模型即裁判

The advent of large language models (LLMs) offers unprecedented opportunities to reimagine peer review beyond the constraints of traditional workflows. Despite these opportunities, prior efforts have largely focused on replicating traditional review workflows with LLMs serving as direct substitutes for human reviewers, while limited attention has been given to exploring new paradigms that fundamentally rethink how LLMs can participate in the academic review process. In this paper, we introduce and explore a novel mechanism that employs LLM agents to perform pairwise comparisons among manuscripts instead of individual scoring. By aggregating outcomes from substantial pairwise evaluations, this approach enables a more accurate and robust measure of relative manuscript quality. Our experiments demonstrate that this comparative approach significantly outperforms traditional rating-based methods in identifying high-impact papers. However, our analysis also reveals emergent biases in the selection process, notably a reduced novelty in research topics and an increased institutional imbalance. These findings highlight both the transformative potential of rethinking peer review with LLMs and critical challenges that future systems must address to ensure equity and diversity.

Heterogeneous Large Language Model (LLM) fusion integrates the strengths of multiple source LLMs with different architectures into a target LLM with low computational overhead. While promising, existing methods suffer from two major limitations: 1) **reliance on real data from limited domain** for knowledge fusion, preventing the target LLM from fully acquiring knowledge across diverse domains, and 2) **fixed data allocation proportions** across domains, failing to dynamically adjust according to the target LLM's varying capabilities across domains, leading to a capability imbalance. To overcome these limitations, we propose Bohdi, a synthetic-data-only heterogeneous LLM fusion framework. Through the organization of knowledge domains into a hierarchical tree structure, Bohdi enables automatic domain exploration and multi-domain data generation through multi-model collaboration, thereby comprehensively extracting knowledge from source LLMs. By formalizing domain expansion and data sampling proportion allocation on the knowledge tree as a Hierarchical Multi-Armed Bandit problem, Bohdi leverages the designed DynaBranches mechanism to adaptively adjust sampling proportions based on the target LLM's performance feedback across domains. Integrated with our proposed Introspection-Rebirth (IR) mechanism, DynaBranches dynamically tracks capability shifts during target LLM's updates via Sliding Window Binomial Likelihood Ratio Testing (SWBLRT), further enhancing its online adaptation capability. Comparative experimental results on a comprehensive suite of benchmarks demonstrate that Bohdi significantly outperforms existing baselines on multiple target LLMs, exhibits higher data efficiency, and virtually eliminates the imbalance in the target LLM's capabilities.

The meteoric rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), with its rapidly expanding market capitalization, presents both transformative opportunities and critical challenges. Chief among these is the urgent need for a new, unified paradigm for trustworthy evaluation, as current benchmarks increasingly reveal critical vulnerabilities. Issues like data contamination and selective reporting by model developers fuel hype, while inadequate data quality control can lead to biased evaluations that, even if unintentionally, may favor specific approaches. As a flood of participants enters the AI space, this "Wild West" of assessment makes distinguishing genuine progress from exaggerated claims exceptionally difficult. Such ambiguity blurs scientific signals and erodes public confidence, much as unchecked claims would destabilize financial markets reliant on credible oversight from agencies like Moody's. In high-stakes human examinations (e.g., SAT, GRE), substantial effort is devoted to ensuring fairness and credibility; why settle for less in evaluating AI, especially given its profound societal impact? This position paper argues that a laissez-faire approach is untenable. For true and sustainable AI advancement, we call for a paradigm shift to a unified, live, and quality-controlled benchmarking framework—robust by construction rather than reliant on courtesy or goodwill. Accordingly, we dissect the systemic flaws undermining today’s evaluation ecosystem and distill the essential requirements for next-generation assessments. To concretize this position, we introduce the idea of PeerBench, a community-governed, proctored evaluation blueprint that seeks to improve security and credibility through sealed execution, item banking with rolling renewal, and delayed transparency. PeerBench is presented as a complementary, certificate-grade layer alongside open benchmarks, not a replacement. We discuss trade-offs and limits and call for further research on mechanism design, governance, and reliability guarantees. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for evaluations that restore integrity and deliver genuinely trustworthy measures of AI progress.

