arXiv:2609.33155v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Test-time scaling and post-training have improved LLM performance in coding and mathematical reasoning, but their effectiveness for individual stan...
By Yuyang Zhao, Xuan Liu, HaoYang Shang, Haojian Jin
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal
arXiv:2602.02219v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models are widely employed as evaluators, a paradigm commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. Prior research has predominantly examin...
By Yuzheng Xu, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno, Yoshitaka Ushiku
The paper argues that verbalized confidence—once viewed as overconfident and coarse—has become the preferred soft‑scoring method for LLM‑as‑a‑Judge on top‑tier proprietary models released after 2025. Experiments on SummEval, AggreFact, and HelpSteer2 across up to 18 LLMs show that log‑probabilities are no longer the best signal, and that adding an overconfidence advisory and self‑debate further improves calibration and robustness. The authors note that these enhancements incur little accuracy loss on post‑2025 models but do affect pre‑2025 ones, highlighting a compatibility shift in how confidence should be measured.
By Yu-Chung Hsiao
StanceEval 2026 is the second edition of a shared task on stance detection in Arabic social media, where systems must classify a tweet’s stance toward a target as Favor, Against, or None. The event featured two tracks: Track 1 tests cross‑target transfer on thematically related topics (Women Driving vs. Women Empowerment), while Track 2 evaluates cross‑domain transfer to entirely unseen targets (E‑Cars and Trimester System). With 80 registered teams and 30 submissions, top systems achieved $F_{avg2}$ scores of 0.8994 (Track 1) and 0.9400 (Track 2), surpassing baseline performance and highlighting challenges such as target polarization and dialectal nuance.
By Rasha Albalawi, Nuha Albadi, Hamzah Luqman, Asma Yamani, Maram Kurdi, Saad Ezzini, Ahmed Ashraf, Maged Al-Shaibani, Nora Alturayeif
arXiv:2607. 22766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality.
By Yunting Song, Matthew Watson, Peter Grabowski, Jun Qin