arXiv:2609.01604v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLM-based evaluators of natural language generation (NLG) quality are widely deployed as scoring tools and as automated training signals, yet the int...
By Himil Vasava, Ming Jiang
arXiv:2609.00746v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Fine-tuning a pretrained LLM into a vision-language model (VLM) can erode the backbone's text capability, with the damage concentrated on tasks that re...
By Minsik Choi, Geewook Kim, Young Geun Kim
arXiv:2507. 18043v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Inference-time steering methods offer a lightweight alternative to fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) by modifying internal activations at test time without updating model weights.
By Duy Nguyen, Archiki Prasad, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal
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.
By Bhaskar Gurram
arXiv:2607. 14111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations?
By Ely Hahami, Ishaan Sinha, Lavik Jain
arXiv:2608.21766v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Both capability and safety benchmarks rest upon the assumption that the behavior of language models undergoing a test is informative about their beha...
By Farzaneh Heidari, Amin Memarian, Guillaume Rabusseau
arXiv:2605. 25902v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Narrowly finetuned language models memorize implanted content verbatim, but auditing what a deployed model has been taught, without access to its weights or training data, remains an open challenge.
By Micha{\l} Brzozowski, Zuzanna Dubanowska, Enrico Cassano, Neo Christopher Chung
arXiv:2607. 01153v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, or misreported progress in an agentic task.
By Brett Reynolds
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.
By Mingyu Li, Guorui Song, Jing Lin, Haoqian Wang
Large language models increasingly operate as tool-using agents, where small format, argument, or function-call errors can invalidate otherwise plausible responses. We study inference-time feed-forward network (FFN) intervention for improving structured outputs without retraining model weights.
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.
By Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu
arXiv:2606. 28471v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model capability is the central variable in LLM pre-training, yet is never observed directly: data shapes it prospectively, while evaluation reveals it only retrospectively, compressing samples, prompts, decoding, and scoring rules into one noisy score.
By Zhixuan Li, Jiangan Yuan, Han Xu