LLM-based agents have been widely applied as personal assistants, capable of memorizing information from user messages and responding to personal queries. However, there still lacks an objective and automatic evaluation on their memory capability, largely due to the challenges in constructing reliable questions and answers (QAs) according to user messages. In this paper, we propose MemSim, a Bayesian simulator designed to automatically construct reliable QAs from generated user messages, simultaneously keeping their diversity and scalability. Specifically, we introduce the Bayesian Relation Network (BRNet) and a causal generation mechanism to mitigate the impact of LLM hallucinations on factual information, facilitating the automatic creation of an evaluation dataset. Based on MemSim, we generate a dataset in the daily-life scenario, named MemDaily, and conduct extensive experiments to assess the effectiveness of our approach. We also provide a benchmark for evaluating different memory mechanisms in LLM-based agents with the MemDaily dataset.

Human-generated reward signals are critical for aligning generative models with human preferences, guiding both training and inference-time evaluations. While large language models (LLMs) employed as proxy evaluators, i.e., LLM-as-a-Judge, significantly reduce the costs associated with manual annotations, they typically require extensive modality-specific training data and fail to generalize well across diverse multimodal tasks. In this paper, we propose **Flex-Judge**, a reasoning-guided multimodal judge model that leverages minimal textual reasoning data to robustly generalize across multiple modalities and evaluation formats. Our core intuition is that structured textual reasoning explanations inherently encode generalizable decision-making patterns, enabling an effective transfer to multimodal judgments, e.g., with images or videos. Empirical results demonstrate that Flex-Judge, despite being trained on significantly fewer text data, achieves competitive or superior performance compared to state-of-the-art commercial APIs and extensively trained multimodal evaluators. Notably, Flex-Judge presents broad impact in modalities like molecule, where comprehensive evaluation benchmarks are scarce, underscoring its practical value in resource-constrained domains. Our framework highlights reasoning-based text supervision as a powerful, cost-effective alternative to traditional annotation-intensive approaches, substantially advancing scalable multimodal model-as-a-judge.

Dataset curation has become a basis for strong large language model (LLM) performance. While various rule-based filtering heuristics exist for English and multilingual datasets, model-based filtering techniques have primarily focused on English. To address the disparity stemming from limited research on non-English languages, we develop a model-based filtering framework for multilingual datasets that aims to identify a diverse set of structured and knowledge-rich samples. Our approach emphasizes transparency, simplicity, and efficiency, leveraging Transformer- and FastText-based classifiers to ensure the broad accessibility of our technique and data. We conduct comprehensive ablation studies on the FineWeb-2 web crawl dataset across diverse language families, scripts, and resource availability to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Training a 1B-parameter Llama model for 70B and 119B tokens, our approach can match the baseline MMLU score with as little as 15\% of the training tokens, while also improving across other benchmarks and mitigating the curse of multilinguality. These findings provide strong evidence for the generalizability of our approach to other languages. As a result, we extend our framework to 20 languages for which we release the refined pretraining datasets.

