Large Language Model Evaluation

Exhaustively evaluating every candidate LLM configuration on every benchmark item to identify a high-performing one is costly. We formulate configuration selection as a cost-aware Bayesian bandit problem and propose GittinsEval, which draws on the Bayesian-optimal Gittins policy to determine which configuration to evaluate next and when to stop. We extend the policy with an anytime recommendation rule over both fully and partially evaluated configurations, using an LCB-style score to account for posterior uncertainty. GittinsEval is computationally efficient, requiring only lightweight online updates after offline precomputation. Across GSM8K, PIQA, AlpacaEval, and MMLU response matrices, GittinsEval is consistently competitive, with particularly strong gains over configuration-level Bayesian optimization on large-example benchmarks and over cost-unaware bandit baselines on large-candidate tasks. Crucially, GittinsEval often attains near-zero simple regret using only 1% to 2% of the exhaustive-evaluation cost; it also offers an adaptive stopping rule that typically triggers at 1% to 10%.

The widespread adoption of LLMs has led to escalating content compliance risks. Prior works have contributed to addressing these risks in the English context, downplaying the complexity of Chinese language content. This paper follows China's current AI-Generated content compliance requirements and provides evaluation results on 20 notable LLMs, offering insight into China's regulatory landscape. We design a novel framework to assess the compliance and refusal rates with 2303 questions spanning six distinct dimensions, including 203 self-constructed constitutional questions. The framework employs several judges to generate verdicts independently based on their hierarchical alignment memory. Our findings show that international models also exhibit high levels of compliance despite the use of standard Chinese questions, and the main differences may stem from dimensions closely related to ideological alignment. We establish a regulatory benchmark that enables the global AI community to evaluate both Chinese and non-Chinese LLMs under a unified set of legally grounded compliance requirements.

Benchmark scores alone provide an incomplete basis for assessing the trustworthiness of modern artificial intelligence systems. Large language models (LLMs), agentic systems, and multimodal models (MLLMs) require different forms of assessment, yet their evaluation evidence must remain interpretable for development and oversight. We propose a unified framework that connects output-level, trajectory-level, and cross-modal assessment through eight trustworthiness dimensions: capability, robustness, safety, fairness, transparency, governance, oversight, and efficiency. The framework preserves system-specific metrics while mapping native measurements to common performance bands, accompanied by uncertainty estimates and traceable evidence. A meta-evaluation layer examines the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the evaluation itself. Multidimensional profiles expose strengths and weaknesses, while safety-critical overrides prevent aggregate scores from masking critical failures. Mappings to governance frameworks, international standards, and European Union regulatory requirements connect technical assessment with oversight needs. The framework provides a structured basis for assessing both system performance and the credibility of the evidence supporting it, with empirical validation across deployment contexts remaining an essential next step.

As models scale, reward hacking becomes more frequent, more sophisticated, and more consequential. Does it leave a telltale signature in model representations? This work analyzes how reward hacking is represented internally in frontier open source LLMs, and how those representations can be used to understand and discover the range of hacking behaviors a model displays. In particular, we find that simple difference of means vectors coherently represent reward hacking in Kimi K3, GLM 5.2, and Qwen 3.8 Max across a variety of behaviors in common evaluations. Despite their simplicity, these vectors are both generalizable and interpretable, and we can use them to reliably detect reward hacking. We first evaluate reward hacking in commonly reported benchmarks like DeepSWE and SWE-bench, finding that models reward hack excessively in these environments; GLM 5.2 hacks in 57.2% of rollouts on DeepSWE and in 73% of rollouts on SWE-bench. Catching these requires monitors; LLM monitors are effective, but expensive detectors. We show that DoM vectors are similarly effective but virtually free, catching 3.1% more hacks in Kimi K3 and 7.9% fewer hacks in GLM 5.2 on DeepSWE at a monitor matched false positive rate. DoM vectors run on the chain-of-thought also predict reward hacks in the model's subsequent actions, meaning we can run them online and catch potential hacks before they occur. Finally, we analyze probe-hits that LLM monitors do not catch and discover other undesirable behaviors, as well as show transfer to finding hacks in non-SWE evaluations. Together, these results provide evidence that simple, white-box methods can be used to scalably study and monitor reward hacking behaviors in frontier open source models

Warning: This paper contains examples of stereotypes and social bias. LLMs are increasingly used in interactive settings by the general public, making the evaluation of model behavior in multi-turn conversational scenarios important for safety, including stereotyping-related harms. However, existing multi-turn social bias evaluations often rely on pre-specified or template-based user inputs that do not adapt to model responses and typically assume a fixed dialogue length in advance. In this paper, we study social bias dynamics in response-conditioned multi-turn interactions using a controlled evaluation protocol that generates follow-up user queries from the evolving dialogue history and allows evaluation over variable numbers of turns. Experimental results show that LLMs exhibit social bias even in coherent, response-conditioned multi-turn interactions, revealing late-emerging bias, non-monotonic bias patterns, and bias re-emergence. These results motivate evaluations that extend beyond fixed-turn, pre-scripted protocols. Our findings highlight the importance of analyzing social bias as a turn-level dynamic phenomenon.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved physician-comparable performance on multiple-choice medical knowledge examinations, but their capabilities in clinical history taking, urgency assessment, and safety remain insufficiently evaluated. We proposed Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation, a multi-turn conversational benchmark for stroke care in Japanese, and evaluated LLM performance and safety under practice-oriented conditions. Methods: We created 10 stroke and related-condition cases and evaluated LLMs in multi-turn Japanese conversations. The LLM acted as physician, while a board-certified neurosurgeon acted as simulated patient and evaluator. Each case comprised history-taking and action phases scored using pre-specified criteria. Errors that could directly threaten life were defined as critical mistakes. The safety threshold was at least 80% overall with zero critical mistakes. Eighteen models were evaluated in October 2025 and June 2026. Results: Claude Fable 5 achieved the highest score (87.4%) with zero critical mistakes, followed by Claude Opus 4.7 (80.3%) and GLM-5.2 (75.6%). Two leaders met the safety threshold. Eleven models made 17 critical mistakes, including failure to confirm laboratory results or blood glucose before t-PA, surgery before airway stabilization, omission of cervical vascular evaluation, and t-PA outside its indication. History-taking question count correlated with history-taking score (r = 0.648, p = 0.007). Conclusions: Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation provides a benchmark for LLM performance under practice-oriented conditions, including a cap on history-taking questions. Cases and evaluations were created by neurosurgical specialists rather than using an LLM-as-judge approach. Performance improved across cloud-based and on-premise models in 2026, with some exceeding the safety threshold. Further evaluation using real-world cases is required.

Evaluating the factual correctness of large language models (LLMs) is vital for many applications. But are our evaluation tools themselves trustworthy? Despite the rise of factuality-based metrics, their sensitivity and reliability remain underexplored. This paper introduces a meta-evaluation framework that systematically tests these metrics using controlled corruptions of gold standard answers. Our method generates ranked outputs with known degrees of degradation to probe how metrics capture nuanced changes in truthfulness. Our experiments reveal that pipeline-based methods, such as the RAGAS's factual correctness metric, better track degradation than LLM-as-judge approaches. We also propose a new variant of the factual correctness metric that provides a competitive and cost-efficient.

Synthetic perturbations appear to offer inexpensive calibration data for LLM evaluators in biomedical ML, where expert review is scarce. Yet a planted mutation key is neither a detector output nor automatically human ground truth. We formalize four distinct ledgers: planted perturbations, independent detector outputs, source-linked human dispositions, and human-added discoveries. We then audit the evaluation design, scoring code, read paths, and current human records of a private synthetic Japanese care-handoff workflow. The factory stored 69 planted error cards across 47 targets. Final review covers 22 targets and contains 22 confirmed imported proposals, 9 rejected proposals, and 79 human-added cards; only 3 reviewed targets are double annotated. Passing imported plant keys to a generic detector scorer yields 22/(22+9)=0.710 and 22/(22+79)=0.218. A direct audit identity shows that these values are proposal-confirmation yield and submitted-ledger composition, not judge precision and recall, because no independent detector realization was preserved for the audited proposals in the available records. The audit also finds source-name collisions, row shadowing, forced severity, vacuous ratio defaults, and unsupported zero-support field weights. We contribute a provenance-aware claim audit, a storage contract, and a minimum calibration gate for responsibly communicating biomedical ML capability claims. This single-workflow forensic case is an existence proof of a failure mode, not an estimate of its prevalence: existing human work supports an exploratory audit of synthetic proposals, but not LLM-judge operating characteristics, clinical validity, corpus prevalence, or robust inter-annotator agreement.

