arXiv:2607. 05391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs. In this work, we identify verification, the ability to determine the correctness of a solution, as a new scaling axis.
arXiv:2607. 29549v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have demonstrated strong mathematical problem-solving capabilities, yet reliably verifying their candidate answers remains challenging.
arXiv:2603. 00077v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Rubric-based LLM judges have become indispensable for evaluating and optimizing systems on non-verifiable tasks, where success cannot be reduced to exact programmatic checks.
arXiv:2608. 00326v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Tool calling allows large language models (LLMs) to invoke external computation during problem solving, a useful capability in various fields including AI for mathematics.
arXiv:2607. 28037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM-based agents are deployed in complex, multi-step workflows, a critical evaluation gap has emerged: most existing benchmarks judge only final outcomes, unable to distinguish reliable reasoning from lucky success or attribute failures to specific process deficiencies, hindering attribution in long-horizon tasks.
The paper introduces RuVerBench, a benchmark with 2,458 instances for evaluating the reliability of Large Language Models acting as judges (LaaJ) in verifying rubric compliance within agentic scenarios such as deep research and agentic coding. It systematically meta‑evaluates frontier LLMs, revealing that even the most advanced models perform well yet still produce substantial noise. The study also examines how prompt design, batching, and majority voting affect verification accuracy, noting that weaker models are more prompt‑sensitive, batched verification trades accuracy for efficiency, and majority voting offers diminishing returns.