Recently, test-time scaling of Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged as a practical alternative to parameter and data scaling. Reasoning tasks often require large-scale, RLVR-based LLMs, while more economical LLMs can handle simpler tasks. Routing an LLM tailored to *suitability* (*i.e.*, capability and cost) ensures usability and efficiency. We introduce LLMRec, which routes the most suitable LLM to the user query without pre-inference on the candidate LLM zoo. It pioneeringly reframes the LLM routing problem as a comprehensive recommendation system (RecSys) task. Our core insight is that an LLM's suitability for a query is a complex, latent signal equal to user-item preference. LLMRec systematically engineers features for candidate LLMs (intrinsic attributes and capability distributions), queries (general semantics and meta-dimensional info), and context (inference type, cost budgets). It also incorporates behavioral features to learn high-order interactions. LLMRec is designed to generalize to out-of-domain datasets and adapt to new LLMs as the model zoo evolves. We define the metric with the Pareto frontier under user-specified cost budgets. Across six datasets, LLMRec achieves an average cost reduction of over 38% while maintaining accuracy and consistently outperforming baselines in converging toward the Pareto frontier.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) underscore the need for more comprehensive evaluation methods to accurately assess their reasoning capabilities. Existing benchmarks are often domain-specific and thus cannot fully capture an LLM’s general reasoning potential. To address this limitation, we introduce the **Knowledge Orthogonal Reasoning Gymnasium (KORGym)**, a dynamic evaluation platform inspired by KOR-Bench and Gymnasium. KORGym offers over fifty games in either textual or visual formats and supports interactive, multi-turn assessments with reinforcement learning scenarios. Using KORGym, we conduct extensive experiments on 19 LLMs and 8 VLMs, revealing consistent reasoning patterns within model families and demonstrating the superior performance of closed-source models. Further analysis examines the effects of modality, reasoning strategies, reinforcement learning techniques, and response length on model performance. We expect KORGym to become a valuable resource for advancing LLM reasoning research and developing evaluation methodologies suited to complex, interactive environments.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator’s limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the **R**easoning-based **B**ias **D**etector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types—verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment—evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD’s strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively. These results highlight RBD’s effectiveness and scalability. Additional experiments further demonstrate its strong generalization across biases and domains, as well as its efficiency.

Modern Large Language Models, such as the LLaMA, Qwen and DeepSeek series, predominantly adopt the Pre-LayerNorm (Pre-LN) Transformer architecture. While being stable during pretraining and scalable to large model sizes, Pre-LN suffers from an exponential growth in activation variance across layers, causing the shortcut to dominate over sub-layer outputs in the residual connection and limiting the learning capacity of deeper layers. To mitigate this issue, we propose Gradient-Preserving Activation Scaling (GPAS), a simple technique that can be used in combination with existing approaches. GPAS works by scaling down the intermediate activations while keeping their gradients unchanged. This leaves information in the activations intact, and avoids the gradient vanishing problem associated with gradient downscaling. Extensive experiments across various model sizes from 71M to 1B show that GPAS achieves consistent performance gains. Beyond enhancing Pre-LN Transformers, GPAS also shows promise in improving alternative architectures such as Sandwich-LN and DeepNorm, demonstrating its versatility and potential for improving training dynamics in a wide range of settings. Our code is available at https://github.com/dandingsky/GPAS.

Pre-trained Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive advancements in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis and causal discovery. Considering the unique nature of the causal discovery field, which focuses on extracting causal graphs from observed data, research on LLMs in this field is still at an early exploratory stage. As a subfield of causal discovery, effective connectivity (EC) has received even less attention, and LLM-based approaches in EC remain unexplored. Existing LLM-based approaches for causal discovery typically rely on iterative querying to assess the causal influence between variable pairs, without any model adaptation or fine-tuning, making them ill-suited for handling the cross-modal gap and complex causal structures. To this end, we propose BrainEC-LLM, the first method to fine-tune LLMs for estimating brain EC from fMRI data. Specifically, multiscale decomposition mixing module decomposes fMRI time series data into short-term and long-term multiscale trends, then mixing them in bottom-up (fine to coarse) and top-down (coarse to fine) manner to extract multiscale temporal variations. And cross attention is applied with pre-trained word embeddings to ensure consistency between the fMRI input and pre-trained natural language. The experimental results on simulated and real resting-state fMRI datasets demonstrate that BrainEC-LLM can achieve superior performance when compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

