Evaluating Digital Inclusiveness of Digital Agri-Food Tools Using Large Language Models: A Comparative Analysis Between Human and AI-Based Evaluations

Agricultural decision-making increasingly requires multimodal systems that can transform visual observations into reliable, executable actions. However, existing agricultural multimodal benchmarks mainly evaluate final-answer correctness and provide limited support for assessing whether models can use external tools to complete precision-sensitive workflows. In this paper, we introduce AgroTools, a benchmark for evaluating tool-augmented multimodal agents in agriculture. AgroTools contains 539 question-answer instances paired with 1,097 heterogeneous agricultural images, spanning five task families and an executable environment of 14 agricultural tools. Each query is annotated with structured tool-use traces, enabling a dual-view evaluation of both process-level execution quality and outcome-level task success. We benchmark 9 open-source and 4 closed-source multimodal large language models on AgroTools. Results show that current models remain far from reliable in agricultural tool-use settings, with clear bottlenecks in tool planning, argument generation, execution recovery, and final-answer synthesis. We hope AgroTools will support future research on multimodal agents for high-precision agricultural applications. The benchmark and evaluation are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/AgroTools/AgroTools.

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design. To adapt assessments to the presence of LLM-based tools, it is crucial to characterize the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs in a generalizable, valid and reliable manner. However, current LLM evaluations often rely on descriptive statistics derived from benchmarks, and little research applies theory-grounded measurement methods to characterize LLM capabilities relative to human learners in ways that directly support assessment design. Here, by combining educational data mining and psychometric theory, we introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences, pinpointing where assessments may be most vulnerable to AI misuse, and which task dimensions make problems particularly easy or difficult for generative AI. The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis -- traditionally used to detect bias across demographic groups -- together with negative control analysis and item-total correlation discrimination analysis. It is evaluated on responses from human learners and six leading chatbots (ChatGPT-4o & 5.2, Gemini 1.5 & 3 Pro, Claude 3.5 & 4.5 Sonnet) to two instruments: a high school chemistry diagnostic test and a university entrance exam. Subject-matter experts then analyzed DIF-flagged items to characterize task dimensions associated with chatbot over- or under-performance. Results show that DIF-informed analytics provide a robust framework for understanding where LLM and human capabilities diverge, and highlight their value for improving the design of valid, reliable, and fair assessment in the AI era.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.