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.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
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
arXiv:2605. 23145v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Individual fairness, the notion that "similar individuals should be treated similarly," provides a strong and flexible fairness guarantee for algorithmic decision makers.
By Conlan Olson, Linjun Zhang, Zhun Deng, Pragya Sur
arXiv:2606. 15493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model stealing attacks, where adversaries create high-fidelity surrogate models, are a significant threat to the intellectual property of machine learning services.
By Eliott Baltz, Satoshi Hara, Ulrich A\"ivodji
arXiv:2608. 01023v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present Caliber, an output-perturbation defense against model extraction that formulates noise selection as a calibration problem: how much the defense degrades the supervision signal used to train a surrogate, and the provable per-input query cost of recovering the clean logits.
By Chi Wang, Hanwen Wang, Yu Xia, Zihan Wang, Guangdong Bai
arXiv:2604. 27733v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent, whether through explicit reward modeling or direct methods such as DPO, fundamentally relies on minimizing a surrogate loss as a proxy for the true pairwise ranking objective.
By Mehryar Mohri, Yutao Zhong