LLM Evaluation

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 $\pm$ 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 $\pm$ 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

Benchmark leaderboards summarize how well a language model performs, but not how its behavior relates to that of other models or changes across generations. We characterize the output behavior of 32 models from six families using their responses to a shared bank of 10{,}000 prompts. After embedding each response, we construct three complementary sentence-level dissimilarities: an aligned mean per-prompt distance, which is a pseudometric on observed model responses; a PCA-compressed summary of prompt-wise disagreement; and an alignment-free Gromov--Wasserstein discrepancy between models' internal response geometries. We use these constructions to study static organization and temporal change on a release-date axis through behavioral maps, family-wise drift, hierarchical clustering, cross-family convergence, and response-cloud dispersion. Across the three constructions, model families form coherent clusters, with \texttt{gpt-2} as a global outlier; cross-family distances decrease over time; and several recent reasoning-oriented models have comparatively compact response clouds. A token-level cross-check based on per-prompt Maximum Mean Discrepancy closely agrees with the sentence-level mean distance (Spearman $ρ=0.98$) and recovers the same qualitative findings. We organize these comparisons through a measure-theoretic lens making their alignment and invariance assumptions explicit. We also establish an architecture-agnostic sufficient condition linking behavioral similarity to inference-prompt coverage, small excess population log-loss, and similar effective target distributions---a possible training-side account rather than an empirical explanation of the observed trends. Our pipeline is label-free, and re-encoding every response with three further encoders---down to one $73\times$ smaller---preserves the rank geometry, the outliers, and the sign of the time trend.

Computation-ready metal-organic framework (MOF) databases are essential for high-throughput screening, yet many reported crystal structures remain chemically unreasonable or disordered, compromising simulation fidelity. Existing validation approaches can identify non-computation-ready structures, but they often rely on heuristic rules, license requirement, or offer limited interpretability. Here, we show that large language models (LLMs) can serve as interpretable validators of MOF structures when crystallographic information is transformed into chemically meaningful text. By benchmarking nine descriptors, we find that successful LLM-based validation depends not on the amount of structural information alone, but on whether local coordination, framework connectivity, and chemical context are organized into a linguistically learnable representation. Fine-tuned LLMs using specialized descriptors (mof2text) achieve performance comparable to graph-based models in identifying unreasonable MOFs. Importantly, these models extend beyond black-box classification by generating diagnostic rationales for likely error sources, including abnormal bonding, connectivity, and charge states, as well as error-category predictions for annotated datasets. This work establishes chemically informed textualization as the key step that transforms LLMs from generic text models into practical and explainable tools for curating MOF databases.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as mobile assistants, where a key challenge is leveraging personal information scattered across multiple applications (apps) to complete user instructions. However, due to the lack of dedicated benchmarks, their capabilities remain poorly understood. To address this gap, we introduce SPIEval, a human-curated benchmark grounded in five cognitive capabilities (i.e., reasoning, disambiguation, integration, preference inference, and multi-intent decomposition). SPIEval comprises 250 tasks spanning 4,335 personal records distributed across 10 apps and supports multi-turn interaction through 21 tools. Analysis shows that the benchmark exhibits diverse scenarios, challenging tasks, scattered information, controllable environments, and verifiable outcomes. We evaluate nine representative LLMs and find substantial room for improvement. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5 (xhigh), achieves only 57.3% accuracy, while the weakest achieves just 16.4%. Further analysis reveals that 79% of failures stem from inaccurate information localization, as LLMs often commit to plausible but incorrect information instead of continuing retrieval for verification. We also find that fewer than 2% of retrieval actions employ advanced search methods and observe substantial variation in search efficiency across models. These findings expose fundamental limitations of current LLM-based mobile assistants and motivate future research in this direction. Data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Junjie-Ye/SPIEval.