Comprehensive benchmark suites are essential for improving large language models (LLMs), but many widely used benchmarks are redundant, making evaluation unnecessarily expensive. Although recent benchmark compression methods (BCMs) can mitigate this cost, many strong BCMs rely on large collections of per-sample evaluation results from numerous LLMs to identify representative samples. Building such collections is also expensive unless they are already public, making these methods difficult to extend to newly released benchmarks. To address this challenge, we present ZipBench, a simple and low-cost BCM with theoretical error and rank-consistency guarantees. ZipBench evaluates only a small set of anchor LLMs, synthesizes pseudo evaluation results to broaden coverage, learns compact sample representations, and selects a small yet representative subset. Building on it, we create ZipBench Zoo, a collection of compact versions of 100+ benchmark proxies spanning text, multimodal, and agent tasks. These benchmark achieve mean absolute errors of 0.002--0.02 and average Spearman correlations of ~0.98 with the full benchmarks. Overall, ZipBench reduces the cost of both LLM evaluation and compact benchmark construction, lowering the barrier to broad LLM research for compute-constrained researchers. The code has been released in https://github.com/MilkThink-Lab/ZipBench.

Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.

Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and not harm. This evaluation can be more challenging than traditional machine learning for many reasons, including probabilistic and open-ended outputs, and behavior that shifts with prompt design and accumulated context. This review covers four key areas of LLM evaluation: principles of study design, statistical methods, capability evaluation and clinical context evaluation. Capability evaluation considers different benchmarks, including multiple-choice, agentic and multi-turn benchmarks, alongside operational metrics like token usage. Clinical context evaluation addresses establishing accuracy of free text outputs, such as human review and LLM-as-a-judge, and clinical trial approaches. Across sections, we describe underlying concepts and potential pitfalls, while emphasizing the importance of aligning evaluation methods with the research question. Together, this article aims to provide a pragmatic basis for designing and executing rigorous evaluations of healthcare LLMs.

Benchmark researchers and developers of large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems need to find relevant evaluations, locate their benchmark datasets and code, and understand the settings behind reported scores. We present Benchmark Radar, a living database and search engine for retrieval and discovery of AI benchmarks, covering LLM evaluation, agentic and tool-use benchmarks, coding, reasoning, safety, and domain-specific evaluations. The system combines daily discovery of benchmark papers, repositories, datasets, and releases with a searchable benchmark catalog, mentions in model cards and technical reports, and score histories. It retains source identities and citations so readers can inspect candidate benchmarks and their evaluation evidence. Daily discovery draws on 37 sources: 13 direct connectors and 24 first-party research and engineering feeds. The catalog contains 1,283 source records drawn from 4 benchmark catalogs and 12,916 numeric observations on 790 records. We describe collection and retrieval, audit the full catalog, and examine benchmark saturation, adoption trends, and the limits of score comparisons. A worked example walks through a complete prior-art search, showing how to query the catalog and inspect benchmark evidence when designing a new evaluation. We release the web dashboard with a benchmark leaderboard, a Pareto frontier view of score against measured use, saturation and trend views, daily feeds, downloadable evidence, a command-line interface (CLI) for offline queries, and reproducible analysis.

Whether a language model looks demographically biased can depend on how the audit asks its question. A charitable-aid benchmark reports that the same models favor minority applicants when rating requests one at a time and penalize some when ranking side by side. We test whether that reversal generalizes to hiring, lending, and medical triage: 40,726 requests to five models, applications differing only in the applicant's name, and a primary test fixed before collection. It does not. None of 36 planned contrasts survives correction. The rating advantage keeps its sign at roughly half the published size, and a precision extension bounds any hiring ranking penalty below the published effect, though the lending and triage ranking floors sit above that margin, so the exclusion is conclusive for hiring ranking and for rating in all three domains only. Planted disparities tracking their injected sizes and a directional replication on the original aid materials bound these nulls. The audit is livelier than the demographics: models recognize transparent audits nearly always, tie every identical-content comparison whether the varying detail is race or a hobby, and reward first-listed candidates as much as any demographic effect we measure. Audit verdicts reflect audit construction more than demographic bias.

Automated red-team attacks and blue-team defenses for large language models (LLMs) are advancing quickly. However, attackers and defenders are built and tested in isolation, and the resulting scores are hard to trust. To tackle this, we present ACEA (Adversarial Co-Evolution Arena), a platform that connects a pluggable red-team adapter and a pluggable blue-team adapter to a shared target LLM and scores their attack and defense rates with an LLM judge. ACEA contributes four components. First, a pluggable, model-agnostic arena. Any red or blue project connects over a minimal HTTP protocol, which we call the ACEA Standard Adapter Protocol (ASAP). It can be written in any language, and a project that exposes nothing but the protocol is a full participant. Second, an evaluation methodology built for adversarial rounds. Seeding the target with canonical secrets gives verifiable ground truth that separates real leakage from hallucination. We also send each attack to the target even when the defense blocks it, which measures the attack's raw potency independently of whether it was stopped. Together these yield a per-round decomposition of attack strength and defense effectiveness. Third, a real-time, game-style visualization with a detailed end-of-battle report that localizes each failure. The evaluation thus becomes an actionable signal for improving a red or blue project. Fourth, an optional in-context improvement loop that turns each round's outcome into advisory hints for the next. An adapter can then adapt across rounds without keeping state, provided it reads the hints. We describe the design of ACEA and the metrics through which red and blue teams are scored head to head.

