47.43 and BLEU of 14.21, ranking third overall on the Task 1 leaderboard. For complexity spotting, they fine‑tuned a DeBERTa‑v3‑large NLI model on 350 K labeled pairs, achieving a macro F1 of 0.8081 (0.8085 in an ensemble) on binary over‑generation identification and 0.804 accuracy on multi‑class error classification, placing them second among unique teams.
By David L. Condrey
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific hypothesis generation. However, evaluating generated hypotheses remains a challenge for trustworthy AI-enabled scientific workflows.
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.
By Swati Rajwal, Sanjay Das, Tirthankar Ghosal
arXiv:2610.05370v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Generative reward models (GRMs) are important for LLM optimization. Unlike scalar reward models, GRMs generate natural-language critiques alongside...
By Xuancheng Li, Beining Wang, Haitao Li, Heng Wang, Yujia Zhou, Qingyi Pan, Blaze Chen, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, Qingyao Ai
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...
By Hazem Ibrahim, Yasir Zaki
PaperGym is a framework that transforms each research paper into a training environment for AI research planning, using rubrics extracted from the paper’s method and experiments as a critic. It synthesizes research questions from the goal and background, and derives evaluation criteria from the method and experiments, reducing criterion leakage to 3.7%. Experiments with Qwen models show that training with PaperGym’s rubric improves benchmark performance by up to 5.6 points and outperforms existing datasets and fine‑tuning baselines.
By Yuhan Wang, Zhengxi Lu, Yuchen Yan, Kaitao Song, Wenqi Zhang, Weiming Lu, Jun Xiao, Yueting Zhuang, Yongliang Shen
PADM'E is a method for synthesizing preference‑aligned data to meta‑evaluate language‑model (LM) evaluators of agentic behaviors. It reframes meta‑evaluation as a preference judgment problem, generating criterion‑based data with small LMs and no human involvement. In a prototype, PADM'E produced 1,000 samples across four domains and three criteria, and human validation showed agreement with human judgment rising from 73% to 85% compared to a naive baseline.
By Cheng Chang, Yining Mao, Peng Qi
The paper introduces the "Prompt Lottery" phenomenon, where paraphrastic rephrasings of judge prompts in LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaJ) lead to inconsistent judgments and can even reverse model rankings. A large-scale study across various tasks, judge families, and model backbones demonstrates that these prompt variations significantly alter evaluation outcomes. A user study shows that LLMaJ judges are 6–9 times more sensitive to prompt rephrasings than humans, and that aggregating multiple prompts improves robustness by focusing on consistent judgments.
By Ilija Subasic, Brett Levert, Andrew Rabinovich, Sajjad Pakdamansavoji, Zhao Chen
Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to automated essay scoring (AES) and automated feedback generation (AFG). However, existing studies rely primarily on prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning, while systematic research on reinforcement learning (RL) post-training and automated evaluation of feedback quality remains limited.
arXiv:2607. 28301v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can equip large language models (LLMs) with domain knowledge for high-performance computing (HPC) tasks such as data race detection and benchmark question answering.
By Tiangang Li, Xiangbo Tian