LLM-as-a-Judge

Language models increasingly act as epistemic proxies, synthesizing evidence from multiple sources to inform decisions. Whether they evaluate the quality of that evidence, or merely aggregate it based on surface presentation, remains poorly understood. We show that models possess the capability to detect fabricated statistics in isolation but do not recruit this capability during multi-source synthesis, producing similar numeric estimates whether the statistics are fabricated or valid. Specifically, source influence is governed by a methodology-register gate that responds to the distributional register of analytical text but not to numeric validity: for example, statistically impossible confidence intervals receive the same weight as valid ones. The behavioral dissociation replicates across six models from four families (Anthropic Claude, Qwen, OLMo, and OpenAI GPT-5.4) and three professional domains. Mechanistic analyses, including causal tracing, linear probes, and component-level attribution, converge on the same account: the model encodes and causally uses a methodology-register representation that transfers across domains, while numeric-validity signals, decodable in isolation, are suppressed to chance during multi-source synthesis. Prompting-based mitigations, even an oracle checklist naming the exact statistical checks, produce blanket skepticism rather than selective discernment, and the post-training pipelines we examine reinforce the shortcut without building numeric verification. Unlike sycophancy, which tracks user preference, this failure tracks whether a source presents as analytically credible, not whether its claims are consistent. We term this \textit{epistemic alignment}: like preference and safety alignment, the question is not capability but deployment.

LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators. These pipelines typically assume that judgments are stable properties of fixed inputs. We show that this assumption does not hold under interaction. We study post-decision manipulability: the extent to which an evaluation outcome can be altered through subsequent conversation with the judge after an initial decision has been made. Across controlled experiments on MT-Bench and AlpacaEval, we find that LLM judges are highly stable under repeated and neutral reevaluation, yet become substantially reversible under targeted post-decision challenge. An anti-baseline challenge protocol shows that stable judgments can be overturned through motivated interaction, while a counterbalanced target-validation protocol separates this reversibility from net target-directed steering. These reversals have practical consequences: they can degrade agreement with human preferences, shift benchmark rankings, and produce harmful evaluation changes despite high self-reported confidence. Authority framing is especially destabilizing, and revised judgments are often accompanied by low-overlap justifications, suggesting post hoc rationalization rather than reliable error correction. We introduce the Evaluation Robustness Score (ERS) to quantify interactional robustness by combining reversal susceptibility with counterbalanced directional effects. Our findings identify post-decision interaction as a distinct failure mode for LLM-as-judge evaluation and motivate evaluation protocols that measure not only static agreement, but robustness under challenge.

As AI companion platforms such as Replika and Character.AI rapidly grow, concerns about unsafe human-AI interactions have intensified. This study introduces AICompanionBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available benchmark dataset of human-AI companion conversations annotated with fine-grained safety risk categories. The dataset contains 2,123 real-world Replika conversations collected from Reddit and annotated through human-AI collaboration across nine categories: sexual behavior, antisocial behavior, physical aggression, verbal aggression, substance abuse, self-harm and suicide, control, manipulation, and no-harm. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 20 state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source LLMs under an LLM-as-judge framework for detecting unsafe interactions. Results show substantial variation in model performance, with stronger models achieving high overall accuracy but still struggling with nuanced categories such as manipulation, as well as benign conversations that are incorrectly identified as harmful. Our findings suggest that while current LLMs can effectively detect explicit harmful content, they remain limited in identifying implicit unsafe interactions. Overall, our work contributes a new benchmark dataset for AI companionship safety research and offers insights into monitoring AI companion systems using LLMs. The dataset is publicly available at: https://github.com/anonymousresearcher2026/AICompanionBench/blob/main/AICompanionBench.xlsx

Large language model (LLM) agents have shown promise in automating complex data-analysis workflows, but their reliable deployment remains challenging in high-stakes industrial scenarios. Industrial anomaly detection (IAD) is essential for manufacturing quality, safety, and efficiency, yet existing LLM-based IAD agents mainly focus on execution while under-exploiting strategy formulation. Consequently, they struggle to handle heterogeneous modalities in a unified and cost-effective manner. Inspired by the DMAIC quality-management framework, we propose DMAIC-IAD (DMAIC-inspired Agentic Industrial Anomaly Detection), a "Plan First, Judge Later" multi-agent system that aligns LLM agents with structured industrial problem-solving. DMAIC-IAD distills heterogeneous references into standardized operating procedures (SOPs) before strategy generation, and introduces a pre-trained execution-free judge model to rank candidate strategies without costly runtime trials. Extensive experiments across four modalities show that DMAIC-IAD improves average detection performance over applicable agentic baselines by 37.76%.

Lane-level maps are critical infrastructure for autonomous driving and lane-level navigation, yet constructing and maintaining standardized lane networks for hundreds of cities remains highly labor-intensive. Recent end-to-end vectorized mapping methods can predict lane geometry and topology directly from sensor data, but they typically treat mapping specifications and traffic regulations as implicit, dataset-dependent supervision. Moreover, in complex scenes (e.g., worn or missing markings and occlusions), correct lane configurations are often under-determined by visual evidence alone, making specification violations a major source of human post-editing. We propose MapAgent, an industrial-grade agentic architecture that augments a vectorization backbone for specification-compliant lane-map production. Rather than merely adding an agent loop to map prediction, MapAgent couples backbone perception with explicit specification verification, constraint-aware reasoning, and deterministic map editing under a bounded, verification-driven Judge-Planner-Worker loop. A vision-language Judge diagnoses errors by jointly inspecting visual evidence and draft vectors, while a tool-calling Planner generates minimal corrective edits with post-edit re-validation. To remain scalable for city-scale production, MapAgent is selectively triggered only on tiles with low backbone confidence, adding modest overhead while preserving throughput. Experiments on real-world datasets show consistent gains over strong production baselines, especially in complex and long-tail scenarios. Additionally, MapAgent has been integrated into Baidu Maps, supporting lane-level map generation for over 360 cities nationwide and elevating the overall production automation to over 95%, demonstrating MapAgent's practicality and effectiveness for large-scale lane-level map generation.

Despite the pivotal role of numerical reasoning as the cornerstone of mathematical capabilities in large language models (LLMs) across applications, few benchmarks evaluate LLMs by integrating numerical processing and mathematical reasoning, hindering the interpretability of failures in math tasks. We introduce PyraMathBench, a comprehensive hierarchical benchmark with 32,505 questions derived from 7,404 math word problems, spanning 4 key cognitive aspects, 14 subcategories, and 2 modalities. Experiments reveal that LLMs' performance is severely compromised by inadequate numerical computation and weak handling of abstract numerical questions. To address this, we propose the Smart Optimization & Learning-based VErsatile module (SOLVE) and Interactive Relative Policy Optimization (IRPO), which enhance LLMs' numerical-mathematical synergy via efficient tool calls (fuzzy matching and low-quality call rejection). Comparative experiments show Qwen-2.5 achieves a 5.0 score improvement with SOLVE and IRPO training.

Consumer device repair is an important but underexplored testbed for large language models (LLMs). Repair tasks require reasoning over incomplete problem descriptions, hardware-specific diagnostics, actionable troubleshooting, and safety-critical decisions, where incorrect advice can cause device damage, battery hazards, or permanent data loss. We introduce a benchmark of 991 real-world repair questions from Reddit spanning phone repair, computer repair, and data recovery, each paired with technician-written reference solutions, and provide Bangla translations to evaluate cross-lingual performance. We evaluate six state-of-the-art LLMs in English and Bangla using four repair-specific criteria: correctness, completeness, practicality, and safety. Our results show that while LLMs can provide useful repair assistance, they remain unreliable for high-risk real-world repair tasks without rigorous evaluation and explicit safety safeguards. Phone repair is the most difficult and safety-sensitive domain, and all models make substantial errors in board-level diagnosis, repair prioritization, and safe recovery procedures. Across domains and models, Bangla responses consistently perform worse than English responses. Among the evaluated models, GPT-5.4 performs best overall.

Despite great advances in tool-use capabilities of large language models (LLMs), existing evaluation benchmarks struggle to fully align with real-world scenarios. Such benchmarks mostly rely on simulated idealized user assumptions and lacks experience-oriented evaluation. These limitations fail to account for the ambiguity, uncooperative behaviors, and shifting intentions characteristic of real-world users. To fill this gap, we propose RUT-Bench, a dedicated benchmark designed to assess LLMs under diverse Real-world User Tool calling scenarios. RUT-Bench supports high-fidelity simulations covering both ideal rational patterns and heterogeneous non-ideal behaviors across single-turn and multi-turn dialogues. We conduct comprehensive evaluations on 19 widely adopted open-source and proprietary LLMs using our benchmark. Experimental results reveal that no tested LLMs achieve an overall success rate above 40%, and nearly all of them experience noticeable performance drops when facing more complicated non-ideal user inputs. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/Miaow-Lab/RUT-Bench.

LLM-based search agents are trained predominantly with outcome-only reward, leaving the search process itself unsupervised. This signal degenerates on outcome-homogeneous groups where all sampled trajectories share the same correctness, yielding zero within-group advantage and no gradient. Existing process supervision either trains a costly verifier or generates per-query rubrics that are inconsistent across queries and discarded after one use. We propose ARBOR (Adaptive Rubric Buffer for Online Reward), a reusable process-reward framework that maintains a rubric memory shared across queries. Query-local drafts induced from contrastive trajectories are admitted, consolidated into cross-query common rubrics, and retired as the policy evolves. A small active subset of common rubrics scores trajectories via sparse pairwise judging, and the resulting scores are added to the base reward, providing process-level gradient even when outcome reward is uniform. ARBOR consistently outperforms GRPO and DAPO baselines on four multi-hop QA benchmarks, raising average LLM-judge accuracy by up to 4.2 points and converting up to 42% of otherwise-zero-gradient training groups into informative ones.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose SenseJudge, a customizable judgment framework driven by human preferences and SenseBench, a diverse and challenging instruction-following benchmark derived from real-world multi-turn interactions. We applied the automatic judgment framework and benchmark to two tasks: (1) LLMs as personalized judges, and (2) model ranking. We conducted extensive experiments, and the results demonstrate that the SenseJudge framework surpasses other judgment methods and models in the LLMs-as-personalized-judges task and achieves model ranking that aligns with real human sense. Additionally, we conducted analyses on position bias and consistency, alongside ablation studies, which affirmed the robustness of SenseJudge.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as self-study assistants in technical disciplines, yet their reliability as mathematical reasoning assistants remains poorly understood. We introduce GTBench, a curriculum-grounded benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mathematical research assistants in graph theory, comprising 63 problems organized into three groups of increasing difficulty: undergraduate definitions and basic properties (Group 1), algorithm tracing and structural reasoning (Group 2), and graduate-level proof construction (Group 3). Problems are sourced from verified academic materials including Diestel's Graph Theory. We evaluate five frontier models -- GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, Llama 3.3 70B, and Mistral Large 3 -- under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, using exact-match and LLM-as-judge evaluation for Groups 1 and 2, and a hybrid human expert and LLM-as-judge protocol for Group 3. Our results reveal a pronounced performance hierarchy: GPT-5 approaches ceiling on Group 1 (95.8% zero-shot) and maintains meaningful accuracy on graduate proofs (82%), while all other models degrade substantially with difficulty, with Llama achieving 0% under human evaluation on Group 3 zero-shot. Failure mode analysis shows that correct algorithm, wrong execution errors dominate Groups 1 and 2, while Group 3 additionally surfaces incomplete reasoning failures and reveals systematic disagreement between human evaluators and the automated judge, particularly on verbose or near-complete proofs (kappa = 0.48-0.83 across human pairs). GTBench provides the first curriculum-grounded evaluation framework for graph-theoretic reasoning in LLMs, with direct implications for the governance of AI tools in mathematical education and scientific research.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

LLMs have evolved from basic chatbots to the backbone of the AI ecosystem, now widely used in healthcare, schools, and government services. The domain-wide adoption of LLMs necessitates continuous evaluation to ensure their safety and fairness. Common issues encountered after deploying LLMs include inconsistent outputs and hallucinations of incorrect information. Although numerous LLM evaluation tools exist, most are limited to testing a single parameter at a time or require massive computational resources that are not accessible to most researchers. TriEval addresses these challenges by evaluating LLM outputs across multiple parameters, including bias, toxicity, and truthfulness together, while minimizing computing resources. The pipeline is compatible with both open- and closed-source models and runs on a standard laptop without a GPU cluster. TriEval has been tested on four models: Llama 3 8B, Mistral 7B, Gemma 2 9B, and Claude Haiku. The results show clear differences between open-source and closed-source models, especially in terms of toxicity and truthfulness. TriEval is being released as open source to enable broader access for researchers with limited computational resources.

Large language model (LLM) applications are increasingly expected to satisfy deterministic institutional requirements while relying on probabilistic generative components. This mismatch makes ordinary post-hoc benchmarking insufficient for systems that must be safe, reliable, auditable, and economically useful. This paper contributes an evaluation-protocol extension for operational LLM systems grounded in acceptance-test-driven development, safety engineering, and business-centric validation. The extension translates stakeholder goals into executable behavioral contracts, release gates, monitoring signals, and evidence artifacts before prompt, model, retrieval, or agent changes are accepted. It adapts the red-green-refactor discipline of test-driven development to a red-train-green lifecycle: first define failing acceptance tests for desired behavior, then improve the LLM system through prompt changes, retrieval design, fine-tuning, guardrails, or data augmentation, and finally release only when multidimensional gates are satisfied. The contribution is a governance-oriented metric stack, reference architecture, and empirical protocol for comparing acceptance-test-driven LLM development against prompt-first and benchmark-after workflows.

Recent multimodal large language models have demonstrated strong reasoning ability, yet their reliability as automated evaluators remains limited by a critical weakness: when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues, MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers. We identify and systematically analyze this phenomenon, which we term Perceptual Judgment Bias. Through controlled visual perturbations, existing multimodal judges frequently anchor on the response text instead of their own visual perception, leading to inconsistent and non-verifiable evaluations. To address this issue, we introduce the Perceptually Perturbed Judgment Dataset, which constructs minimally edited counterfactual responses that isolate perceptual errors and enable verifiable supervision. Building on this dataset, we develop a unified training framework that combines a structured GRPO-based reward with a batch-ranking objective, achieving coherent global ordering without explicit pairwise labels. Experiments across diverse MLLM-as-a-Judge benchmarks show that our approach substantially improves perceptual fidelity, ranking coherence, and alignment with human evaluation. Our results establish a scalable and generalizable pathway for training multimodal judges that are perceptually grounded, interpretable, and robust to visual-reasoning conflicts.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

While large language models (LLMs) have been extensively evaluated on code generation tasks for general-purpose programming and GPU-accelerated environments (e.g., PyTorch, CUDA), their capabilities in CPU-oriented high-performance computing (HPC) across diverse architectures remain underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce CodegenBench, a comprehensive benchmark suite designed to evaluate the generation of efficient parallel code across three distinct hardware platforms: x86_64, Sunway, and Kunpeng. Our benchmark comprises 106 standard Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms (BLAS) routines establishing a fundamental baseline, alongside 20 specialized computational kernels adapted for each of the unique supercomputing architectures (LeetSunway and LeetKunpeng). Our extensive evaluation reveals that while state-of-the-art LLMs can generate optimized code for ubiquitous architectures like x86_64, they exhibit significant performance degradation on domain-specific architectures with limited public documentation and training data, highlighting critical limitations in cross-platform generalization. Furthermore, our analysis of factors influencing code quality such as implementation length and task complexity indicates that current LLMs are most effective for moderately difficult problems requiring concise code snippets. We open-source our dataset and automated evaluation infrastructure to facilitate future research in LLM-driven high-performance code generation. The resources are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CodegenBench-EDE1/ and https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CodegenBenchDataset-2551.

Existing LLM graph benchmarks typically ask models to answer graph-theoretic questions or compute symbolic solutions rather than construct spatial layouts. Within-task difficulty is also primarily stratified by vertex count. However, existing research also suggests that task difficulty is more closely related to the number of constraints imposed by the edges than to the number of vertices being arranged. We introduce PlanarBench, a benchmark that asks models to produce crossing-free ASCII drawings of planar graphs given only an edge list. Across 91 model configurations and 199 non-isomorphic connected planar graphs with 2-7 vertices, edge count is more strongly associated with mean task score than vertex count ($r=-0.85$) versus ($r=-0.47$) and remains strongly associated after controlling for vertex count ($r_p=-0.80$). PlanarBench provides a controlled setting for separating these two difficulty axes. In addition, neither drawing area nor total response length demonstrated a meaningful correlation with score, which is evidence against a simple output-size explanation. Performance varies widely: the best model scores 159.5 out of 199, most models below 30B parameters score under 25, and substantial failures remain among frontier systems.

In graphical causal model, causal discovery aims to construct a causal graph based on numerical data and domain knowledge in plain text. However, the evaluation of causal discovery methods remains a challenge in the area as the progress of domain researches often makes benchmark causal graphs contain mis-aligned knowledge. This problem especially affects the evaluation of large language model (LLM) based causal discovery methods as they are sensitive to the new discoveries in the literature. This work is the first to systematically study the quality of benchmark causal graphs. Specifically, we design a pipeline that automatically retrieves relevant research papers from scientific databases, and prompts LLMs to check the consistency between the benchmark causal graphs and domain research papers. We evaluate 11 popular real-world benchmarks, for which our pipeline in total proceeds 38,081 domain papers. Our results show that popular benchmarks vary significantly in their consistency with domain research, with clear implications for causal discovery research.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for long-form generation, reliably evaluating long-form outputs has become a critical challenge. LLM-as-a-judge offers a scalable alternative to human evaluation, yet its reliability in long-form output evaluation remains underexamined: existing meta-evaluation benchmarks focus mainly on short-form outputs. Compared with short-form evaluation, long-form evaluation is not merely a matter of output length; it often requires judges to make more complex document-level assessments of overall organization, task-relevant coverage and depth, cross-section consistency, and scenario-specific quality criteria. In this work, we introduce LongJudgeBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM judges on long-form outputs across diverse real-world scenarios and judging protocols. We systematically evaluate a broad range of LLM judges, covering multiple base models and judging settings. Our results reveal a substantial reliability gap: current LLM judges remain unstable across scenarios, and rubrics or references are helpful but not always sufficient. We hope LongJudgeBench will support future research on more robust, context-aware, and human-aligned LLM-as-a-judge methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/cjj826/LongJudgeBench.

The growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have led to the saturation of many benchmarks and training datasets used to improve them. Motivated by this, we investigate whether questions solved with perfect empirical accuracy can nevertheless be used to improve downstream performance. To do so, we replace binary correctness with two sources of more fine-grained quality signals: (1) pairwise LLM self-judgments, in which the model evaluates the relative quality of its own solutions, and (2) token-level entropy, where token-level uncertainty is used as a proxy for solution quality. We incorporate these signals into several training algorithms and evaluate them on Qwen3-1.7B-Base. When training exclusively on a simple arithmetic task, quality-based signals improve performance by up to $18.6\%$ over the base model, substantially outperforming SFT. On GSM8K, however, gains are more modest and depend strongly on the quality signal. For instance, self-judgments show poor agreement with a stronger external judge and can even degrade performance below the base model. Overall, our results suggest that quality-based training can extract useful signal from saturated questions for base models, but that applying such signals to more complex tasks requires careful calibration and further study.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) across comprehensive benchmarks is expensive and time-consuming. We propose a graph-based prompt selection framework that models each benchmark as a similarity graph -- nodes are prompts connected if their embedding-space distance falls above a configurable threshold -- and applies Maximum Independent Set (MIS) algorithms to select a maximally diverse, non-redundant subset. We evaluate four MIS solvers (CPLEX, GREEDY, Online-MIS, ReduMIS) across six embedding models, three distance measures, six percentile thresholds, and four benchmarks (GPQA, IFEval, MMLU-Pro, Omni-MATH) covering 66 LLMs. Our central hypothesis -- that repeated selection under different random seeds yields consistent LLM rankings that may also differ from the full-benchmark baseline -- is strongly confirmed: Kendall's $W \geq 0.90$ in 99.2% of stochastic configurations (mean $W = 0.997 \pm 0.008$), while at higher percentile thresholds selected subsets achieve 25--48% prompt reduction on average. Ranking divergence from the full benchmark ($ρ< 0.95$) occurs in only 15.95% of configurations, concentrated at low thresholds ($p_{10}$--$p_{20}$) and benchmarks (GPQA, IFEval), identifying overly dense graphs as the primary failure mode.

Biopharmaceutical manufacturing organizations operate under regulatory frameworks such as FDA guidance, EU Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), and the EU AI Act, which can restrict the use of cloud-based artificial intelligence systems. Locally deployed large language models (LLMs) offer a privacy-preserving alternative, but their suitability for pharmaceutical manufacturing tasks remains underexplored. This study evaluates four open-source LLMs (Qwen 2.5 Coder 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, and Meditron 7B) deployed locally via Ollama for natural-language-to-SQL generation over a pharmaceutical manufacturing database. A FastAPI-based evaluation platform, PharmaBatchDB AI, was developed using a synthetic Microsoft SQL Server database containing approximately 63,000 records across Batch, Manufacturing Execution System (MES), and Clean-In-Place (CIP) modules. Models were benchmarked on 60 domain-specific natural-language questions using metrics including SQL extraction rate, SQL compliance, factual consistency, ROUGE-L, hallucination rate, throughput, and latency. Qwen 2.5 Coder 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Mistral 7B generated SQL for all evaluation tasks, while Meditron 7B failed on nearly all tasks due to context-window limitations and poor SQL generation capability. Llama 3.1 8B achieved the highest SQL compliance, whereas Qwen 2.5 Coder 7B achieved the strongest overall text similarity and factual consistency. Performance differences between the two leading models were not statistically significant. The results show that code-tuned general-purpose LLMs outperform a domain-specific biomedical model on structured query generation for pharmaceutical manufacturing data. Although fully local, GxP-aligned NLQ systems are feasible on consumer hardware, current performance levels still require human oversight and downstream validation for regulated use.

Safety evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) remains heavily English-centric, leaving Low-Resource Languages (LRLs), particularly African ones, critically underexplored. We introduce TUKABENCH, a jailbreak benchmark for seven African languages that extends JailbreakBench (JBB) beyond direct translation through four settings: human translation of JBB prompts, English adaptation to African contexts followed by human translation, human-curated prompts validated through interactions with GPT-5.2, and code-switched prompts combining English and African languages, isolating the effect of language, cultural grounding, and prompt evasiveness on model safety. Across closed and open models, prompting in African languages reduces refusal relative to English, with culturally adapted prompts leading to least refusal. The evaluation also surfaces two structural limitations: model comprehension failures and reduced LLM-as-a-judge reliability in LRLs. To capture the first, we introduce Deflection alongside Refused and Jailbroken; to assess the second, we validate outputs with human annotations, showing that judge-human agreement drops in lower-resource languages and less commonly supported scripts.

Hallucinations in medical large language models (LLMs) pose serious risks for clinical decision support, particularly when models must reason over complex electronic health records (EHRs). However, existing benchmarks often lack a realistic clinical context and provide limited insight into how hallucinations can be mitigated in practice. We introduce Med-HEAL, a framework for systematically identifying, analyzing, and mitigating hallucinations in medical LLMs using clinically grounded data. Building on the EHRNoteQA benchmark derived from MIMIC-IV discharge summaries, we construct a hallucination dataset by evaluating BioMistral-7B on open-ended clinical question answering tasks. Model outputs are labeled through a dual evaluation pipeline that combines LLM-as-a-Judge assessment (GPT-4o) with human auditing by medical student reviewers, producing correctness judgments and annotations of reasoning errors via a custom web-based evaluation system. We then leverage this dataset to investigate mitigation strategies: a self-critique pipeline, in which the test model reviews its own answers to detect potential errors and regenerates responses for flagged cases, and retrieval-augmented in-context learning (RA-ICL), which exposes the model to hallucinated and corrected examples. Experiments across five open-source LLMs-BioMistral, Llama-3.1, DeepSeek, Qwen2.5, and Qwen3, show that the self-critique strategy improves accuracy for three of five models (p < 0.05) without requiring parameter updates. Med-HEAL provides both a reusable hallucination dataset and a practical framework for studying and mitigating hallucinations in medical LLMs, supporting safer deployment of AI systems in clinical environments. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/yimingliao-blad/med-heal.git.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used with formal interactive theorem provers such as Lean 4. Scaling these systems with reinforcement learning or search methods requires process reward models (PRMs) that can evaluate intermediate reasoning steps. Existing reward-model designs expose a practical trade-off. Value-head models provide continuous scores but modify the generative model interface, while generative reward models preserve textual rationales but are poorly matched to continuous floating-point regression because numeric values are split across tokens. We introduce Expected Value Alignment (EVA), a reward-modeling procedure that keeps the surface output discrete while extracting continuous scores from the model's token distribution. The model emits integer scores in a structured JSON format, and EVA computes a continuous score as the expectation over the logits of the corresponding anchor tokens. Training combines the causal language modeling objective with an auxiliary mean squared error loss on these expected values. We instantiate EVA in \textit{Leibniz}, a reward model for Lean 4 formal verification, and evaluate it against zero-shot and reward-modeling baselines. The evaluation demonstrates that continuous logit-based scoring significantly reduces discretization artifacts while retaining the interpretability of generative critiques.

We study when LLM judge panels should be calibrated with low-dimensional stackers versus joint output tables under finite human-label budgets. Low-dimensional stackers have small estimation cost but miss interactions, whereas joint-table calibrators can represent interactions but pay for cell counts and unseen patterns. We cast this tradeoff as a finite-calibration regime map and instantiate it as Finite-Calibration Panel Selection, a deployable validation selector over judge path, prefix size, and aggregator family with table and parametric estimation diagnostics. On RewardBench, LLMBar, SummEval, and Arena100K with a seven-judge pool including DeepSeek V4 Flash, scalar/reliability aggregation wins 16 of 20 real dataset--budget cells, indicating that current judge outputs are often additive or redundant. Controlled calibration-growth data show the complementary regime: additive labels remain scalar-favored, whereas a six-way interaction selects a larger joint table and its test MSE drops from 0.224 to 0.061 once unseen mass vanishes. Thus the practical question is not ``how many judges?'' but whether the next judge's information is estimable under the available human labels.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks involving creative problem solving and idea generation. However, there is a lack of consensus concerning their creative capabilities: some studies report superior performances compared to humans, while others highlight structural limitations such as fixation and the homogenization of outputs. Existing evaluation approaches either rely on narrow, decontextualized tasks that do not capture goal-oriented generation or on broader settings that confound multiple aspects of the creative process, making it difficult to isolate the effects of task formulation, prompting, and evaluation design. Significantly, the role of structured prompting strategies in shaping idea generation remains underexplored. Therefore, we introduce IDEAFix, an evaluation framework for analyzing divergent thinking in open-ended idea generation tasks. We prompt models to generate multiple original solutions to controlled variations of short design scenarios, task attributes, and defixation prompting strategies. This design enables systematic analysis of how structured guidance influences LLMs' idea generation. Our results show that both task formulation and attribute selection significantly affect models' performance, and that simple prompting strategies can boost the originality of solutions. However, we also observe persistent output homogenization across models, confirming inherent limits in their ability to generate diverse solutions. Overall, IDEAFix provides a controlled, extensible framework for studying the mechanisms underlying LLMs' creativity.

Safety alignment in LLMs does not improve monotonically across model generations. Studying four generations of Google's Gemma family (7B-31B) with quality-diversity evolution (MAP-Elites) as an automated red-teaming probe, we find that Gemma 3 (12B) exhibits 68.7% +/- 5.7% attack success rate (ASR; mean +/- std, 3 seeds), significantly higher than its predecessor Gemma 2 (45.5% +/- 7.2%; p = 0.030, paired bootstrap) and its successor Gemma 4 (33.9% +/- 1.8%). Replaying evolved attack archives across generations reveals that attacks from other generations transfer to Gemma 3 at 44-46% but only 14-18% to Gemma 4, indicating that Gemma 4's safety gains generalize beyond the attack distributions evolved against earlier generations. Under our 8B judge, copyright and cybercrime vulnerabilities register at near-100% across all generations, though a second-judge audit (Section 6) suggests the copyright result is sensitive to judge choice. Misinformation ASR jumps from 29% to 99% between Gemma 2 and Gemma 3 and remains elevated at 77% in Gemma 4, indicating the regression was not fully addressed. These patterns are invisible to static benchmarks and emerge only through adaptive, longitudinal probing. All experiments use 3 random seeds with a unified self-hosted judge; code and artifacts are available at https://github.com/bassrehab/red-queen.

LLM agents increasingly rely on community-contributed skills that expand an agent's operational capability set. We study a core safety problem in agentic AI systems: whether individually safe skills can compose into unsafe installed skill sets. We present SkillReact, a compositional security measurement framework with three components: a deterministic static-composition benchmark, a two-rater LLM-assisted human-adjudication pipeline, and an action-based exploitability harness. On 1,520 ClawHub skills, 651 pass individual inspection and form 211,575 pairs; the benchmark flags 22.25% of these as structural candidates. We treat this raw rate as a recall-oriented scanner ceiling and calibrate it against human judgment: in a pattern-stratified audit, roughly one in five flagged pair-pattern hits survives as a real compositional risk (population-weighted validity 18.2%, our headline result), implying about 14K genuine risk memberships in a single registry that per-skill scanning misses by construction, since every pair is individually safe. An action-based harness then probes when these candidates become model-issued tool calls, and finds realization gated by host-model disposition: on an anchor-conditioned dropper subset, Haiku-4-5 issues the dropper-stage tool call on all 39 direct-prompt trials (36 of them the full download-then-execute chain, 3 download-only), Opus-4-7 stops at the download, and Sonnet-4-6 refuses outright. A control that holds the request fixed and varies only the installed skills finds compliance highest with no skills installed: a composition fixes which capabilities are reachable, while the host model decides whether to use them. Together these motivate install-time compositional checks and capability isolation as complements to per-skill scanning.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve from general-purpose assistants to user-centric agents, personalization has become central to aligning model behavior with individual preferences, making the evaluation of personalized alignment a critical bottleneck. Existing evaluation methods-ranging from automatic metrics to LLM-as-a-judge approaches-fail to capture subjective, user-specific preferences embedded in long-term interaction histories. We identify three essential principles for reliable and effective personalized evaluation: Representativeness, User-Consistency, and Discriminativeness. To address these principles, we introduce Personalized Evaluation as Learning, a paradigm that formulates personalized evaluation as a learning problem rather than a static judgment. Under this paradigm, we propose PARL (Preference-Aware Rubric Learning for Personalized Evaluation), a framework that learns to induce preference-aware evaluation rubrics directly from raw user histories and performs a self-validation mechanism to ensure consistency with the user's preferences. PARL integrates rubric induction with a discriminative reinforcement learning objective that contrasts user-authored responses against competitive personalized model outputs, enabling the learned rubrics to capture precise, user-specific decision boundaries. Experiments on real-world personalized text generation tasks show that PARL consistently induces high-fidelity rubrics that reliably identify user-aligned responses and generalize across users and tasks, while capturing stable stylistic preferences and fine-grained evaluative patterns. To ensure reproducibility, our code is available at https://github.com/SnowCharmQ/PARL.

We evaluate the consistency of automated judges in conducting a multi-dimensional safety evaluation in a reference-free setup. Our results indicate that Large Language Models are unreliable judges in identifying safety issues related to machine-generated advice in regulated domains such as finance, although they are more reliable at identifying more overt forms of unsafe/harmful content such as violence. The degree of inconsistency in a model's judgments can vary significantly by the chosen safety criteria and can be impacted by the language of the content and its linguistic style as well. Finally, there is high disagreement among different judges for the same output, across domains, safety criteria, and languages. These findings provide new insights on the practice of using LLMs as evaluators and offer several recommendations for practitioners on how to use automated judges in practical scenarios.

AI-based Visually Impaired Assistance (VIA) remains challenging, largely due to the high cost of human evaluation. The VLM-as-a-Judge paradigm may offer a promising alternative, although it has mostly been studied in general domains. We therefore ask whether such judges can be trusted for VIA tasks. To investigate this question, we introduce VIABLE (Visually Impaired Assistance Benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation), the first benchmark for VLM-as-a-Judge evaluation in VIA. VIABLE contains over 300K judgment samples across three scenarios and introduces an Effectiveness--Impartiality--Stability framework with a 12-mode failure taxonomy. Based on VIABLE, our systematic study of seven judges across different model scales shows that existing models are largely unreliable across all evaluation axes. The strongest judge, GPT-5.4, achieves only 52.6% single-failure diagnostic accuracy, yet exhibits the highest self-preference rate at 94.2%; while open-source judges are strongly biased and adversarially fragile. To address these issues, we propose VIA-Judge-Agent, a model-agnostic inference-time harness that augments judges with visual evidence extraction and a taxonomy-guided workflow. It enables positive improvements in diagnostic accuracy and downstream VIA responses more preferred by BLV users. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/YiyiyiZhao/VIABLE

Assessing whether Large Language Models outputs are factually grounded, epistemically calibrated, and methodologically reproducible is a prerequisite for responsible AI deployment. Yet auditing LLMs remains inaccessible to non-technical practitioners: existing tools require programming expertise and non-trivial environment setup, and cloud-hosted platforms transmit evaluation data to external services, creating barriers for domain experts and compliance officers legally responsible for AI oversight. We introduce LLM-FACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture, structured around three practitioner profiles (technical experts, domain experts, compliance officers) that mirror the stakeholder categories identified in the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. The architecture makes data flows explicit: deterministic metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore) run entirely within the self-hosted server with no outbound transmission; LLM-judge metrics contact external APIs explicitly, with users retaining full credential control. The framework operationalizes transparency through three mechanisms: token-level log-probability visualization for epistemic uncertainty, multi-judge consensus to mitigate judge bias, and RAG Triad metrics (Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Relevance) to detect and localize hallucinations. A plugin architecture allows any new metric or dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline. The open-source implementation enables cross-checking across multiple metrics targeting the same property, ensuring reproducibility and decoupling AI accountability from the teams building the systems assessed. We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.

We present BlueFin, a benchmark that tasks large language model (LLM) agents with synthesis, manipulation, and comprehension tasks over spreadsheet workbooks in the professional finance domain. Though estimates of the global population of paying users of spreadsheet software range in the hundreds of millions -- an order of magnitude more than the estimated global population of professional developers -- comparatively fewer resources have been devoted to exploring and expanding LLM capabilities in the spreadsheet domain, with fewer still dedicated to mirroring real occupational tasks encountered by those in professional finance roles. In response, we curate a set of 131 challenging, complex tasks with real-world relevance in the domain, containing 3,225 granular rubric criteria; notably, our rubric criteria and LM judge evaluations are validated by a team of expert human annotators, resulting in high-quality, granular evaluations of complex tasks that are difficult to verify programmatically but can be reliably evaluated by an LM judge agent. Our judge achieves parity with expert consensus ($α=0.826$) with a macro-F1 score of 0.839. Frontier LLMs demonstrate poor performance on the challenging benchmark, with the strongest LLMs achieving less than 50% average scores across tasks -- models exhibit particular weaknesses in dynamic correctness. Our contributions include a dataset of examples across three categories of spreadsheet tasks, an open source harness and agentic evaluation framework, and a characterization of existing frontier models' performance on our benchmark.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from $65.0\%$ to $68.6\%$, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from $46.4\%$ to $36.0\%$ with little change in inter-judge agreement ($α{=}.531\to.519$).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by capability-oriented or traditional safety evaluations. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a framework for evaluating whether LLMs align with user welfare in social interactions, including whether they encourage harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 user inputs and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 22 recent LLMs, we find that even the strongest models, Claude-Opus-4.7 and GPT-5.5, violate 30.7% and 27.2% of checks, respectively. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting that these failures are persistent social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone.

Across two public LLM leaderboards, many displayed pairwise rankings do not meet a conventional paired-test resolution target under the actual paired evaluation design: 11 of 40 Open LLM Leaderboard v1 pairwise comparisons and 4 of 9 MMLU-Pro top-10 adjacent-rank pairs are unresolved at (alpha, 1-beta) = (0.05, 0.8). The MMLU-Pro count rises to 6/9 under real subject-level clustering and stays at 5-6 out of 9 in 99.9% of category-bootstrap resamples. We frame paired LLM evaluation as a hypothesis-testing problem, invert level-alpha, power-(1-beta) tests, and report a per-pair resolution ratio q = N/N* as the primary diagnostic. A sharp small-effect expansion with an explicit second-order constant shows that the widely-used unpaired Cohen-h-plus-(1-rho) shortcut deviates from the correct N* by approximately a factor of two in the close-comparison regime, a deficit that three of five off-the-shelf calculators(Cohen 1988, G*Power, R pwr) silently inherit when the user post-multiplies their per-arm output by (1-rho). The unresolved-pair pattern remains under multiplicity correction and anytime-valid sequential testing.

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

Widely used language-model benchmarks are increasingly saturated, with frontier systems often receiving near-tied scores that standard metrics cannot resolve. Rather than constructing harder alternatives, we ask whether existing tasks can be made informative again through improved evaluation over the same candidate outputs. Therefore, we present Seeded Elimination with Adaptive LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge, a self-improving evaluation protocol for extracting latent ranking signal from saturated benchmarks. SEAL seeds candidate outputs into a single elimination and evaluates each match with task-level principles plus self-improving checklist criteria. We evaluate SEAL on multiple saturated benchmarks covering code generation, mathematical reasoning, knowledge-intensive question answering, and tool-use agent task completion. Across these settings, SEAL improves the ranking-accuracy--latency trade-off over competing protocols, attaining 0.83--1.00 Spearman agreement with full pairwise judging and 4/4 top-1 agreement, while requiring only 11.89 calls per task compared with 28.00 for full pairwise evaluation.

Honeypots are decoy systems mimicking real system components designed to defend against cyber attacks. Recently, LLMs increasingly serve as simulation backbones for honeypots. They enable defenders to construct high-interaction honeypots with low system security risks. However, LLM-powered honeypot development lacks a unified evaluation framework. Most evaluations consist of measuring response similarity on fixed commands, manual testing, or real-world deployment. These methods are often not scalable for development, reproducible across evaluations, representative of practical attacks, or adaptable to various attacker and honeypot configurations. In this work, we bridge this gap and propose Honeyval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for LLM-powered HTTP honeypots. We address the limitations of prior evaluations by grounding the honeypots in 16 backend applications, using AI hacking agents as attackers, employing two control tasks to monitor agent and honeypot capabilities across customizations, and defining clear and verifiable exploit goals for the attacker. Using Honeyval, we conduct an extensive evaluation of recent cost-efficient LLMs as HTTP honeypots. Our experiments highlight the promise of LLM-powered honeypots; they lead to substantially longer interactions with the attacker than rule-based baseline honeypots and are far less frequently detected even by frontier models, all while, on average, preserving a running cost advantage against agentic attackers. Further, we experiment with different counter-offensive honeypots configurations, and observe unique trade-offs, such as longer interactions at the cost of increased detection.

This paper introduces Code Bench, a benchmark capable of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) concise code generation abilities in 60 programming languages. Based on code golf, a recreational programming competition focused on minimal character or byte solutions, the benchmark provides a distinctive measure of LLMs ability to produce efficient, concise code. Unlike existing benchmarks limited by fixed problem sets and language coverage, CodeGolf Bench leverages the code.golf platform to provide new problems and live human performance baselines. Evaluation of nine LLMs on Python and C++ tasks demonstrates that reasoning models significantly outperform non-reasoning models, achieving best average percentile of 70.97%. This performance gap is particularly pronounced in C++, highlighting reasoning's importance for languages with strict syntax requirements. Non-reasoning models struggle more with efficiency optimization across both languages, with best percentiles significantly lower than reasoning counterparts. CodeGolf Bench offers a dynamic framework for evaluating LLM code generation capabilities against evolving human performance on code golf.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has significantly advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) in verifiable domains, but aligning models for open-ended generation remains profoundly challenging due to the lack of definitive rewards. Current rubric-based RL methods mitigate this by employing explicit criteria; however, they rely heavily on static, human-annotated rubrics that inevitably cause policy lag, or expensive external proprietary models for dynamic updates. In this paper, we propose EvoRubric, a novel single-policy co-evolutionary RL framework that eliminates the reliance on static criteria and on external rubric generators. By unifying response generation and rubric generation under a single parameterized policy, EvoRubric dynamically alternates between a Reasoner and a Rubric Generator. To prevent reward hacking and ensure the reliability of generated signals, we introduce a multi-level verification pipeline featuring a meta-verifier, zero-variance pruning, and a Leave-One-Out peer consensus mechanism. Validated criteria are dynamically archived into a memory pool, yielding dense, multi-objective rewards to continuously co-optimize both roles. Extensive experiments across Medical, Writing, and Science domains demonstrate that EvoRubric consistently outperforms traditional static and external-LLM-driven alignment methods. Notably, our framework is compatible with human-expert priors. When initialized with expert-annotated rubrics, EvoRubric can further uncover novel, discriminative dimensions, achieving better performance than relying solely on static expert annotations.

The growing number of submitted papers has motivated the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a means to support and augment the peer review process, particularly in terms of improving its speed and scalability. Yet, it remains unknown whether LLMs engage with scientific manuscripts in the same manner as human reviewers, or whether they merely produce review-looking text. To address this, we introduce the Peer Review AI Benchmark (PRAIB), a novel framework comprising thoroughly defined metrics that measure review specificity, style, and behavior of engagement. To complement the PRAIB framework, we conduct a large-scale empirical study leveraging a dataset of 11,000 reviews generated by five proprietary and open-source models for 1,000 ICLR and NeurIPS papers. Spanning the 2021--2025 period, these machine-generated reviews are compared against original human feedback across diverse prompting strategies to identify systematic behavioral divergences. Our analysis reveals that the generated reviews diverge significantly from feedback provided by human reviewers: LLM ratings are less variable, positively biased, and overconfident, and their cross-reference patterns are model-dependent and distinct from human norms. Furthermore, when evaluated through PRAIB, we observe that LLMs tend to generate longer, more complex reviews, yet frequently overlook the atomic weaknesses noted by human reviewers. By characterizing where and how LLMs reviewing behavior departs from human norms, PRAIB provides the community with a diagnostic tool for identifying which aspects of the review process LLMs can reliably support today and which require further development before deployment.

LLM-as-a-judge panels aggregate votes from multiple models, with the expectation that diverse models yield more reliable evaluations. We develop a framework to measure the true informational value of such panels and quantify how far their reliability falls short of the independent-voting ideal. Testing a panel of 9 frontier LLMs from 7 model families on three natural language inference datasets (each with 100 human annotations per item), we find that the 9 judges effectively provide only about 2 independent votes' worth of information. Roughly three-quarters of the panel's nominal independence is lost because the models make the same mistakes on the same items. The consequences are stark: the panel's actual accuracy falls 8-22 percentage points short of what independent voting would achieve, and the best single judge matches or outperforms the full panel across all conditions. Neither adding more judges nor using smarter aggregation algorithms helps -- established methods close at most 11% of this gap, even with access to the correct answers. We quantify these findings using the Kish effective sample size (n_eff) and a Condorcet null model, and show the deficit is robust across prompt variants, temperatures, chain-of-thought reasoning, and a pairwise preference task (RewardBench). The bottleneck is correlated judges, not the aggregation algorithm, implying that scaling up panels cannot substitute for genuinely independent evaluation.

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.

We introduce FinVerBench, a benchmark and validity study for financial statement verification: determining whether a set of corporate financial statements is numerically consistent from the information shown to the model. FinVerBench is built from SEC 10-K XBRL filings for 43 S&P 500 companies and defines a four-category error taxonomy covering arithmetic, cross-statement linkage, year-over-year, and magnitude perturbations. We attempt fifteen contemporary LLM evaluations and report fourteen complete runs; a Gemini 2.5 Pro run is excluded from the main comparison because 40/108 gateway calls failed. All binary metrics exclude underdetermined positive instances whose perturbed line item is not rendered, leaving a 105-instance observable diagnostic subset (43 clean, 62 error-injected). Under the original guided-checklist prompt on the unrounded diagnostic subset, nine of fourteen complete LLM runs produce 95-100% false positives on clean statements, while one run achieves 0% observed false positives. Benchmark rendering choices materially affect measured recall: on a realistic rounded variant of the same observable subset, the calibrated model's recall is 79.0% with 0% observed FPR, compared with 100.0% recall on the unrounded diagnostic variant. These results support a construct-validity conclusion rather than a final leaderboard: financial statement verification is not merely arithmetic detection, but calibrated judgment under incomplete observability, prompt-induced assumptions, and realistic numerical rendering. FinVerBench and all code are publicly available.

As candidate generation and high-throughput experimentation advance, the primary bottleneck in materials discovery is shifting from property prediction to making reliable evaluations among massive candidate sets. We propose a Knowledge-Augmented Preference Signals Framework, MaterEval, that automatically produces, for the same candidate, two evaluations: an informed judgment that follows expert rules and provides supporting evidence, and a rule-removed blind guess. By pairing the two evaluations as preference data, we guide general-purpose large language models (LLMs), originally lacking materials-specific criteria, from intuitive judgment toward reliable evaluation supported by explicit evidence. To balance throughput, cost, and reliability, we further introduce a fast-slow reasoning scheme that decouples large-scale rapid screening from in-depth review on a small subset. Using high-entropy alloy (HEA) assessment as a case study, we show that, without external retrieval and relying solely on internalized capabilities, small open-source LLMs achieve substantial gains in accuracy, conclusion consistency, and evidence discrimination, approaching the performance of rule-based closed-source LLMs. These results demonstrate that expert rules can be systematically transformed into learnable preference signals, enabling a low-cost and deployable evaluation module for autonomous materials discovery loops.

Language models are increasingly being deployed for conversational support in informal caregiving contexts, where interactions often extend beyond information-seeking: caregivers seek emotional reassurance, guidance, and help, while navigating uncertain, relationally complex care decisions. Yet most safety evaluations assess model behavior under generic prompts, leaving a critical question unexamined: does a model's safety profile change with its support role? We study this by operationalizing four expert-reviewed support roles grounded in social support theory: Inform, Coach, Relate, and Listen, and comparing them against two baseline controls: a basic prompting condition and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) condition. We evaluate across three language models (GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and MedGemma-1.5-4b-it) on 5,000 real-world queries from online Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) communities. We find that the LLM's support role systematically shapes both the prevalence and composition of interactional risks. Furthermore, a human evaluation study reveals a perceived quality--safety tension: more directive, information-oriented roles are rated as more helpful and trustworthy despite exhibiting elevated interactional risk profiles. We release ~90,000 support role-conditioned model responses with risk annotations as an ecologically grounded resource for research on safer LLM-mediated conversational support.

Smart contract decompilation aims to recover high-level source code from bytecode, but evaluating decompilers remains difficult because existing studies use narrow datasets, inconsistent metrics, and limited semantic consistency checks. This gap is increasingly important as large language models (LLMs) begin to generate source-like Solidity that may compile and appear plausible, even when its semantics diverge from the original contract. We introduce SCDBench, a dataset and benchmark methodology for LLM-based smart contract decompilation. The dataset contains 600 real-world Solidity contracts with paired bytecode inputs, ground-truth source code, and replayable semantic checkpoints. SCDBench evaluates decompiler outputs through four cumulative stages: format completeness, compilability, Application Binary Interface (ABI) recovery, and semantic consistency via differential replay. We evaluate Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.3-Codex, and GLM-5 in a zero-shot decompilation setting, including GLM-5 variants with and without extended reasoning and a zero-shot compilation-repair setting. The results show that frontier LLMs can often produce structured and compilable Solidity, but achieving semantic consistency remains far from solved: the best-performing frontier model perfectly decompiles only 42/600 contracts. We further show that introducing same-model compilation repair substantially improves performance at modest additional cost. SCDBench establishes a common ground for rigorous, reproducible evaluation and aims to accelerate the development of reliable smart contract decompilers for blockchain security and transparency.

Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for the automatic evaluation of generated text, yet most prior work focuses on English. Despite the growing demand for multilingual evaluation, extending LLM-based evaluators to multilingual settings remains challenging, particularly for low-resource languages and scenarios where in-domain data is scarce. This work explores several strategies for developing multilingual LLMs-as-a-judge, considering whether in-domain data is available for fine-tuning or not. We systematically analyze English, Spanish, and Basque, representing high-, mid-, and low-resource languages, considering instruction translation, monolingual versus multilingual supervision, and model size. For evaluation, we extend two existing meta-evaluation datasets to Basque and Spanish. Our results reveal key trade-offs: When in-domain data is available, fine-tuned smaller models can achieve performance comparable to proprietary models, whereas zero-shot evaluation with larger models proves more effective in out-of-domain settings. We also observe that fine-tuning on out-of-domain data can adversely affect model performance. These findings provide practical guidance for building efficient, reliable multilingual evaluation pipelines. The data and code are publicly available at hitz-zentroa/mJudge.

In-context learning (ICL) enables multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to classify images from a few labelled examples. Yet, how these models use the provided context remains opaque. While Chain-of-Thought prompting is widely used, recent work argues that it may not reflect true internal computation. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the concept-based explainability of frozen MLLMs under few-shot ICL using five conditions of increasing formal rigour, ranging from baseline classification to Description Logics (DL) axiom generation. Evaluating four state-of-the-art MLLMs via an independent LLM-as-a-judge pipeline, we demonstrate that explaining is genuinely harder than predicting alone. Surprisingly, forcing models to generate formally structured, concept-based explanations degrades predictive accuracy monotonically (from 93.8% to 90.1%), contradicting the assumption that explicit reasoning universally aids performance. However, when models successfully articulate class-discriminative visual features, explanation quality strongly correlates with correct predictions. Our findings suggest that while MLLMs excel at visual classification, they lack the specific instruction-tuning required for formal, machine-verifiable explainability.

