arXiv:2606. 20820v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Can we trust evaluation scores to capture an LLM's true real-world performance?
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2608. 14425v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM evaluations often use fixed sampling budgets, testing every item the same number of times even after estimates are precise.
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?
Test-time scaling often uses an external verifier, such as compilers and test cases in coding or trained value functions in robotics applications, to obtain high-quality rollouts. Verifier-free test-time scaling (or VF-TTS) is gaining extensive attention as a mechanism to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, primarily because we do not have access to such high-quality verifiers in many real-world applications.
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.
arXiv:2602. 15327v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine learning model performance improvements tend to arise from competition and application.
arXiv:2608. 01378v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Design campaigns in chemistry, materials science, and machine learning share a bottleneck: determining how good a candidate truly is requires an expensive evaluation - an experiment, a first-principles simulation, or a full training run.