The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
arXiv:2610.28066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual evaluations often score a model's opening yes or no, a token that also carries model and language answering conventions. We ask when dif...
arXiv:2610.02926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard factual benchmarks assume clean monolingual prompts and exact-match scoring, two assumptions that break simultaneously in real-world multiling...
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
The paper introduces a calibrated instrument for rigorously measuring how inference optimizations—such as quantization, early‑exit, and speculative decoding—affect the output quality of large language models. It uses a formally calibrated LLM judge that verifies no systematic bias between statistically equivalent outputs and includes a null condition to ensure measured differences are zero. Applying this method, the authors find that a 4‑bit model is indistinguishable from its 16‑bit counterpart, while 3‑bit quantization and early‑exit techniques incur measurable quality losses that vary by language and task, and that token‑certainty‑based acceptance rules cannot reliably identify impactful errors.