arXiv Machine Learning August 4, 2026 By Miseog Shawn Kim

Does the Competitive Component of Adversarial Self-Play Improve Legal Reasoning? A Controlled Negative Result

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 01559v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Adversarial self-play is an appealing recipe for legal reasoning: have a student model draft an argument, have an adversary attack it, and reward the student when its argument survives the attack.

Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI

Jul 14

LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.

By Ning Liu

llms benchmarks

arXiv Machine Learning

Jul 8

More Convincing, Not More Correct: Self-Play Reward Hacking of Reference-Free LLM Judges

arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.

By Chenyu Zhou

llms reinforcement-learning

Hugging Face Trending Papers

Jul 9

Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution

Reinforcement learning increasingly relies on an LLM judge to score each rubric criterion, and that judge acts as the reward model during training. Before such a signal can be trusted, we need to know how capable the judge must be and how biased it is.

llms reinforcement-learning benchmarks safety

arXiv AI

Jul 24

Evaluating and Guarding Citation Faithfulness in Agentic Scientific Synthesis

arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.

By Taewan Goo, Junsik Kim, Kyulhee Han, GwonYul Jo, Jong-Soo Kim, Tae-Hyung Kim

llms agents benchmarks

arXiv AI

Aug 7

HERALD: Counterfactual Audits and Minimal Repairs for Proof-of-Retrieval Rewards

arXiv:2608. 06012v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search-agent rewards mix answer quality, citation grounding, tool cost, and anti-hacking terms; a high score therefore need not imply that cited evidence was retrieved, and added penalties can cancel.

By Zhuowen Liu, Bohan Cui, YinShang Guo, Yuting Wang, Hao Li

agents multimodal benchmarks

arXiv AI

Jul 2

Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States

arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?

By Ben Slivinski, Michael Saldivar

llms safety

Related stories

LLMs as a Jury: Cross-Model Consensus Can Outperform Process Reward Models for LLM Reasoning

More Convincing, Not More Correct: Self-Play Reward Hacking of Reference-Free LLM Judges

Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution

Evaluating and Guarding Citation Faithfulness in Agentic Scientific Synthesis

HERALD: Counterfactual Audits and Minimal Repairs for Proof-of-Retrieval Rewards

Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States