arXiv:2609.22245v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models can produce fluent explanations for chess moves, but plausible language does not necessarily reflect the reasoning behind a decis...
By Angelina Parfenova
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
By Yihan Hong, Huaiyuan Yao, Bolin Shen, Wanpeng Xu, Hua Wei, Yushun Dong
The paper presents a systematic mapping of recent chess research involving humans, engines, neural and reinforcement‑learning systems, large language models (LLMs), and hybrid approaches. It identifies 84 core study families and classifies them by agent type, strategic‑reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions, highlighting a strong focus on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection while noting gaps in planning, explanation, metacognition, and human–AI collaboration. The study also distinguishes hybrid systems by integration timing and cautions that improved human performance in evaluations does not automatically imply human–AI synergy.
By Paolo Ciancarini, Remo Pareschi
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
The paper introduces Bayesian Dialectical Argumentation (BDA), a method for aggregating answers from multiple large language models (LLMs) in a council setting. BDA treats each LLM’s typed moves—proposals, challenges, and concessions—as evidence in a classical annotator model, estimating per-agent reliability even when some agents are persistently unreliable. By weighting evidence according to these inferred reliabilities, BDA produces calibrated posterior probabilities for candidate answers and can invert unreliable agents instead of merely outvoting them, achieving superior calibration and robustness on both binary and multi-class benchmarks without extra LLM calls.
By Ionel Eduard Stan, Paolo Napoletano
The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) struggle in strategic decision-making under incomplete information. It identifies two key gaps: an observation‑belief gap where LLMs’ internal representations of game states are accurate but brittle, and a belief‑action gap where converting these internal beliefs into actions is weak, leading to suboptimal payoffs. Experiments with Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt‑oss confirm that acting optimally on decoded beliefs would improve outcomes in most games, highlighting a bottleneck in belief‑to‑action conversion.
By Jan Sobotka, Mustafa O. Karabag, Ufuk Topcu