arXiv:2607. 15388v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
arXiv:2608. 14927v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2607. 08065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge (Zheng et al.
arXiv:2606. 19749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated.
arXiv:2607. 17531v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time collaboration, including self-consistency, best-of-N selection, critic models, and verifier pipelines, is often credited with broadly improving LLM reasoning, yet its gains are uneven and sometimes negative.