arXiv:2604. 09870v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We investigate how looped transformers encode human preference, training lightweight evaluator heads on frozen Ouro-2.
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. 31963v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern LLM workflows move coordinate-indexed objects across checkpoints: steering vectors, sparse autoencoders, top-$k$ neuron sets, attribution lists, and merge alignments.
arXiv:2608.20647v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Splitting a bidirectional LSTM's contextual representation into a forward-only $F_i$ (strictly a function of tokens $1..i$) and a backward-only $B_i$ (...
arXiv:2608. 12652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark contamination is diagnosed today with n-gram overlap, with likelihood-based membership inference, or with canary strings, and each needs something usually unavailable: the training corpus, a well-chosen test statistic, or foresight at dataset release.
arXiv:2607. 20864v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Position bias in multiple-choice LLM evaluation is widely cited as a confound in capability comparisons, but published measurements rely on single answer-order shuffles whose results confound the bias signal with content-level noise and sampling stochasticity.
arXiv:2606. 20364v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A companion study established a de-biased, cross-model VLM-as-3D-judge that reliably ranks single-image-to-3D mesh quality where cheap geometry and CLIP proxies fall short.
The paper introduces a pluralistic agreement index, Gamma, to quantify how often wrong runs of large language models (LLMs) agree with the majority consensus. By decomposing Gamma into a mechanical component and a preference‑unexplained residual, the authors show that on GPT‑4.1 the mechanical part explains most of the agreement on multiple‑choice benchmarks but only about half on open‑domain tasks, revealing a residual bias that can cause self‑consistency to backfire on hard questions. The study provides a quantitative framework for understanding when majority voting over LLM samples improves or harms accuracy, without proposing new voting methods.