Selecting artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as large language models (LLMs), from multiple candidates requires accurate performance estimation. This is ideally achieved through empirical evaluations involving abundant real-world data. However, such evaluations are costly and impractical at scale. To address this challenge, autoevaluation methods leverage synthetic data produced by automated evaluators, such as LLMs-as-judges, reducing variance but potentially introducing bias. Recent approaches have employed semi-supervised prediction-powered inference ($\texttt{PPI}$) to correct for the bias of autoevaluators. However, the use of autoevaluators may lead in practice to a degradation in sample efficiency compared to conventional methods using only real-world data. In this paper, we propose $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$, a novel framework that provides finite-sample reliability guarantees on the model evaluation, while also ensuring an enhanced (or at least no worse) sample efficiency compared to conventional methods. The key innovation of $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$ is an adaptive construction of the model evaluation variable, which dynamically tunes its reliance on synthetic data, reverting to conventional methods when the autoevaluator is insufficiently accurate. Experiments on the use of LLMs-as-judges for the optimization of quantization settings for the weights of an LLM, for prompt design in LLMs, and for test-time reasoning budget allocation in LLMs confirm the reliability and efficiency of $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$.

We introduce AutoJudge, a method that accelerates large language model (LLM) inference with task-specific lossy speculative decoding. Instead of matching the original model output distribution token-by-token, we identify the generated tokens that affect the downstream quality of the response, relaxing the distribution match guarantee so that the "unimportant" tokens can be generated faster. Our approach relies on a semi‑greedy search algorithm to test which of the mismatches between target and draft models should be corrected to preserve quality and which ones may be skipped. We then train a lightweight classifier based on existing LLM embeddings to predict, at inference time, which mismatching tokens can be safely accepted without compromising the final answer quality. We evaluate AutoJudge with multiple draft/target model pairs on mathematical reasoning and programming benchmarks, achieving significant speedups at the cost of a minor accuracy reduction. Notably, on GSM8K with the Llama 3.1 70B target model, our approach achieves up to ${\approx}2{\times}$ speedup \textit{over speculative decoding} at the cost of a ${\le} 1\%$ drop in accuracy. When applied to the LiveCodeBench benchmark, AutoJudge automatically detects programming-specific important tokens, accepting ${\ge}25$ tokens per speculation cycle at a$~ 2\%$ drop in Pass@1. Our approach requires no human annotation and is easy to integrate with modern LLM inference frameworks.

The recent success of generative AI highlights the crucial role of high-quality human feedback in building trustworthy AI systems. However, the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) by crowdsourcing workers poses a significant challenge: datasets intended to reflect human input may be compromised by LLM-generated responses. Existing LLM detection approaches often rely on high-dimensional training data such as text, making them unsuitable for structured annotation tasks like multiple-choice labeling. In this work, we investigate the potential of peer prediction --- a mechanism that evaluates the information within workers' responses --- to mitigate LLM-assisted cheating in crowdsourcing with a focus on annotation tasks. Our method quantifies the correlations between worker answers while conditioning on (a subset of) LLM-generated labels available to the requester. Building on prior research, we propose a training-free scoring mechanism with theoretical guarantees under a novel model that accounts for LLM collusion. We establish conditions under which our method is effective and empirically demonstrate its robustness in detecting low-effort cheating on real-world crowdsourcing datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in natural language generation, yet they continue to display puzzling behaviors—such as repetition and incoherence—even when exhibiting low perplexity. This highlights a key limitation of conventional evaluation metrics, which emphasize local prediction accuracy while overlooking long-range structural complexity. We introduce correlation dimension, a fractal-geometric measure of self-similarity, to quantify the epistemological complexity of text as perceived by a language model. This measure captures the hierarchical recurrence structure of language, bridging local and global properties in a unified framework. Through extensive experiments, we show that correlation dimension (1) reveals three distinct phases during pretraining, (2) reflects context-dependent complexity, (3) indicates a model's tendency toward hallucination, and (4) reliably detects multiple forms of degeneration in generated text. The method is computationally efficient, robust to model quantization (down to 4-bit precision), broadly applicable across autoregressive architectures (e.g., Transformer and Mamba), and provides fresh insight into the generative dynamics of LLMs.

The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework—known as *LLM-as-a-judge*—is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited *post hoc* to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning—an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.