The rapid digital transformation of manufacturing, often referred to as Industry 4.0, relies on seamless interoperability between physical and software assets. A central enabler is the Asset Administration Shell (AAS), a standardized digital representation of such assets. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable the generation of AAS submodels from unstructured sources such as product datasheets but raise challenges for quality assurance. In particular, unexpected errors, the lack of ground truth references, and the absence of standardized quality metrics hinder reliable adoption. In this work, we evaluate quality metrics for AI-generated AAS using a perturbation-based evaluation framework. By systematically degrading AAS generation along multiple dimensions, we assess how well different metrics reflect quality changes. Based on a dataset of 200 products from multiple manufacturers, we generate 6,400 AAS instances using GPT-4o-mini, Qwen3, and DeepSeek-R1. Our results show that metrics based on exact matching of property names and similarity-based soft matching of property values, in particular value-based recall and name-based F1 score, provide the most reliable indicators of quality degradation. Furthermore, we quantify the impact of different perturbation types and analyze differences across model families and product segments. These findings support the selection of suitable metrics, the tuning of LLM-based pipelines, and the integration of AI-generated AAS into industrial applications.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in safety-critical, physics-governed environments requires more than accuracy-based metrics, because predictions that are numerically close to the ground truth can still violate operational constraints, combine fields in physically inconsistent ways, or fail to produce usable structured outputs. Existing evaluation protocols do not measure these failure modes reliably. We propose FLY-EVAL++, an evidence-driven evaluation protocol that combines deterministic verification of protocol compliance, physical feasibility, and safety constraints with fixed rubric-guided aggregation into interpretable multi-dimensional scores. We instantiate FLY-EVAL++ for Flight Trajectory and Attitude Prediction (FTAP) by extending the PilotBench setting with history-conditioned and multi-step prediction tasks. Across 66 LLMs, safety compliance is the most discriminative dimension of model behavior: models with comparable predictive performance differ by more than 28 points in safety score, and we observe recurrent failures including safety violations under physically plausible predictions and instability in multi-step rollouts. These results show that evaluation in safety-critical domains should measure constraint satisfaction and structured validity explicitly rather than rely on accuracy-centric reporting alone.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard content moderation benchmarks. However, these benchmarks often aggregate multiple moderation criteria into a single label, making it unclear whether models can disentangle them and reliably apply each criterion when making decisions. To study whether LLMs exhibit criterion-conditioned behaviour, we introduce Diagnostic Evaluation of COntent (DECO), a criterion-independent factorisation of content that enables controlled, criterion-level evaluation. We also introduce pairwise evaluation to compare model outputs across different criteria for the same input. Across four moderation datasets and four LLMs, we find that strong benchmark performance can hide substantial failures at the criterion level. Models struggle most when correct decisions depend not on overall harmfulness, but on the specific aspect of the content that the criterion requires them to assess. Our results highlight a key limitation of current content moderation benchmarks: strong performance on aggregated labels does not provide sufficient evidence that LLMs can reliably evaluate content with respect to individual moderation criteria. These findings call for the development of evaluation methods that explicitly measure criterion-conditioned behaviour.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in multilingual settings, yet their safety is still evaluated primarily in English. This limits our understanding of how alignment failures manifest in low-resource and culturally diverse languages. We introduce IndicSafeEval, a persuasion-based jailbreak evaluation framework for Indian languages. Our benchmark combines ten safety critical content categories with six human-like persuasive strategies across four different Indian languages, such as Hindi, Bengali, Marathi and Punjabi, resulting in 7,200 adversarial prompts. We conduct a systematic black-box evaluation of several open-source LLMs to examine how their safety behaviour varies across languages, persuasion strategies, and risk categories. Our analysis shows that the model does not behave equally safely across all languages and prompt styles. Instead, safety performance depends strongly on both the languages used and the way a request is phrased using persuasive cues. We further observe that different risk categories exhibit different levels of vulnerability, with some types of harmful content being significantly more susceptible to persuasion-based jailbreaks than others. These findings reveal important limitations of current safety evaluations, which are largely English-centric, and underscore the need for multilingual and persuasion-aware benchmarking frameworks to more accurately assess real-world LLM safety. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/MonSaikat/IndicSafeEval. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive or harmful.

Libraries and archives manage large collections with limited staff and computing budgets, yet common benchmarks do not systematically test their bibliographic work. They need to know which methods work for their tasks and what those methods require to run. SHELF, the Synthetic Harness for Evaluating LLM Fitness, addresses this gap. It is a Python system that turns labelled taxonomies, writing specifications, and a generation budget into controlled benchmark data and evaluation tasks. This first release contains 62,899 model-written documents based on Library of Congress vocabularies, with tasks for classification, clustering, retrieval, pair classification, and instruction retrieval. We compare TF, TF-IDF, BM25, popular encoders, and, on subject classification only, zero-shot decoders; each method appears only on tasks that support it. Subject classification reaches 0.8887, while genre-form classification reaches only 0.2605, and several pair and clustering tasks remain near chance. Sparse methods remain competitive on classification, while TF-IDF is the fastest measured arm in the subject timing experiment. SHELF also varies bibliographic facets independently and can generate new, verifiably unseen documents after a model's training cutoff. Comparisons with LCSHBench and Project Gutenberg show that model rankings transfer more reliably than absolute scores, but SHELF scores do not estimate accuracy on production catalogue data. We release all source code and data under permissive licenses on GitHub and Hugging Face.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in interactive systems where understanding user intent precisely is paramount. A key capability for such systems is effective question clarification, especially when user queries are ambiguous or underspecified. This paper introduces a novel tri-agent framework for the robust evaluation of an LLM's ability to engage in clarifying dialogue. Our framework comprises three distinct LLM-based agents: (1) a Question Clarifying Agent (QCA), the system under evaluation, tasked with identifying ambiguities and posing clarifying questions; (2) a Respondent Agent (RA), designed to simulate human user responses, potentially including irrelevant or challenging replies; and (3) an Evaluator Agent (EA), an LLM-as-a-judge, which assesses the quality of the dialogue based on a comprehensive set of metrics. We detail a methodology for synthetic data generation in the supply chain domain as an example. We propose metrics evaluating ambiguity handling, question quality, dialogue efficiency, language appropriateness, and final intent alignment. We also briefly discuss the validation of the EA against human judgments. This work provides a structured approach to benchmark, validate, and improve the clarification capabilities of conversational LLM applications.

Large language models are increasingly used as interactive recommender assistants. Their evaluation should therefore go beyond plausible item recommendation and test whether they can recognize flawed recommendation requests. Existing recommender benchmarks mainly assess ranking, generation, or preference satisfaction, while existing error-detection benchmarks are usually not grounded in recommendation-specific user and candidate evidence. To address this gap, we introduce RPCBench, a benchmark for evaluating Recommender-Premise Critique: the ability to detect, diagnose, and properly handle faulty premises in natural-language recommendation requests. RPCBench contains evidence-grounded test instances from five recommendation domains and covers ten types of premise failures. Each instance provides a visible recommendation context and a corrupted user query. We further design a fine-grained evaluation framework that measures proactive detection, error localization, post-detection handling strategy, and evidence faithfulness. Through a systematic evaluation of 11 LLMs, we find that proactive detection is the main bottleneck in Recommender-Premise Critique, and models perform worst on underspecified-premise errors. We also observe that target-critical information density matters more than redundant evidence, and that longer reasoning does not monotonically improve critique quality: performance peaks at intermediate reasoning length, while overly long reasoning is accompanied by an overthinking penalty. The code is available at https://github.com/ZhongruChen/RPCBench.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning decomposes open-ended instructions into prompt-specific, flexible rubrics, making it better suited than reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards for post-training LLMs on open-ended tasks. However, static rubrics are inevitably hacked as the policy evolves, and existing dynamic approaches introduce new problems: undirected rubric extraction, unreliable hack detection, and unbounded rubric proliferation. We propose $\textbf{CARE}$ ($\textbf{C}$ontrastive $\textbf{A}$nchor-based $\textbf{R}$ubric $\textbf{E}$volution), which grounds every rubric evolution step in a high-quality anchor response generated by a frontier model conditioned on the prompt and its rubrics. At each training step, CARE contrasts the highest-scoring rollout against the anchor, enabling two complementary mechanisms: an Adaptive branch that reactively repairs reward misspecification; and a Chase branch that proactively converts frontier-level quality gaps into sharper rubrics. Together, the two branches $\textbf{maintain discriminative accuracy in the high-reward region}$---the precise region where reward over-optimization mostly originates. Experiments on WildChecklist-9K with Qwen2.5-7B-Base and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct show that CARE achieves state-of-the-art performance on Arena-Hard-2.0, InfoBench, and FollowBench, and is the $\textbf{only}$ method whose win rate against GPT-4.1 anchor responses shows sustained improvement throughout 300 training steps; additional results on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen3-8B further indicate that CARE generalizes across model families.

Users of a deployed language model routinely encounter behaviours that testing almost never surfaces, since deployment puts the model through orders of magnitude more interactions than any evaluation can simulate. Automated auditors make testing cheap to scale and flexible enough to cover almost any specified behaviour, yet their lack of optimisation pressure makes them sample-inefficient. To address this shortcoming, we introduce BLOOM-WILT, a full auditing pipeline that elicits natural multi-turn instances of rare behaviours, without training cost or access beyond the target's next-token distribution. On the input side, WILT's auditor model revises its conversational strategy across rounds, learning from previous scored interactions. On the output side, WILT adaptively reweights the target's decoding using the model's own distribution conditioned on an elicitation prompt, so that behaviour-relevant generations are sampled ahead of others it finds equally probable when unprompted. We evaluate WILT across 4 target models and 8 behaviours, where it beats the baseline auditor in 30 of the 32 settings and overturns the previous model safety rankings. WILT raises average behaviour presence from 51% to 100% when eliciting self-harm encouragement from Qwen3.5-4B, beating every elicitation method we port into the same pipeline at matched compute, without pushing output probability below the baseline's.

