arXiv:2608. 08002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model judges and reward models enable scalable supervision, but finite optimization can exploit evaluator errors rather than improve response quality.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv:2606. 08480v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) presents a promising avenue for enhancing generative recommendation beyond supervised imitation, leveraging reward signals to guide policy improvement.
arXiv:2608. 02181v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) for large language models typically trains its critic by mean-squared-error (MSE) regression on scalar value targets.
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
arXiv:2604. 26360v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) systems face a compounding alignment challenge: not only are learned reward models uncertain about unseen state-action pairs, but the human preference annotations they are trained on are themselves inconsistent, context-dependent, and noisy.
arXiv:2607. 02104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers.