Requests for name changes in the electronic proceedings will be accepted with no questions asked. However name changes may cause bibliographic tracking issues. Authors are asked to consider this carefully and discuss it with their co-authors prior to requesting a name change in the electronic proceedings. Use the Report an Issue link to request a name change.

Step-by-step verifiers -- also known as process reward models (PRMs) -- are a key ingredient for test-time scaling. PRMs require step-level supervision, making them expensive to train. This work aims to build data-efficient PRMs as verbalized step-wise reward models that verify every step in the solution by generating a verification chain-of-thought (CoT). We propose ThinkPRM, a long CoT verifier fine-tuned on orders of magnitude fewer process labels than those required by discriminative PRMs. Our approach capitalizes on the inherent reasoning abilities of long CoT models, and outperforms LLM-as-a-Judge and discriminative verifiers -- using only 1% of the process labels in PRM800K -- across several challenging benchmarks. Specifically, ThinkPRM beats the baselines on ProcessBench, MATH-500, and AIME '24 under best-of-N selection and reward-guided search. In an out-of-domain evaluation on a subset of GPQA-Diamond and LiveCodeBench, our PRM surpasses discriminative verifiers trained on the full PRM800K by 8% and 4.5%, respectively. Lastly, under the same token budget, ThinkPRM scales up verification compute more effectively compared to LLM-as-a-Judge, outperforming it by 7.2% on a subset of ProcessBench. Our work highlights the value of generative, long CoT PRMs that can scale test-time compute for verification while requiring minimal supervision for training. Our code, data, and models are released at https://github.com/mukhal/thinkprm.

Sentence simplification aims to modify a sentence to make it easier to read and understand while preserving the meaning. Different applications require distinct simplification policies, such as replacing only complex words at the lexical level or rewriting the entire sentence while trading off details for simplicity. However, achieving such policy-driven control remains an open challenge. In this work, we introduce a simple yet powerful approach that leverages Large Language Model-as-a-Judge (LLM-as-a-Judge) to automatically construct policy-aligned training data, completely removing the need for costly human annotation or parallel corpora. Our method enables building simplification systems that adapt to diverse simplification policies. Sentence simplification could benefit users with reading difficulties, such as second-language (L2) learners and people with reading impairments (e.g., dyslexic individuals), by making text easier to read and understand (Alva-Manchego et al., 2020b). It involves a series of edits, such as lexical paraphrasing, sentence splitting, and removing irrelevant details (Xu et al., 2015). The preferred edit policy, i.e., permissible or appropriate edits in given texts, varies significantly depending on the target audience. In L2 education, one of the major application areas for simplification, previous work in both NLP and language education research has shown that the desired type and degree of simplification edits change depending on learner proficiency and readability levels (Agrawal et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2020). Specifically, low-to intermediate-level learners benefit from a combination of lexical paraphrasing, structural modifications, and selective deletions to reduce cognitive load. In contrast, advanced learners benefit from lexical paraphrasing, which supports vocabulary acquisition (Chen, 2019), but they gain comparatively less from added cohesion or deletion (Hosoda, 2016; Zhong et al., 2020). Motivated by these findings, we introduce two distinct edit policies. As illustrated in Table 1, overall-rewriting simplification often combines lexical paraphrasing, structural modifications, and deletions to improve readability for intermediate-level language learners. In contrast, lexical-paraphrasing (Paetzold & Specia, 2016; Li et al., 2025) adheres to the original sentence closely while supporting more efficient vocabulary acquisition for advanced learners.

Assessing software test coverage at scale remains a bottleneck in QA pipelines. We present LLM-as-a-Judge (LAJ), a production-ready, rubric-driven framework for evaluating Gherkin acceptance tests with structured JSON outputs. Across 20 model configurations (GPT-4, GPT-5 with varying reasoning effort, and open-weight models) on 100 expert-annotated scripts over 5 runs (500 evaluations), we provide the first comprehensive analysis spanning accuracy, operational reliability, and cost. We introduce the Evaluation Completion Rate (ECR@1) to quantify first-attempt success, revealing reliability from 85.4% to 100.0% with material cost implications via retries. Results show that smaller models can outperform larger ones: GPT-4o Mini attains the best accuracy (6.07 MAAE), high reliability (96.6% ECR@1), and low cost ($1.01 per 1K), yielding a 78x cost reduction vs. GPT-5 (high reasoning) while improving accuracy. Reasoning effort is model-family dependent: GPT-5 benefits from increased reasoning (with predictable accuracy-cost tradeoffs), whereas open-weight models degrade across all dimensions as reasoning increases. Overall, cost spans 175x ($0.45-$78.96 per 1K). We release the dataset, framework, and code to support reproducibility and deployment.