Large language models are increasingly used as scalable evaluators for open-ended tasks. However, many LLM judges derive query-specific criteria during scoring, leaving the evaluation requirements insufficiently specified and their coverage difficult to audit. Query-specific rubrics make these requirements explicit, but expert-written rubrics are costly to construct, while existing automatic methods typically rely on inference-time refinement or external supervision. We introduce GenRubric, a self-evolving framework that improves rubric generation from unlabeled queries without requiring additional human annotations during self-evolution. Our approach is based on rubric-induced self-consistency: independently sampled rubrics for the same query provide partial views of its latent evaluation requirements, and a comprehensive rubric should induce a response that generalizes across these complementary evaluation views. We implement this principle through reinforcement learning, combining a cross-rubric comprehensiveness signal with group-level and criterion-level rewards for rubric quality. We train GenRubric models at 4B, 8B, and 14B scales across multiple domains. Experiments on human-annotated rubric benchmarks show that self-evolution improves the agreement between evaluations induced by generated rubrics and those induced by expert-written rubrics. The improvements further generalize to held-out domains, demonstrating the potential of self-evolving rubric generation for scalable and query-specific LLM evaluation. Code and models are publicly available at https://github.com/foggpoy/GenRubric.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become the dominant paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, traditional RLHF relies on scalar reward signals that lack interpretability and fail to capture the multifaceted nature of response quality. Rubric-guided reinforcement learning addresses these limitations by introducing structured, interpretable evaluation criteria, or rubrics, as the backbone of reward design, feedback generation, and policy optimization. In this survey, we introduce a Bayesian framework that defines constitutions as prior distributions $P(R)$ over evaluation criteria and rubrics as conditional instantiations $R_x \sim P(R|x)$. Under this unified view, we present a taxonomy of rubric-guided RL along the prior-posterior axis, covering constitutional AI, instance-specific rubrics, process-level supervision, self-evolving rubrics, and their agentic and multimodal extensions. Furthermore, as rubrics are natural-language artifacts, we present a linguistic analysis of how granularity trade-offs, semantic drift, and linguistic reward hacking impact alignment reliability, identifying key open problems for future research.

LLM benchmark scores can be precise even when the observation protocol does not identify the behavioral property they are intended to measure. In a controlled, solver-grounded setting, we formalize a protocol-level identifiability audit over a finite behavioral policy class: given policies H, observation support O, and estimand $τ$, we test whether O separates every pair with different $τ$. The audit requires zero model calls and resolves our diagnostic case: base-only observation collapses seven frozen deterministic policies into one equivalence class; full support yields seven classes and no cross-estimand collisions; every leave-one-out support retains a constructive collision witness. Empirically, both constrained-generation variants have pair-validity 1.0, yet base accuracy and selective-response fidelity diverge - 0.620 versus 0.324 across six balanced oracle-transition directions (cluster-bootstrap 95% CI [0.600, 0.642] vs. [0.304, 0.345]) - and the gap recurs on a second deterministic source (0.646 vs. 0.331). The audit also synthesizes a minimum identifying support $O^*$ for the frozen policy class: two cells instead of the full 36-cell tensor. This case shows how evaluation-design validity can be checked structurally before model inference and why base correctness does not determine intervention-response fidelity.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied for emotional companionship, evaluating their behavior and capabilities in intimate relationships has become a pressing issue. However, existing assessments primarily characterize general personality traits, providing limited insight into model behavior within intimate and emotionally sensitive contexts. Therefore, we introduce adult attachment theory into LLM evaluation and use the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) scale to characterize attachment anxiety and avoidance. To evaluate emotional companionship capabilities of LLMs in realistic interaction scenarios, we present an emotional companionship benchmark, ECBench, spanning four scenarios including emotional support, collaborative tasks, conflict resolution, and social guidance, across friendship and romantic relationships. ECBench is utilized to assess model behavior using 11 dialogue-quality metrics and three evaluation methods. We evaluate the attachment tendencies of 32 LLMs and select representative models to investigate how these tendencies manifest in contextualized multi-turn interactions and whether they can be shaped through prompting. Our study provides a theoretical lens from psychology, along with practical tools to understand and select LLMs for emotional companionship.

Standard evaluation of large language models assumes stable model rankings across inference conditions. We challenge this assumption by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels (64--4,096), evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks (56,476 inferences). We report four findings: (i) 3--19% of items exhibit non-monotone behavior (accuracy decreasing with more budget), even after controlling for truncation, and this phenomenon is model-specific (cross-model overlap: 6--14%). (ii) Model rankings reverse across budgets on all benchmarks ($p {<} 0.01$, McNemar). (iii) Oracle analysis reveals model complementarity up to $+27.8$pp, most pronounced at constrained budgets. (iv) A budget-aware router captures 14.1% of the oracle gap cross-domain; budget features help within-domain ($+1.6$ to $+5.7$pp) but are domain-specific and hurt transfer ($-1.2$pp). These results argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.

Traditional offline recommendation evaluation relies heavily on complex, manually maintained feature pipelines that are difficult to scale. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative by predicting user engagement directly from raw text logs, empirical analysis in this study identifies a critical failure mode termed bidirectional rationalization. In a zero-shot setting, LLMs are found to convincingly argue for both positive and negative user engagement outcomes on the exact same item with identical evidence, highlighting the unreliability of off-the-shelf LLMs in predicting user engagement. To resolve this, we develop and apply a sequential behavioral alignment framework pairing fine-tuning with preference optimization over paired correct and counterfactual rationales. Evaluated on real-world homepage interaction logs, this aligned reasoning approach achieves a 32.19% lift in Macro-F1 score over the zero-shot baseline and matches the production feature-engineered baseline. The results demonstrate that behavioral alignment mitigates bidirectional rationalization while delivering human-interpretable reasoning traces without manual pipeline overhead.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, accurately evaluating their latent values and biases is critical. The NLP community typically evaluates models using large, unstructured benchmarks. While effective for general capabilities, these datasets fundamentally conflate causal mechanisms: even when an aggregate bias is detected, unstructured evaluations cannot disentangle whether it stems from baseline traits, contextual confounders, or complex interactions. To address this, we introduce an analytically exact framework for the controlled behavioral evaluation of LLMs. We bridge human psychometrics with LLM mechanics by resolving gaps in design, measurement, and analysis. First, we replace unstructured prompting with fully crossed factorial experiments to systematically isolate causal main and interaction effects. Second, we eliminate Monte Carlo text sampling noise by operating directly on exact, token-level Probability Mass Functions (PMFs). Third, we derive a multivariate ordinal consensus metric and a distributional ANOVA to process these PMFs analytically. We validate our framework with a case study on consumer ethnocentrism across five LLMs, demonstrating how our approach isolates systemic country-of-origin biases that aggregate benchmarks otherwise obscure.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as relevance assessors in information retrieval (IR) evaluation, raising questions about how assessor framing affects judgment reliability and downstream system comparison. We study persona conditioning as a diagnostic mechanism for exposing LLM assessor sensitivity. Using task-oriented personas drawn from two complementary sources (PersonaHub and NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-USA), we instantiate five assessor roles emphasizing intent interpretation, domain expertise, contrastive judgment, evidence verification, and global search-quality assessment, compared with a standard UMBRELA baseline. Across six LLM backbones on TREC DL20 and RAG24, our analyses reveal structured rather than uniform assessor sensitivity. Judgments usually remain close to the baseline while shifting assessment strictness, evidential threshold, or interpretation emphasis rather than producing widespread relevance reversals. At the system level, high-capacity models preserve system-ranking agreement, while smaller models amplify persona-induced instability. Local rank-displacement analysis shows sensitivity concentrates on particular retrieval systems and system types, especially neural ranking/reranking systems on DL20 and RAG-oriented pipelines on RAG24. Persona source matters less than assessor role and model capacity. These findings position persona-conditioned judging as a controlled sensitivity probe for stress-testing LLM-based IR evaluation pipelines and identifying systems whose evaluation outcomes are sensitive to assessor framing.

