Hugging Face Trending Papers
DecisionPivot: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Decision Models in LLM Systems
Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
Related stories
arXiv AI
4d ago
DecisionPivot: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Decision Models in LLM Systems
arXiv:2610.28522v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Decision models support routing, guardrails, and output verification in LLM systems. However, item accuracy alone cannot establish whether models make...
arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 12
Auditing VLM Benchmarks from Existing Evaluation Runs
The paper introduces an audit layer for vision‑language model benchmarks that reuses per‑question artifacts from evaluation runs to assess the benchmark itself. Six detectors analyze saved outputs, and an additional text‑only rerun removes visual inputs to produce per‑question reports and aggregate statistics, including permutation‑null excess and interval estimates. Applying this method to the MMStar benchmark reveals that 20.2% of its questions show no accuracy gain from images, with a small but significant excess in mathematics and science categories, and identifies questions where all models chose the same non‑gold option.
arXiv AI
Oct 7
How Much Do LLM-as-a-Judge Design Choices Matter? A Systematic Comparison of Prompt Designs, Rating Scales, and Models
arXiv:2610.05094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design...
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14
Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 25
GIM: Evaluating models via tasks that integrate multiple cognitive domains
The paper introduces the Grounded Integration Measure (GIM), a benchmark of 820 expert‑authored problems designed to test models on tasks that integrate multiple cognitive operations such as constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, and audience calibration. GIM emphasizes realistic, broadly accessible knowledge rather than specialized expertise, and uses a judge‑aware 2‑parameter logistic IRT model to produce robust ability estimates across 53 model‑thinking‑level configurations. The authors provide a comprehensive leaderboard of 22 models and 47 test configurations, and conduct an extensive study on how test‑time compute affects model capability, finding that configuration choices like thinking budget and quantization can be as influential as model selection itself. whyItMatters":"By focusing on integration of multiple cognitive domains, GIM offers a more realistic assessment of model reasoning capabilities than benchmarks that either overemphasize memorization or abstract reasoning alone."
arXiv AI
Aug 11
Autorubric: A Unifying Framework for Rubric-Based LLM Evaluation on Non-Verifiable Tasks
arXiv:2603. 00077v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Rubric-based LLM judges have become indispensable for evaluating and optimizing systems on non-verifiable tasks, where success cannot be reduced to exact programmatic checks.