The identification and localization of errors is a core task in peer review, yet the exponential growth of scientific output has made it increasingly difficult for human reviewers to reliably detect errors given the limited pool of experts. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked interest in their potential to support such evaluation tasks, from academic peer review to automated scientific assessment. However, despite the growing use of LLMs in review systems, their capabilities to pinpoint errors remain underexplored. In this work, we introduce Fault Localization Across Writing in Science (FLAWS), an automated benchmark consisting of 713 paper-error pairs designed to evaluate how effectively LLMs detect errors that undermine key claims in research papers. We construct the benchmark by systematically inserting claim-invalidating errors into peer-reviewed papers using LLMs, paired with an automated evaluation metric that measures whether models can identify and localize these errors. Developing such a benchmark presents unique challenges that we overcome: ensuring that the inserted errors are well-defined, challenging, and relevant to the content of the paper, avoiding artifacts that would make identification trivial, and designing a scalable, automated evaluation metric. On the resulting benchmark, we evaluate five frontier LLMs: Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek Reasoner v3.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT 5, and Grok 4. Among these, GPT 5 is the top-performing model, achieving 39.1% identification accuracy when k=10, where k is the number of top-ranked error text candidates generated by the LLM.

Large language models have achieved remarkable success on final-answer mathematical problems, largely due to the ease of applying reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. However, the reasoning underlying these solutions is often flawed. Advancing to rigorous proof-based mathematics requires reliable proof verification capabilities. We begin by analyzing multiple evaluation setups and show that focusing on a single benchmark can lead to brittle or misleading conclusions. To address this, we evaluate both proof-based and final-answer reasoning to obtain a more reliable measure of model performance. We then scale two major generative verification methods (GenSelect and LLM-as-a-Judge) to millions of tokens and identify their combination as the most effective framework for solution verification and selection. We further show that the choice of prompt for LLM-as-a-Judge significantly affects the model's performance, but reinforcement learning can reduce this sensitivity. However, despite improving proof-level metrics, reinforcement learning does not enhance final-answer precision, indicating that current models often reward stylistic or procedural correctness rather than mathematical validity. Our results establish practical guidelines for designing and evaluating scalable proof-verification and selection systems.

Pairwise evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a common paradigm, but it is prone to preference bias, where judges systematically favor certain outputs, such as their own. This bias leads to inconsistent and skewed rankings across different judges. To address this, we first empirically demonstrate significant and heterogeneous biases in cross-model evaluations. We then propose UDA (Unsupervised Debiasing Alignment), a framework that reduces inter-judge disagreement by dynamically adjusting the Elo rating system. For each pairwise comparison, a compact neural network learns to adaptively set the K-factor and refine win probabilities. Crucially, UDA operates in a fully unsupervised manner, guided solely by the objective of minimizing the dispersion among the Elo trajectories of all judges. This forces an alignment towards a collective consensus, which serves as an unsupervised proxy for a more stable and reproducible evaluation. In addition, we provide theoretical motivation demonstrating how alignment towards a consensus can reduce aggregate system bias. Experiments show that UDA significantly reduces the inter-judge rating standard deviation by up to 63.4% and improves the average correlation with human judgments by 24.7%. Notably, UDA elevates the performance of poorly performing judges to achieve parity with high-quality ones, fostering a more robust and reliable evaluation ecosystem. Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/62AB93CD-23B4.

Students often report difficulties in accessing day-to-day academic information, which is usually spread across numerous institutional documents and websites. This fragmentation results in a lack of clarity and causes confusion about routine university information. This project proposes the development of a chatbot using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to simplify access to such information. Several GenAI models were tested and evaluated based on quality metrics and the LLM-as-a-Judge approach. Among them, Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out for its quality and speed, and Gemma 3n for its good performance and open-source nature.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted as tools for learning; however, most tools remain text-only, limiting their usefulness for domains where visualizations are essential, such as mathematics. Recent work shows that LLMs are capable of generating code that compiles to educational figures, but a major bottleneck remains: scalable evaluation of these diagrams. We address this by proposing DiagramIR: an automatic and scalable evaluation pipeline for geometric figures. Our method relies on intermediate representations (IRs) of LaTeX TikZ code. We compare our pipeline to other evaluation baselines such as LLM-as-a-Judge, showing that our approach has higher agreement with human raters. This evaluation approach also enables smaller models like GPT-4.1-Mini to perform comparably to larger models such as GPT-5 at a 10x lower inference cost, which is important for deploying accessible and scalable education technologies.