Feedback signals used to train Large Language Models (LLMs) are the primary driver of their behavior and our main lever for instilling alignment with human values and objectives. However, a key limitation of current post-training methods is the inability of human annotators and automated reward functions to faithfully capture the feedback we would like to give. We introduce Evaluation-Conditioned Training (ECT), a post-training framework that uses natural language to condition each training sample on the fidelity of the feedback we provide and then elicits the desired behavior by conditioning the LLM on a high-fidelity monitor in deployment. ECT is aimed at improving performance under imperfect feedback and works as an add-on to existing algorithms such as SFT and PPO. We first provide a conceptual framework for ECT and discuss its potential to address persistent sources of reward mis-specification. Then we motivate ECT in the context of the eliciting latent knowledge (ELK) problem. Finally, we evaluate ECT on two proof-of-concept experiments: increasing even-handedness in news article generation and reducing sycophancy on an arithmetic task. In each setting, we utilize imperfect feedback, rewarding bias and agreement with the user, respectively. In both settings, ECT improves the targeted behavior relative to direct training.

Large language models are increasingly being deployed in governmental settings, yet few existing evaluation frameworks jointly reflect the values of public administration and the linguistic requirements of non-English contexts. We present the "Grip on LLMs" framework, a systematic evaluation suite for Dutch governmental use developed in collaboration with domain experts from a major Dutch municipal organisation. Through an advisory board process, user research, and a survey of the users of a civil-servant chatbot, we identify six evaluation dimensions (factuality, honesty, social bias, energy consumption, cost, and training data transparency) and operationalise them into a benchmark suite covering more than 30 multilingual and Dutch-specific models. Our results reveal that no single model excels across all dimensions, and that trade-offs are unavoidable: higher quality consistently comes at greater environmental impact and financial cost, while bias remains largely independent of both. We further find that factuality (whether a model answers correctly) and honesty (whether a model acknowledges what it does not know) are governed by distinct properties, with high factuality not implying high honesty. To make these findings actionable for non-technical audiences, we release a publicly accessible, user-friendly model overview designed for the full range of stakeholders involved in governmental LLM selection, from engineers to policymakers.

Large language model evaluations typically focus on performance under nominal conditions, creating an illusion of capability where models comfortably walk a narrow, highly optimized generation corridor. In real-world deployments, however, complex system prompts, safety guardrails, and structural constraints continuously force models off this nominal path, driving a divergence between benchmark scores and deployment performance. To address this issue, we introduce Decoding-Level Taboo, a zero-prompt diagnostic stress test that intervenes directly in logit space at runtime, forcing models out of their nominal paths. By dynamically masking primary candidate tokens at word boundaries, Taboo forces machine circumlocution. Evaluating Taboo across several open-weight model families reveals that off-path robustness is heavily influenced by both parameter scale and post-training instruction alignment, with robustness generally improving with model size and alignment. Beyond the results presented in this paper, Taboo provides a novel primitive for generating diverse synthetic datasets, stress-testing runtime safety guardrails, and auditing model reliability prior to real-world deployment.

Reliable evaluation of tool routing is critical as Large Language Models increasingly operate as autonomous agents. Current benchmarks face three structural limitations: data distributions that follow a power law leave rare scenarios underrepresented; the absence of adversarial hard negatives obscures performance differences across models; and annotation pipelines depend on LLM judgments that have not been validated through execution. In this paper, we introduce PluginEval, a benchmark constructed through a two-stage framework that systematically mitigates these limitations. First, we formulate tool routing as a sequence of three decisions and separate generation from verification. LLMs propose candidate calls, while deterministic validation and real API execution provide reliable quality signals. Second, we decompose each plugin by capability, intent, and boundary to identify trigger and exclusion scenarios. We then generate queries at different difficulty levels to fill coverage gaps, including adversarial negatives targeting three failure modes, and return them to the first stage for annotation. This process creates a closed loop that iterates until coverage converges. For evaluation, we move beyond aggregate accuracy. An LLM judge anchored to gold annotations classifies failures as missed calls, spurious calls, or parameter errors, producing a detailed error profile for each model. We evaluate five model families, including proprietary models and models with open weights, analyze their performance across difficulty levels and error categories, and validate the judge through agreement with human annotations.

Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks. As generative AI applications move from pilot to production, manual harm identification and mitigation are becoming difficult to scale. Although many tools support model evaluation, adversarial testing, runtime guardrails, and observability, the tooling landscape remains fragmented. Tools are typically designed for specific engineering tasks and described in technical terms that do not align with governance frameworks or risk taxonomies, making it difficult to determine which tools address which risks and where critical gaps remain. This paper proposes a structured protocol to automate AI risk mitigation through a taxonomy-driven analysis of open-source LLM evaluation and security tools. We map the capabilities of 21 prominent open-source tools to the 32 subcategories of the extended MIT AI Risk Mitigation and Response Taxonomy. An LLM-assisted retrieval-augmented generation pipeline analyzes source code and documentation to extract capabilities for each taxonomy category. Reliability assessment yielded moderate agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.509) among three independent reviewers. The analysis reveals a highly skewed landscape in which tools cluster around technical and operational controls, while governance, legal and regulatory, and financial and market controls remain largely unaddressed. This motivates a layered risk-mitigation architecture combining tool-based controls with organizational and regulatory processes. The mapping protocol achieved an F1 score of 75.5% after majority voting. Overall, the study provides a practical mapping between enterprise AI risk categories and open-source mitigation capabilities, identifies where human oversight remains necessary, and presents a taxonomy-driven framework applicable to open-source and proprietary solutions.

Many AI tutors leverage large language models (LLMs) today. Given that LLMs are opaque black boxes, robust evaluation and live experimentation to measure the impact of every change are essential. We pioneered AI-powered tutoring for K-12 with the launch of Khanmigo (Khan Academy, 2023). We describe the metrics we use to measure AI tutoring quality and student engagement as well as various experiments we have run. We highlight the changes that have moved our metrics, including models, prompting, personalization and agents.

Generative models are often evaluated through singular artifacts, whereas human creativity typically emerges through iterative generation, appraisal, and refinement. This pilot study examines whether iterative search improves LLM creativity by adapting FunSearch to recipe generation for the 2024 Pillsbury Bake-Off and evaluating outputs against human benchmarks using TTCT-based LLM evaluation. Across two experiments, we test iteration count, generator temperature, and in-loop selection-scorer model size. Results show that iterative generation-selection can produce recipes with creativity scores comparable to human benchmarks, but additional iterations alone do not improve creativity. The in-loop evaluator matters most: a smaller selection scorer yields significantly higher scores across most TTCT dimensions, while temperature has limited effects except for originality. These findings suggest that evaluator design is a first-order design variable in subjective creative search.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias. This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias. An LLM is instructed to randomly generate number tokens, and the latent numerical bias of the LLM is identified by measuring the deviation of the observed distribution of numbers from the uniform distribution. A definition of a downstream task, for which an LLM evaluator is used, is added to the prompts for random number generation to measure task-specific latent number bias. In the evaluation by an LLM, the token generation probabilities for a given input are rectified considering the LLM's latent number bias. Results of the experiment on four different tasks, evaluation of LLM alignment, evaluation of summarization, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Semantic Textual Relatedness, demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms the baselines, including an LLM without debiasing and previous calibration methods. In addition, it is confirmed that scoring bias varies across LLMs, tasks, and score ranges, indicating the importance of measuring latent number bias as the case may be.

Large language model (LLM) configuration evaluation is challenging due to limited evaluation budgets, varying costs, and multiple competing objectives. In this paper, we formulate LLM configuration evaluation as a cost-aware multi-objective bandit problem, where each configuration evaluation incurs a configuration-dependent cost and yields a noisy vector-valued outcome. Under this framework, we study two fundamental problems: online configuration selection and Pareto configuration identification. For online configuration selection, we propose a hypervolume-based UCB algorithm that optimizes an optimistic hypervolume-per-cost index. We establish a budgeted regret bound of order $O\bigl(\sum_{i\ne i^\star}\frac{\log B}{Δ_i}\bigr)$, where $B$ is the evaluation budget, $i^\star$ is the optimal configuration in terms of hypervolume efficiency, and $Δ_i$ is the corresponding efficiency gap of configuration $i$. This bound retains the logarithmic budget dependence of classical single-objective budgeted bandits. For fixed-budget Pareto identification, we develop a cost-aware empirical gap elimination algorithm and prove that its error probability is of order $O\bigl(\exp(-\frac{B}{H_{μ,c}})\bigr)$, where $H_{μ,c}$ is a cost-aware Pareto identification complexity depending on configuration costs and Pareto classification gaps. This error probability decays exponentially with the evaluation budget and recovers the standard Pareto set identification guarantee when all configuration costs are identical. Experiments on LLM configuration evaluation tasks demonstrate that the proposed framework enables efficient online decision-making and accurate cost-aware Pareto identification under limited budgets.

This white paper presents ADMITBench, a reference framework for evaluating industrial LLM advisories at the level of the proposed action. The framework implements a versioned, safety-governed evaluation contract that checks whether a recommendation is supported by the available evidence, permitted under the stated authority and procedure, and acceptable under the plant-specific consequence checks encoded in the selected evaluation profile. In this report, \emph{safety-governed} means that eligibility is determined through explicit, non-compensatory checks derived from a versioned plant profile; it does not mean that the evaluator, model, or plant has been safety-certified. Release 0.1.0 is a public reference implementation for technical and research evaluation, not an authorisation for physical execution.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming database interaction paradigms, evolving from simple query translators to autonomous database administrators (DBAs). However, current evaluation benchmarks remain disproportionately fixated on Text-to-SQL tasks, neglecting the holistic Database Lifecycle-from initial schema design to post-deployment maintenance. This narrow focus fails to capture the diverse capabilities required for real-world database management. To bridge this gap, we introduce DBLifeBench, the first benchmark to evaluate LLMs across five critical lifecycle phases: Design, Implementation, Operation, Debugging, and Maintenance. Furthermore, addressing the cognitive mismatch between ambiguous natural language and complex SQL logic, we propose Progressive-Text2SQL, a novel task utilizing structured reasoning graphs to mimic human iterative problem-solving. Our extensive evaluation reveals a critical insight: while general-purpose models demonstrate balanced performance, specialized Text-to-SQL models suffer from ``catastrophic forgetting'' in non-coding phases like design and maintenance. DBLifeBench serves as a foundational step toward evaluating and building true full-stack database intelligence.

AI for Research (AI4Research) leverages AI to automate and improve scientific workflows. While experimental design is a critical stage of the research process, prior work has focused primarily on code implementation and execution, overlooking the importance of this stage, and no benchmark exists to evaluate AI's ability to conduct systematic experiment design. To bridge this gap, we propose SCOPE, a Scientific COmprehensive Planning Evaluation Benchmark constructed from 300 high-quality latest papers across 19 research domains from top-tier venues (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR),evaluating LLMs on two dimensions: High-Level planning completeness (main, ablation, and analysis experiments) and Low-Level configuration accuracy and rationality (datasets, baselines, and metrics). Benchmarking reveals three findings: (1) most LLMs cannot directly design high-quality experiments; (2) all LLMs exhibit a performance bottleneck in low-level configuration; and (3) search mode does not improve design quality. Furthermore, to address these challenges, we propose OptED, a novel agentic workflow to optimize LLM-based experimental design, that enhances LLM-based experimental planning through stage isolation, tool augmentation, and rule-based constraints, effectively alleviating the configuration bottleneck.

Enterprise compliance management requires rapid adaptation to evolving regulatory frameworks (e.g., DORA, AI RMF, FedRAMP) and tight remediation SLAs. Traditional static orchestrators often fail in hybrid cloud environments where event-driven assessments demand that automation code adapt to runtime context in seconds. This paper presents lessons learned from evaluating six large language models for AI-driven workflow generation in a production enterprise platform, benchmarked across 29 real-world IT automation scenarios, two generation pipeline architectures, and eight independent runs per prompt-model-pipeline configuration (2,784 runs total). Our initial pipeline used monolithic workflow generation, achieving 31.5-82.8% structural success rates (JSON schema validity and correct UI rendering), with most models struggling on complex JSON generation. We developed a redesigned piecewise pipeline that decomposes workflow construction into variable scaffolding, base block assembly, and nested block generation, raising structural success to 74.1-97.8% across all models. We analyze production tradeoffs including cost (USD 0.008-0.20 per workflow), latency (under 50s for interactive use), and model selection. Piecewise decomposition enables smaller models (e.g., mistral-small at 95.7% structural success and USD 0.01 per workflow) to reach production viability, removing dependency on expensive frontier models. While mistral-medium-2505 and gpt-oss-120b achieved the highest structural success (96.1% and 97.8%), mistral-medium-2505 carries a 19x cost premium versus mistral-small. Our deployment lessons highlight the need to separate structural validity from semantic correctness (logical fulfillment of user intent) and provide a solution for model-agnostic, scalable automation in cloud engineering.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in MQM-based translation quality (TQ) evaluation, and recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) promise even greater improvements. However, both LLMs and LRMs are computationally expensive to deploy at scale, while small language models (SLMs)---though much more efficient---struggle with the complex reasoning required for evaluation tasks. In this work, we present an extensive empirical study benchmarking SLMs, LLMs, and LRMs across a wide range of TQ evaluation setups, providing a comprehensive view of the current landscape and establishing best practices. To address the scalability challenge, we introduce TQLite, a novel distillation framework that enables SLMs to approach the MQM evaluation performance of the best LRM-based evaluators. Our approach leverages a multi-LRM jury to generate high-quality synthetic training data via practical data curation techniques and aggregation of evaluation responses across a diverse panel of models. Our results demonstrate that SLMs trained via TQLite achieve strong MQM evaluation performance that far exceeds off-the-shelf evaluation capabilities of standard SLMs, offering a scalable and cost-effective alternative to LLM- and LRM-based evaluators.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related advice. Existing research measures their safety with static questions rather than pressured patient-facing conversations. We introduce MedPRESS, a multi-turn benchmark for measuring patient-pressure-induced sycophancy in LLMs. MedPRESS contains 600 medically grounded five-turn dialogues across three scenario families: medication and treatment demand, personal health self-care, and symptom triage and care resistance. Each dialogue begins with a health query and escalates through personal experience, social proof, external evidence claims, and direct adversarial challenge. We evaluate 20 LLMs across general, medical-domain, lightweight, large, open-weight, and proprietary families using structured judging and safety-focused metrics. Results show that models frequently shift toward unsafe agreement under repeated patient pressure, with substantial variation across model families, model scale, and prompt type. Anti-sycophancy prompting improves robustness for several models, but does not eliminate unsafe agreement. MedPRESS highlights a critical gap in medical LLM evaluation: safe medical knowledge is not enough unless models can maintain it under conversational pressure.

