Hugging Face Trending Papers

Beyond Scores: Understanding LLM-as-a-Judge Mechanisms in Summarization Evaluation

arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 3

Reading the Finetuning Prior: Verbatim Content Recovery via Contrastive Decoding Diffing

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 AI
Jul 31

Adversarial Pragmatics for AI Safety Evaluation: A Diagnostic Framework and Seed Benchmark for Language-Mediated Control

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
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 19

OraclePhys: A Systematic Framework for LLM Fine-Tuning on Structural Mechanics

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
arXiv AI
Jun 26

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

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