arXiv:2608. 15046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A fraction of a point of benchmark accuracy is the usual evidence that a compressed model is equivalent to its original.
By Amogh Singh
arXiv:2609.35815v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Researchers across academia increasingly base significance claims on LLM judge scores and small-sample AI evaluations. Yet without well-calibrated co...
By Ian Arawjo
Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.
By Bruno Brocai, Maria Becker
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
By Kaihua Ding
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.
By Tatiana Petrova, Andrei Mazniak, Radu State
arXiv:2609.39229v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Automatic evaluation of faithfulness increasingly relies on a large language model acting as a judge, yet the most reliable judges are proprietary fr...
By Elia Onofri, Roberto Di Pietro