Benchmark suites assess model capability on controlled tasks; large-scale conversation corpora capture naturalistic use without user feedback; and in-interface feedback mechanisms record satisfaction without task purpose. Together, they leave a critical gap in LLM evaluation: no existing infrastructure routinely links interaction trajectories to user-defined outcomes. We introduce MonitrLLM, open-source infrastructure for community-centered LLM evaluations that links full conversation transcripts to user-reported task intent and outcome assessments, treating all three as primary evaluative signals rather than optional metadata. To demonstrate the value of this approach, we conducted a two-week feasibility pilot with 26 college students using ChatGPT, collecting 206 evaluation reports with full conversation transcripts. The findings from our pilot demonstrate the value of connecting conversation trajectories with user-reported outcomes. For instance, despite reporting high average satisfaction (4.19/5) with their LLM interactions, participants also experience a substantial 23.1% failure rate on their goal tasks. We also find that multi-turn conversations are reported as failing at 2.5 times the rate of single-turn exchanges, a pattern that reframes extended interaction as a signal of difficulty rather than engagement. We conclude by discussing the value of incorporating direct user feedback with observational data for robust LLM evaluations, and the possibilities for infrastructure that enables this goal.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across diverse tasks in K-12 education, yet existing safety evaluations rarely examine how harmful or inappropriate content appears in interactions between LLMs and students or teachers. To address this, we present EduZone, an evaluation framework for LLM safety across diverse educational scenarios. Our framework systematically combines (1) student- and teacher-facing LLM usage contexts, (2) fine-grained curriculum concepts, and (3) 6 risk categories and 28 subcategories spanning both conventional and education-specific harms to generate contextually grounded adversarial interactions. We construct these interactions in three settings: single-turn requests, static multi-turn conversations, and dynamic multi-turn conversations. Using these interactions, we evaluate ten LLMs using four safety levels: refusal, safe assistance, risky assistance with safety guidance, and fully risky assistance. Our results reveal greater vulnerability to education-specific risks and dynamic multi-turn interactions, while existing safety guardrails fail to adequately address these risks. EduZone advances LLM safety in education by providing an automated, scalable evaluation framework that supports the development and deployment of safer LLMs in K-12 education.

Reliable evaluation of open-ended LLM outputs requires fine-grained rubrics, yet expert curation is costly and difficult to scale. Existing automated pipelines rely on strict judge unanimity and binary variance filters, which cannot distinguish measurable rubrics from informative ones. We introduce CalibratedRubric, a task-adaptive framework that combines type-specific scoring, Bayesian rubric-measurability filtering, and item response theory (IRT)-based bank assembly. CalibratedRubric estimates each rubric's measurability with a Beta--Bernoulli agreement posterior and uses a submodular information-coverage objective to construct compact rubric banks over the observed capability range. Across financial, healthcare, general, and legal benchmarks, measurability filtering improves human-gold agreement on JudgmentBench from $κ=0.604$ to $0.743$. IRT-based greedy selection improves cross-fitted rank fidelity over random selection across all six evaluated response blocks and requires only 49 rather than 131 rubrics to reach the target correlation on FinResearchBench decision-support tasks. Task-label perturbations further reduce system separation, confirming the practical relevance of task-adaptive scoring. These results support CalibratedRubric as an efficient, uncertainty-aware approach to open-ended LLM evaluation, with calibration gains depending on sufficient judge redundancy.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in financial applications that combine retrieval, proprietary data, tool use, orchestration logic, monitoring, and human escalation. Yet evaluation often remains model-centric: benchmark scores, task accuracy, or one-off qualitative reviews are treated as evidence of readiness. In financial settings, this is insufficient. We take the position that financial LLM systems should not be approved for production based on benchmark performance alone. They require system-level validation evidence across the application stack: data, model design, retrieval and generation performance, agent behavior, governance, and implementation. Drawing on industry experience validating GenAI applications in financial institutions, we outline a multi-layer validation view and explain why hybrid evaluation is necessary. We discuss where LLM-as-a-judge methods are useful and why they require controls such as multiple judges, rubrics, agreement, and auditability checks. We also highlight failure modes poorly captured by static benchmarks, including retrieval failures, unfaithful generation, tool misuse, escalation errors, and operational instability. Our position is that financial LLM validation should be an ongoing system discipline rather than a one-time model scoring exercise. Validation should produce decision-ready evidence, not only scores. We conclude with a research agenda for system-aware benchmarks, agent trace validation, judge alignment protocols, and lifecycle validation standards.

Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive. Existing automated metrics often fail to capture the complexity and variability inherent in LLM-generated outputs. Moreover, these metrics typically rely on explicit reference standards, limiting their use mostly to domains with objective benchmarks. This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of LLM-generated content. The proposed method employs pairwise comparisons of outputs by multiple LLMs, reducing biases from individual models. An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings. Adjustable agreement thresholds, from full unanimity to majority voting, allow flexible control over evaluation confidence and coverage. The method's effectiveness is demonstrated through evaluating competency profiles extracted from scientific abstracts. Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments, significantly reducing the need for extensive human intervention. By offering a scalable, consistent, and domain-agnostic evaluation layer, the framework supports more efficient and reliable quality assessments of LLM outputs across diverse applications.

Agentic systems have widened the gap between producing candidate outputs and reviewing them. This paper asks a practical architectural question: should domain specialization be built into an evaluator's weights, or into the rule that decides when its judgment can be trusted? We study 99,952 public, rubric-conditioned examples. Supplying the correct rubric improves locked-test accuracy by 2.11 points over a response-only control; replacing it with an unrelated rubric costs 2.66 points. Dividing the same training corpus among eight criterion-family LoRA judges, however, loses 10.05 points and cuts audited coverage at a 5% risk target from 24.44% to 5.43%. Matching the bank's stored capacity with one rank-64 adapter does not reproduce this loss. Nor is the result explained by learning rate or optimizer steps. Initializing the family adapters from a shared, trained judge recovers test accuracy to 76.85%, 19.94 points above scratch training at the same learning rate (95% interval 18.88-21.02). The result changes when specialization governs deferral rather than judgment. On RewardBench 2, learned correctness heads route examples through a 0.6B-4B-8B cascade without changing any reward score. Across 20 locked repartitions, the cascade attains 89.40% accuracy, compared with 84.75% for 8B alone, at 0.415 normalized parameter compute. Every run passes an exact one-sided 95% risk audit; margin-based rules remain near 84.8% accuracy while using at least 0.94 compute. These results suggest a qualified design rule: share the learning of judgment until there is enough data to justify a split, and place domain-specific adaptation in an audited release boundary.

Activation steering controls model behavior by editing internal activations at inference time. We study its input-side dual: optimizing a fluent prompt so that a chosen internal latent is driven toward zero, with no inference-time model access. Our target is an "evaluation-awareness" latent-linearly readable and steerable in recent work-whose control would threaten the validity of safety evaluations if models behave differently when they detect being tested. Adapting Fluent Dreaming / EPO with a negated feature term (GCG-style token optimization plus a self-cross-entropy fluency regularizer, swept over a fluency weight), we suppress the latent under five target constructions-a CAA direction, a subspace norm, an SAE feature, a single MLP neuron, and a behavioral logit-on Llama-3.2-3B and Llama-3.1-8B. The latent is robustly suppressible ($z\approx-7$), and a causally-validated Llama Scope SAE feature can be fully and selectively turned off. But our controls tell a cautionary story about the CAA direction: a placebo random direction is suppressed just as hard and shifts behavior just as far, and when we hold a real eval passage in context and optimize only a prefix, suppressing the eval-direction fails to reduce-and slightly increases-the model's behavioral eval judgment. Activation-readability, in short, is not behavioral controllability. We further find that a single MLP neuron is eval-correlated but not causal at both scales, and that scanning the real Pile yields a natural-text baseline competitive with the optimizer for the internal direction. A positive control validates our erasure detector, bounding an erasure-vs-rotation question earlier left open.

