arXiv:2607. 17384v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper provides an experimentally verified formal law for calculating the uplift that diversity of thought provides in Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles.
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.
arXiv:2606. 29623v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rare events govern the safety profile of modern AI systems, yet their probabilities are extremely difficult to estimate: direct Monte Carlo requires prohibitive sample budgets.
arXiv:2607.12176v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Ambivalence and hesitancy (A/H) undermine digital behaviour-change interventions, and recognizing them automatically from video is the goal of the...
arXiv:2609.39229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatic evaluation of faithfulness increasingly relies on a large language model acting as a judge, yet the most reliable judges are proprietary fr...
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
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:2609.35815v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers across academia increasingly base significance claims on LLM judge scores and small-sample AI evaluations. Yet without well-calibrated co...