Alex Ding
Publications
SFGA: A Statistics-First Gating Architecture with Adjudicative Escalation for Trustworthy SFT Data Procurement
Procuring supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data forces a buyer to decide, before any downstream training, whether a candidate corpus is worth acquiring. We present \sys{}, a statistics-first gating architecture that treats procurement as a cost-aware routing problem over three intrinsic quality axes -- diversity, utility, and redundancy. Cheap blind measurements are summarised into per-axis estimates with confidence intervals; a gate accepts a decision only when intervals are tight, sample sizes are adequate, and the axes agree, otherwise it escalates the case to an adjudicative debate between a buy-advocate and a reject-advocate judge, resolved by a presiding verdict. On a controlled benchmark of 12 datasets ($2{\times}3{\times}2$ grid over the three axes) with 5 seeds, the gate reaches 0.90 accuracy and 0.83 $F_1$ at \$0.017 per unit, sitting between an always-verify baseline (0.75) and an oracle upper bound (0.98) while spending less than always-escalate (\$0.020). We further report honest negative diagnostics of the debate path: a con-side win rate of 0.80 ($p\approx3{\times}10^{-6}$) and a 52\% position-flip rate under advocate swapping expose negativity and positional biases that a naive LLM-judge would hide. We frame the injected-knob evaluation explicitly as a controlled synthetic benchmark for measurement fidelity and routing calibration, and delimit external validity as future work.
A Multi-Dimensional Quality Scoring Framework for Decentralized LLM Inference with Proof of Quality
Decentralized large language model (LLM) inference networks can pool heterogeneous compute to scale serving, but they require lightweight and incentive-compatible mechanisms to assess output quality. Prior work introduced cost-aware Proof of Quality (PoQ) and adaptive robust PoQ to allocate rewards under evaluator heterogeneity and adversarial behavior. In this paper, we focus on the quality signal itself and propose a multi-dimensional quality scoring framework that decomposes output quality into modular dimensions, including model and cost priors, structure quality, semantic quality, query-output alignment, and agreement/uncertainty. Using logged outputs from QA and summarization tasks, we systematically audit dimension reliability and show that seemingly reasonable dimensions can be task-dependent and even negatively correlated with reference quality without calibration. While the default composite underperforms a strong single semantic evaluator, ablations reveal that removing unreliable dimensions and re-normalizing weights yields a calibrated composite that matches or exceeds the best single- evaluator and consensus baselines. Finally, we integrate the composite score as a drop-in quality signal in PoQ and demonstrate complementary benefits with robust aggregation and adaptive trust weighting under adversarial evaluator attacks.