arXiv:2607. 18960v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Procuring supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data forces a buyer to decide, before any downstream training, whether a candidate corpus is worth acquiring.
By Arther Tian, Alex Ding, Simon Wu, Aaron Chan
arXiv:2606. 13685v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized.
By Abel Yagubyan
arXiv:2607. 02104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers.
By Jian Xu, Delu Zeng, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao
arXiv:2607. 25136v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Research on preference optimization often varies the training objective while holding the data fixed.
By Zhengtao Yao, Runhao Li, Xupeng Chen, Jiayi Cheng, Chenqian Le, Michael Yue, Siheng Wang, Haoyan Xu, Yuqi Li, Chenhao Wei, Zhengdao Li, Rongchao Zhang, Guang Yang, Yidong Wang, Junhao Dong
arXiv:2607. 05904v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness.
By Chenyu Zhou
Using LLMs as judges has become standard practice for evaluating model outputs at scale. This is particularly common for subjective, open-ended tasks such as assessing helpfulness or alignment, where no single reference answer exists.