arXiv AI
6d ago

Where LLM Graders Succeed and Break: Evidence from Two Computer-Science Exams

The study evaluates large language model (LLM) graders on two computer‑science exams, testing 171 configurations of closed‑ and open‑weights models. While the best LLM configuration achieved a mean absolute error of 1.64/35—better than the 2.61/35 error between two human graders—its performance was highly sensitive to the prompt. A short "strict grader" preamble caused most open‑weight models to exceed acceptable error thresholds or stop grading entirely, whereas fine‑tuning with a single LoRA adapter restored parity with human graders and reduced sensitivity to harsh prompts.

By Ali Habibullah, Yazan Alshoibi, Mohammad Alshiekh, Salman Khan, Naeemullah Khan
arXiv AI
Aug 26

The Shadow Price of Intelligence: Quality Degradation in LLM Inference as a Supply Chain Problem

The paper argues that large language model (LLM) providers, constrained by compute, often degrade service during congestion by routing queries to smaller models, cutting reasoning effort, or truncating context. It shows that this practice misrepresents costs because degraded answers can fail, leading to retries that inflate traffic or churn that erodes lifetime value. By modeling inference allocation with newsvendor, retry, and queueing frameworks, the authors derive a ‘shadow price of intelligence’ that quantifies the marginal value of each query, revealing that throttling under congestion acts as a demand lever rather than a cost lever.

By Elioth Sanabria
arXiv AI
Jul 17

Answer-Conditioned Chains of Thought Degrade Verifiable-Reasoning Distillation in Large Language Models

arXiv:2607. 14552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors.

By Jungseob Lee, Seungyoon Lee, Suhyune Son, Dongyub Jude Lee, Sungbin Han, Sugyeong Eo, Heuiseok Lim