Large Language Models are increasingly applied in the petroleum industry, highlighting the need for a domain-specific evaluation framework. This study develops a benchmark for LLMs in petroleum engineering, including a three-stage process of data preprocessing, quality filtering, and multi-model validation. Using expert review, a standardized question bank with strong domain relevance and discriminative capability was constructed. The benchmark covers production, reservoir, and drilling engineering, with 1,200 questions across multiple-choice, true or false, term definition, and short-answer formats. Eight mainstream LLMs were evaluated under a unified API environment. Results show that models performed better on subjective than objective questions, indicating weaknesses in factual knowledge discrimination. The highest accuracies for multiple-choice and true or false questions were 65.3% and 74.3%, respectively. Gemini-3-Pro, Kimi-K2.5, and Claude-Opus-4.6-Thinking achieved the best overall scores of 72%-74%. Models performed best in production engineering and weakest in reservoir engineering. Chinese models showed advantages in multiple-choice questions, while international models performed slightly better in short-answer questions. The benchmark provides a reproducible and practical reference for evaluating and deploying LLMs in petroleum engineering.

Agent benchmarks are increasingly used to compare large language models (LLMs) across domains, yet a reported score reflects a complete model--harness--environment configuration rather than the model alone. Benchmark packages couple native tasks with specific prompts, tool protocols, orchestration logic, and sometimes dynamic external resources, making cross-benchmark comparisons sensitive to implementation and resource conditions. We present UniACE, a unified framework for model-centric evaluation under an explicit, common execution condition. UniACE represents each benchmark as an instruction--tool--environment triplet, executes LLMs through a shared, task-agnostic harness in isolated per-task runtimes, and preserves native success criteria. For tasks that rely on dynamic resources, an optional offline mode replaces live access with fixed, pre-collected snapshots. Its evaluation protocol further standardizes efficiency measurement, execution records, and trace-based failure attribution. We migrate 7 benchmarks spanning 24 domains and evaluate 15 models in more than 400K rollouts consuming 5B tokens. Comparisons with source implementations show large bidirectional score changes and model-ranking reversals, while matched online and offline runs reveal substantial sensitivity to accessible evidence and its representation. Under the shared UniACE configuration, efficiency and failure profiles expose task-dependent model behaviors hidden by task-success scores alone. These findings motivate reporting agent benchmark outcomes as properties of an explicit evaluation configuration, enabling more interpretable and reproducible cross-benchmark comparisons. Codes and benchmarks at are available at https://github.com/whfeLingYu/A-Unified-Framework-for-the-Evaluation-of-LLM-Agentic-Capabilities, https://huggingface.co/datasets/whfeLingYu/Unified_Agent_Framework.

While LLMs enable personalized chatbots, their effectiveness in child-centered personalization remains unclear, as systematic evaluation of child-specific preferences is still lacking. To address this gap, we introduce ChildEval, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' ability to infer and follow child-centered preferences in long-context conversations. ChildEval contains 29K synthesized persona profiles of children aged 3-6, providing relatively static background information. Each persona is associated with a child preference-which may align with, conflict with, or be independent of the persona-expressed either explicitly in a single sentence or implicitly through 6-10 turn dialogues. Explicit and implicit preferences are designed to reflect the same underlying preference but differ in expression, capturing dynamic aspects of preference expression rather than changes in the static persona. The benchmark spans five top-level and fourteen sub-level categories covering children's daily lives and development. We further propose fine-grained, child-centric evaluation protocols to systematically assess open-source LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate how different personalized representations affect LLM responses and suggest that finetuning on ChildEval can enhance child-centered performance. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/ziyanluo/ChildEval.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems are often compared by asking a large language model (LLM) judge which answer is better. For multi-hop RAG, this has become a measurement problem as much as a modeling problem: the same score can reflect retrieval quality, answer length, lexical overlap, or a statistical test that ignores clustered data. We ask what happens when these choices are made explicit. We propose a minimum measurement standard for LLM-as-a-judge comparisons in RAG. The standard fixes the top-100 candidate pool, evidence budget, answer cap, generator, and prompt; it also requires pre-registered hypotheses, cluster-aware inference, an exact cluster sign-flip check when feasible, and second-judge replication. Clustered benchmarks can overstate progress; the field should adopt this standard. We stress-test it with Genetic Algorithm Decoder for Multi-hop Evidence Composition (GADMEC), an evolutionary evidence selector, on 400 multi-hop questions in computer science/machine learning (CS/ML) and Materials Science. The protocol changes the empirical story. A binomial test makes all four semantic-baseline comparisons look significant; cluster-aware inference leaves only one Bonferroni-significant result. BM25 beats pure semantic GADMEC under the same budget, while a lexical-semantic hybrid recovers in CS/ML and narrows the Materials Science gap.

We present Frost Training, a method for improving Monte Carlo-based policy optimization for a large family of LLM-as-a-judge tasks called Cross-Entropy Games. The key idea is to exploit the gradient of the reward function in embedding space. This signal is used in the Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG) jailbreaking technique; we demonstrate for the first time that it can also be used to boost model training. We validate our method using GRPO training for maximum-likelihood infilling. Frost Training improves the model's ability to generate high-scoring outputs, reaching higher maximum scores in a best-of-k setting, and does so at an increased speed.

We adapt Microsoft's QuantumKatas -- a well-established quantum computing curriculum -- from Q# to Qiskit, the most widely-adopted quantum computing framework, and package it with an evaluation framework for systematic LLM assessment. The resulting benchmark comprises 350 tasks across 26 categories, spanning fundamental gates through advanced algorithms (Grover's, Simon's, Deutsch-Jozsa), error correction, key distribution, and quantum games. Each task includes a natural language prompt, canonical solution, and deterministic test verification via classical circuit simulation. By building on the QuantumKatas' proven pedagogical design rather than creating tasks from scratch, we inherit a principled difficulty progression and comprehensive concept coverage while contributing the framework adaptation, evaluation infrastructure, and empirical analysis. We evaluate 16 LLMs across 7 prompting configurations -- a total of 39,200 model runs -- to demonstrate the benchmark's utility. Three key findings emerge: (1) the benchmark effectively differentiates model capabilities, with best-configuration pass rates ranging from 32.3% to 83.1% and a 26.1 pp average gap between frontier and open-source models; (2) models perform well at implementing known algorithms (SimonsAlgorithm 82.1%, BasicGates 81.6%) but struggle with problem encoding (SolveSATWithGrover 34.4%, DistinguishUnitaries 40.0%); and (3) chain-of-thought prompting shows a modestly bimodal effect -- it is the best strategy for three models (two of them explicitly reasoning-tuned per vendor documentation) but degrades performance for the rest, leaving it mid-pack in aggregate (56.3% mean) behind few-shot-5 (57.8%). We release the benchmark, evaluation framework, and baseline results to support research on LLM capabilities in quantum computing.

Scientific paper evaluation often involves not only assessing a manuscript itself, but also relating it to contemporaneous research and prior literature. However, existing LLM-based methods typically model these signals separately and lack a unified mechanism for propagating review evidence across papers. We propose $\textbf{GraphReview}$, a graph-based LLM framework that formulates paper evaluation as review-signal message passing over a semantic paper graph. The graph jointly captures intrinsic quality, synchronic links among contemporaneous papers, and diachronic links to prior work. LLMs are used to estimate node-level quality priors and generate edge-level comparative evidence through pairwise paper comparisons, while Personalized PageRank integrates review signals for quality ranking, decision prediction, and review generation. To produce higher-quality graph evidence, we propose reward-induced maximum likelihood objectives for training the LLM backbones. Experiments show that GraphReview consistently outperforms the strongest baseline, achieving average improvements of 29.7% on decision and ranking metrics, including gains of 23.7% in Accuracy and 57.6% in Spearman's $ρ$. It also produces higher-quality review texts and generalizes effectively across time periods and conference venues. The code is available at https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/GraphReview.