The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2511. 21140v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
arXiv:2608.22483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly support decision-making in high-stakes domains, but they often hallucinate and express confidence that is mis...
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
arXiv:2608.23086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black-box large language models need confidence scores that can separate likely-correct from likely-incorrect outputs, enabling systems to prioritize h...
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.