We document a failure class in frontier large language models -- exception chain collapse -- observed in eligibility evaluation under nested conditional rules of the form "A is required UNLESS B applies, UNLESS C overrides B". The failure reproduces at first observation, but its empirical surface is unstable: between March and April 2026 several failure cells closed silently under the same model alias, with no version bump (GPT-5.4 on construction insurance moved from 96.6% to 100%, same prompt and harness). For regulated workflows, frontier-model accuracy is a moving compliance boundary that shifts without notice. We present the Aethis Eligibility Module, a neuro-symbolic architecture in which LLMs author rules from authoritative sources and an SMT-based layer executes them deterministically, consistent with the authored specification regardless of model drift, reasoning-effort defaults, or prompt format. Three evidence bases: (i) a controlled benchmark of 225 scenarios across four regulatory domains documents the pattern and, in replication, the drift that partially closed it; (ii) a 20-scenario adversarial extension on construction insurance, where the engine scores 20/20, as does one of four frontier configurations (GPT-5.4 at low reasoning effort), while the other three, including Anthropic's strongest model at evaluation time, fail the same coverage-gap edge case; (iii) external validation on nine peer-reviewed LegalBench tasks, 949 held-out cases, where the engine is significantly more accurate than all three frontier models (combined McNemar's p <= 0.003), with margins up to +41 points on the curated multi-prong tasks against the Anthropic models. The contribution is to relocate uncertainty from the inference boundary, where it is silent, to the specification boundary, where it is deliberate and audited. All scenarios, rule encodings, and results are public and reproducible.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from human judgments. Across three studies and six widely used LLMs, we addressed this gap by identifying the standards underlying LLM creativity evaluation and examining their downstream implications. Study 1 showed that LLMs generally relied on a narrower subset of human creativity evaluation standards. Convergence with human standards was strongest in the novelty dimension, whereas divergence was clearest in the contextual dimension, which captures social, market, and reputational information. Moreover, each LLM exhibited distinct, model-specific standards that varied substantially in breadth. These differences in evaluation standards were reflected in actual creativity judgments. Study 2 (N = 1,103 ideas) showed that LLM evaluations were moderately correlated with human evaluations, and individual LLMs with broader standards better distinguished ideas humans judged as more versus less creative. Study 3 (N = 1,195) showed that LLMs were less sensitive to contextual information: such information significantly altered human creativity ratings but left LLM ratings largely unchanged. Together, our findings help explain the mixed evidence on LLM-human alignment, showing that alignment depends on the evidence a judgment demands and the standards each model applies. LLMs may resemble humans when evaluations emphasize intrinsic qualities such as novelty, yet diverge when judgments require contextual information. Selecting an LLM evaluator is therefore a consequential decision: different models, applying different standards, recognize different ideas as creative.

The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality. As datasets scale, massive preference and instruction-tuning corpora inevitably accumulate hidden structural contradictions, safety risks, and systemic human annotation errors. Standard dataset auditing methods, such as semantic deduplication or LLM-as-a-judge, struggle to capture the actual predictive impact of individual records and often miss deep functional rule clashes. To address this, we introduce a scalable, inference-only data valuation pipeline that approximates the Shapley value without iterative model retraining. By mapping semantic k-NN neighborhoods into a directed graph, our framework evaluates data utility directly through a reference LLM's probability distribution using zero-shot and one-shot conditional log-likelihood shifts. Our pipeline then translates these predictive influence scores into localized advantage metrics to isolate gradient-conflicting records. We demonstrate the pipeline's efficacy in sanitizing two heavily vetted alignment datasets. First, applying our pipeline to the HelpSteer2 dataset reduced the manual audit search space by 99.1%, successfully uncovering falsely-labeled records across diverse failure modes. Second, applying our automated audit strategy to Anthropic's HH-RLHF training and evaluation splits identified thousands of hidden safety and factual preference inversions. Crucially, by extending this audit to the evaluation split, we expose severe vulnerabilities in current benchmark integrity: highly capable models frequently predict the safer or more helpful response, only to be penalized by objectively flawed human ground-truth labels. Overall, our work provides a mathematically grounded, highly efficient diagnostic tool to uncover human label failures, sanitize evaluation benchmarks, and ensure the integrity of LLM alignment data.

Position bias in multiple-choice LLM evaluation is widely cited as a confound in capability comparisons, but published measurements rely on single answer-order shuffles whose results confound the bias signal with content-level noise and sampling stochasticity. I introduce inspect_permute, an open-source extension to the inspect_ai evaluation framework that runs exhaustive answer-order permutations per question and reports the chi-squared / Cramer V signature of position bias with bootstrap confidence intervals. I apply the tool across four vendors (gpt-4o-mini, claude-haiku-4-5, gemini-2.5-flash, grok-3) on five MMLU subjects, 24,000 API calls under temperature-0 generation, with falsifier predictions pre-registered via a public SHA-256 hash before half the data was observed. Position bias turns out to be statistically detectable only within a roughly 60-95% base-accuracy Goldilocks zone. Below it, processing-load dominance swamps subject-specific signal; above it, ceiling effects compress the variance below the chi-squared test resolution. Detectable cells separate into two mechanism types: monotone A-to-D decrease (processing_load, in low-tier models) and non-monotone D-drop (content_ambiguity, in a narrow capability band). Standard MMLU places every frontier-tier model above the detection band, so absence of signal there should be read as not measurable, not unbiased. Together with the ceiling-effect characterisation in arXiv:2606.26185, this work brackets the detectable region of position-bias measurement and makes the field central question askable in a verifiable form. Package, data, preregistration under MIT.

Medical LLMs are often evaluated by whether they select the correct diagnosis, but diagnostic accuracy alone does not show whether the model used the case evidence appropriately. We present a behavioral audit of evidence use in medical diagnosis. For each case, we decompose patient information into evidence units, score candidate diagnoses under controlled evidence subsets, and mine low-order interactions in diagnostic margins. Because medical evidence is diagnosis-relative, the audit separates interaction discovery from failure assignment: large or negative interactions can reflect plausible differential diagnosis, while suspicious interactions require robustness checks and clinical review. We evaluate five open-weight LLMs on DDXPlus, CupCase, and MedCase. Across datasets, faithful support and differential conflict or cancellation account for most interaction strength, showing that many evidence interactions are clinically plausible rather than failures. In a DDXPlus-focused blinded five-reviewer 130-item enriched review sample, invalid or shortcut-like cases concentrate in negated or absent findings and clinically local evidence. These results show that accuracy can hide candidate evidence-use failures and motivate role-aware audits for medical LLM evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview. This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing? In this work, we empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception. Considering news headlines covering political and geopolitical conflicts, both human participants (n = 3011, a representative sample of the U.K. adult population, via a YouGov survey) and seven LLMs answered whether headlines evoked sympathy for a specified side in a conflict. We find that the correlation between AI and human evaluations varies across models, ranging from very high (0.789, GPT-5.2) to medium (0.4 ,Mistral Large 2512). Crucially, the leading models are broadly aligned with human judgments across all demographic subgroups, including age, gender, level of education, prior geopolitical knowledge, and participants' predispositions regarding the conflict, although there are statistically significant differences between groups. This research, with its robust design and large, demographically diverse dataset, offers the most comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' comprehension of news framing to date. Findings highlight an important, often-ignored aspect of differential alignment: even when aggregate performance is high, AI alignment is not universal -- it may correspond differently with demographic features and cultural norms. Considering or ignoring the need for differential alignment may therefore have significant implications for the development of ethical and useful AI systems.

Post-training with evaluator feedback on policy-induced samples serves as a major mechanism for improving large language models. As policies improve, these sampled responses become close in quality. These close candidates create a bottleneck for policy optimization: collapsed relative evaluator score gaps yield weak or misleading policy supervision. We theoretically characterize why these gaps matter through a probability allocation view, showing that the directional gain of shifting probability mass from one response to another is exactly the evaluator score gap between them. This identifies relative score gaps as the policy optimization signals that guide updates. Motivated by this view, we propose DynamicRubric, a response-set-conditioned evaluator--policy co-evolution framework that generates weighted binary rubric items for each candidate set and aggregates the resulting judgments into response-level scores. In our experiments with 8B backbones, DynamicRubric improves evaluator performance and provides stronger policy supervision than baselines using a 70B reward model or a 235B static rubric generator. DynamicRubric-optimized policies also show gains on verifiable reasoning and coding tasks. A DynamicRubric-optimized model is fully deployed in WeChat Search's AI answering scenario, where it serves all online traffic across tens of millions of requests per day and improves key online metrics. These results suggest a principle for evaluator-guided post-training: evaluators should evolve with the policies they supervise.