OenoBench: A Wine-Domain Benchmark for Knowledge-Grounded Evaluation of Large Language Models

With the rapid advances of large language models, it becomes increasingly important to systematically evaluate their multilingual and multicultural capabilities. Previous cultural evaluation benchmarks focus mainly on basic cultural knowledge that can be encoded in linguistic form. Here, we propose SommBench, a multilingual benchmark to assess sommelier expertise, a domain deeply grounded in the senses of smell and taste. While language models learn about sensory properties exclusively through textual descriptions, SommBench tests whether this textual grounding is sufficient to emulate expert-level sensory judgment. SommBench comprises three main tasks: Wine Theory Question Answering (WTQA), Wine Feature Completion (WFC), and Food-Wine Pairing (FWP). SommBench is available in multiple languages: English, Slovak, Swedish, Finnish, German, Danish, Italian, and Spanish. This helps separate a language model's wine expertise from its language skills. The benchmark datasets were developed in close collaboration with a professional sommelier and native speakers of the respective languages, resulting in 1,024 wine theory question-answering questions, 1,000 wine feature-completion examples, and 1,000 food-wine pairing examples. We provide results for the most popular language models, including closed-weights models such as Gemini 2.5, and open-weights models, such as GPT-OSS and Qwen 3. Our results show that the most capable models perform well on wine theory question answering (up to 97% correct with a closed-weights model), yet feature completion (peaking at 65%) and food-wine pairing show (MCC ranging between 0 and 0.39) turn out to be more challenging. These results position SommBench as an interesting and challenging benchmark for evaluating the sommelier expertise of language models. The benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/sommify/sommbench.

Aggregate factuality scores hide where a language model succeeds, which relations it confuses, and whether an answer survives innocuous changes to the question or decoder. We introduce PROOF, a profile-oriented benchmark for factual coverage in instruction-tuned language models. PROOF converts a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts, 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question has an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations; 1,849 questions are no-correct-option traps. We evaluate 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts each and separately perturb decoding on a fixed 10% subset. Base factual accuracy ranges from 6.58% to 57.59% (chance: 8.64%), yet every model has a 19.3-36.4 percentage-point spread across domains. Paired facts reveal direction-dependent retrieval, usually favoring subject-to-object queries, with the pattern reversing for one model. We find no consistent temporal penalty after exact-stratum adjustment. Neutral wording changes accuracy by as much as 26.5 percentage points, while adversarial formulations break up to 79.4% of answers that were initially correct. Direct switching to an injected false label varies from 0.04% to 27.5%, showing that accuracy loss and hint following are distinct. Selected-token confidence often indicates severe overconfidence, and decoder perturbations move accuracy by up to 15.7 percentage points and domain profiles by 16.8 points. PROOF therefore measures factual coverage as a structured, intervention-aware profile rather than a single claim about what a model "believes."

We present OpenTWBench, an open evaluation suite for Taiwan-domain knowledge in large language models, built around two benchmarks. tw-exam-bench contains 255,854 four-option questions across 148 academic subjects, from fifteen years of Taiwan's national examinations published as open data by the Ministry of Examination; answer keys agree across 31,312 duplicated question groups at 99.91%, with all 27 disagreements accounted for. A reviewed second pass withdrew 2,180 items whose stems depend on a figure the text does not carry; all scores use the remaining 253,674. tw-formosa-bench contains 1,696 difficulty-curated questions about everyday and contemporary Taiwan - the Taiwan that licensing examinations never ask about - generated from a community-curated corpus under a discipline in which no model writes a ground truth, and curated against a frozen seven-model pool so that the pool scored at the passing margin (46.9-74.6%, median ~54%); a leave-one-out experiment shows the selection preserves model ranking (near-zero bias). Within six weeks the frontier had cleared that band: of 108 models now on the public board, 22 score above its ceiling, the best 91.6%. We also document how much of a score comes from the apparatus rather than the model. On identical questions, switching answer extraction from pattern matching to an explicit \boxed{} answer moves accuracy from 20.8% to 93.9%; a single placeholder character in a system prompt moved one model from last (58.2%) to first (83.9%) on the same benchmark; doubling the thinking budget from 8k to 16k tokens bought 0.2% while shuffling which questions failed; and a three-judge validation panel proved to be one judge in disguise, two members approving 92-99% of everything shown. We release all datasets, per-item difficulty data, curation manifests and a leaderboard at https://opentwbench.ai