Modern LLMs can now produce highly readable abstractive summaries, to the point that traditional automated metrics for evaluating summary quality, such as ROUGE, have saturated. However, LLMs still sometimes introduce inaccuracies into summaries, i.e., information inconsistent with or unsupported by the corresponding source. Measuring the occurrence of these often subtle factual inconsistencies automatically has proved challenging. This in turn has motivated development of metrics intended to measure the factual consistency of generated summaries against sources. But are these approaches measuring what they purport to? Or are they mostly exploiting artifacts? In this work, we stress test a range of automatic factuality metrics—including specialized model-based approaches and LLM-based prompting methods—to probe what they actually capture. Using a shallow classifier to separate “easy” examples for factual evaluation—where surface features suffice—from “hard” cases requiring deeper reasoning, we find that all metrics show substantial performance drops on the latter. Furthermore, some metrics are more sensitive to benign, fact-preserving edits than to factual corrections. Building on this observation, we demonstrate that most automatic factuality metrics can be gamed—that is, their scores can be artificially inflated by appending innocuous, content-free sentences to summaries. Among the metrics tested, the LLM prompt-based ChatGPT-DA approach is the most robust and reliable; however, it exhibits a notable caveat: it likely relies more on parametric knowledge than on the provided source when making judgments. Taken together, our findings call into question the reliability of current factuality metrics and prompt a broader reflection on what these metrics are truly measuring. We conclude with concrete recommendations for improving both benchmark design and metric robustness, particularly in light of their vulnerability to superficial manipulations.

In this position paper we argue that conclusions drawn about relative system safety or attack method efficacy via AI red teaming are often not supported by evidence provided by attack success rate (ASR) comparisons. We show, through conceptual, theoretical, and empirical contributions, that many conclusions are founded on apples-to-oranges comparisons or low-validity measurements. Our arguments are grounded in asking a simple question: When can attack success rates be meaningfully compared? To answer this question, we draw on ideas from social science measurement theory and inferential statistics, which, taken together, provide a conceptual grounding for understanding when numerical values obtained through the quantification of system attributes can be meaningfully compared. Through this lens, we articulate conditions under which ASRs can and cannot be meaningfully compared. Using jailbreaking as a running example, we provide examples and extensive discussion of apples-to-oranges ASR comparisons and measurement validity challenges.

Large language models (LLMs) have facilitated a wide range of applications with distinct service-level objectives (SLOs), from latency-sensitive online tasks like interactive chatbots to throughput-oriented offline workloads like data synthesis. The existing deployment model, which dedicates machines to each workload, simplifies SLO management but often leads to poor resource utilization. This paper introduces HyGen, an interference-aware LLM serving system that enables efficient co-location of online and offline workloads while preserving SLOs. HyGen incorporates two key innovations: (1) performance control mechanisms, including a latency predictor to estimate batch execution time and an SLO-aware profiler to quantify latency interference, and (2) SLO-aware offline scheduling policies that maximize serving throughput and prevent starvation. Our evaluation on production workloads shows that HyGen achieves up to 3.9-5.8× throughput gains over online and hybrid serving baselines, while ensuring latency SLOs. The code of HyGen is publicly available at https://github.com/UIUC-MLSys/HyGen.

Large language models are increasingly used as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs at scale, but their assessments often diverge systematically from human judgments. We present Bridge, a unified statistical framework that explicitly bridges human and LLM evaluations under both absolute scoring and pairwise comparison paradigms. Bridge posits a latent human preference score for each prompt-response pair and models LLM deviations as linear transformations of covariates that capture sources of discrepancies. This offers a simple and principled framework for refining LLM ratings and characterizing systematic discrepancies between humans and LLMs. We provide an efficient fitting algorithm with asymptotic guarantees for statistical inference. Using six LLM judges and two benchmarks (BigGen Bench and Chatbot Arena), Bridge achieves higher agreement with human ratings (accuracy, calibration, and KL divergence) and exposes systematic human-LLM gaps.