Chunyang Jiang

Chi-Min Chan, Chunpu Xu, Jiaming Ji et al.

The current focus of AI research is shifting from emphasizing model training towards enhancing evaluation quality, a transition that is crucial for driving further advancements in AI systems. Traditional evaluation methods typically rely on reward models assigning scalar preference scores to outputs. Although effective, such approaches lack interpretability, leaving users often uncertain about why a reward model rates a particular response as high or low. The advent of LLM-as-a-Judge provides a more scalable and interpretable method of supervision, offering insights into the decision-making process. Moreover, with the emergence of large reasoning models, which consume more tokens for deeper thinking and answer refinement, scaling test-time computation in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm presents an avenue for further boosting performance and providing more interpretability through reasoning traces. In this paper, we introduce $\textbf{J1-7B}$, which is first supervised fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets collected via rejection-sampling and subsequently trained using Reinforcement Learning (RL) with verifiable rewards. At inference time, we apply Simple Test-Time Scaling (STTS) strategies for additional performance improvement. Experimental results demonstrate that $\textbf{J1-7B}$ surpasses the previous state-of-the-art LLM-as-a-Judge by $ \textbf{4.8}$\% and exhibits a $ \textbf{5.1}$\% stronger scaling trend under STTS. Additionally, we present three key findings: (1) Existing LLM-as-a-Judge does not inherently exhibit such scaling trend. (2) Model simply fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets continues to demonstrate similarly weak scaling behavior. (3) Significant scaling trend emerges primarily during the RL phase, suggesting that effective STTS capability is acquired predominantly through RL training.

Chunyang Jiang, Yonggang Zhang, Yiyang Cai et al.

The rising cost of acquiring supervised data has driven significant interest in self-improvement for large language models (LLMs). Straightforward unsupervised signals like majority voting have proven effective in generating pseudo-labels for verifiable tasks, while their applicability to unverifiable tasks (e.g., translation) is limited by the open-ended character of responses. As a result, self-evaluation mechanisms (e.g., self-judging and entropy minimization) are predominantly used to derive pseudo-labels. However, self-evaluation relying on LLMs typically incurs high computational overhead and introduces overconfidence issues due to intrinsic biases. To address these challenges, we propose a novel self-evaluation-free approach for unverifiable tasks, designed for lightweight yet effective self-improvement. Inspired by majority voting commonly employed in verifiable tasks, we propose semantic voting as a novel mechanism that relaxes the principle of hard matching (i.e., exact matching) toward soft matching (i.e., semantic similarity). Soft matching is achieved by leveraging a lightweight sentence embedding model to quantify semantic similarity, thereby mitigating excessive computational burden and intrinsic bias-associated limitations of self-evaluation. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves substantial gains in computational efficiency and overall better performance than self-evaluation methods across diverse model architectures and tasks.