arXiv:2607. 20768v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Majority voting over LLMs is widely assumed to benefit from diversity, and diversity measures are used to choose which models to combine.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2608. 04618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Heterogeneous language-model ensembles expand the space of candidate responses, yet they lack a principled criterion for when a newly generated answer should supersede an already supported one.
arXiv:2608. 06940v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap.
arXiv:2607. 05806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training data for machine learning is routinely collected by a selection process the model never sees: loans are observed only when granted, outcomes only when a test was ordered.
arXiv:2608. 16190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Trusted monitoring has a cheap, trusted model score a stronger untrusted model's actions, and a diverse ensemble of them beats a single stronger monitor at matched cost.
arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.