Change

Recent momentum

-18%

9 papers in the last 28 days · 0.1% of indexed attention

Twelve weeks of publication activity for this topic as it is defined today.

Weekly history

Recent digests

What was published in this topic, kept on the site without email delivery.

Period ending 2026-09-21

2 new papers

A weekly snapshot of new work published in Change.

Period ending 2026-09-14

3 new papers

A weekly snapshot of new work published in Change.

Period ending 2026-09-07

2 new papers

A weekly snapshot of new work published in Change.

62 papers

Latest in Change

Dec 8, 2025stat.ML

High-Dimensional Change Point Detection via Graph Spanning Ratio

Inspired by graph-based methodologies, we introduce a novel graph-spanning algorithm designed to identify changes in both offline and online data across low to high dimensions. This versatile approach is applicable to Euclidean and graph-structured data with unknown distributions, while maintaining control over error probabilities. Theoretically, we demonstrate that the algorithm achieves high detection power when the magnitude of the change surpasses the lower bound of the minimax separation rate, which scales on the order of nd\sqrt{nd}. Our method outperforms other techniques in terms of accuracy for both Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. Notably, it maintains strong detection power even with small observation windows, making it particularly effective for online environments where timely and precise change detection is critical.
Katerina Papagiannouli, Yang-wen Sun, Vladimir Spokoiny
Aug 16, 2025stat.ML

Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankings

We propose a method for evaluating the robustness of widely used LLM ranking systems -- variants of a Bradley--Terry model -- to dropping a worst-case very small fraction of preference data. Our approach is computationally fast and easy to adopt. When we apply our method to matchups from popular LLM ranking platforms, including Chatbot Arena and derivatives, we find that the rankings of top-performing models can be remarkably sensitive to the removal of a small fraction of preferences; for instance, dropping just 0.003% of human preferences can change the top-ranked model on Chatbot Arena. Our robustness check identifies the specific preferences most responsible for such ranking flips, allowing for inspection of these influential preferences. We observe that the rankings derived from MT-bench preferences are notably more robust than those from Chatbot Arena, likely due to MT-bench's use of expert annotators and carefully constructed prompts. Finally, we find that neither rankings based on crowdsourced human evaluations nor those based on LLM-as-a-judge preferences are systematically more sensitive than the other.
Jenny Y. Huang, Yunyi Shen, Dennis Wei +1