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) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains. This progress primarily reflects reasoning depth. A complementary and comparatively unexamined capability is reasoning breadth: exploring multiple semantic directions in parallel and integrating the resulting clues into one coherent answer. We introduce MPAR-Bench, a bilingual English-Chinese benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning. Inspired by the cooperative game Just One, each item asks a model to recover a hidden target from several independently generated, semantically diverse clues. We construct 1,000 items using a multi-agent clue-generation pipeline, embedding-based diversity filtering, and human verification. Only the answer space is drawn from public word lists, whereas every clue set is generated from scratch. Beyond exact-match accuracy, we evaluate models using accuracy, ANLS, embedding similarity, reasoning-trace verification, and four perturbations: clue masking, order shuffling, distractor injection, and multi-step clues. Across evaluated models, perturbations reduce accuracy by 9-18 percentage points in English and 5-12 percentage points in Chinese. Thinking mode improves standard-setting accuracy, especially in English, but does not consistently reduce sensitivity to perturbations. Case-level analysis also shows that extended reasoning can overturn an initially correct hypothesis. These results indicate that greater reasoning depth does not automatically confer robust reasoning breadth, and that reasoning breadth remains largely uncovered by current benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on standard written Vietnamese, yet everyday communication frequently involves regional dialects that preserve meaning but differ in surface form. Existing Vietnamese dialect work largely addresses this issue through dialect-to-standard normalization instead of measuring how the model fails under Vietnamese dialectal inputs. To address this gap, we present the first systematic evaluation of LLM robustness to Vietnamese dialect variation across multiple tasks, quantifying performance degradation and failure patterns. We introduce VialectBench (Vietnamese Dialects Benchmarking), a controlled benchmark for testing whether model decisions remain stable across six Vietnamese dialect groups. VialectBench contains 400 Standard Vietnamese source instances and 2,400 human-written dialectal rewrites spanning emotion recognition (ER), natural language inference (NLI), question answering (QA), and multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Dataset evaluation with a fixed reference language model shows that the dialectal rewrites induce a measurable model-relative likelihood shift while remaining nearly equal in length to their Standard counterparts. Across ten instruction-tuned models, dialectal inputs reduce average performance by 2.82%, and no evaluated model is fully dialect-invariant. All four tasks are affected, with QA showing the largest average degradation. Robustness also varies substantially across dialect groups: PNT3 and PNT2 cause the largest average performance drops, at 6.17% and 4.73%, respectively, whereas PNB slightly improves average performance by 0.42%. The Central dialect group (PNT1-PNT4) also yields the highest average harmful-flip rate across all models, at 6.54%. These findings show that strong performance on Standard Vietnamese does not guarantee reliable behavior under meaning-preserving regional variation.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful black-box systems, making it difficult to discern whether their answers reflect stable internal beliefs or superficial pattern matching. We identify cross-contextual consistency as an underutilized behavioral property of LLMs: a credible answer should remain stable when the same task is placed under topic-aligned, content-neutral contextual variation. Building on this intuition, we operationalize Cross-Contextual Consistency (C3) by comparing model generations under original and perturbed prompts. Across 26 models and six benchmarks spanning reasoning, factuality, and code generation, we find that answers with smaller cross-contextual shifts are more likely to be correct or factual. We demonstrate that C3 provides a complementary axis of evaluation and can serve as a benchmark usefulness diagnostic, identifying which portions of a benchmark remain informative even when aggregated scores are widely considered "saturate".

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate legal determinations over what human rights are realized, and how. Yet, no evaluation benchmark exists to assess whether they can reason correctly about human rights law. To this end, we report our efforts to develop a robust and scalable methodology for creating HumRightsBench: the first expert-validated, scenario-based benchmark for evaluating reasoning grounded in the obligation structure of international human rights law. We adapt the IRAC framework for legal reasoning to better suit the unique reasoning patterns of human rights work (substituting P, "proposing remedies," for C, "legal conclusion," yielding IRAP) to structure our evaluation heuristics. We also produce a pilot series of authentic scenarios designed to implicate the many dimensions of real-world human rights issues and annotated by human rights lawyers and professionals across the world. Ultimately, we find that model accuracy scores range considerably across legal reasoning tasks (overall model performance ranges from 0.339 to 0.577, task min-max ranges from 0.025 to 0.774), which strongly implies that HumRightsBench is a capable instrument for advancing this emerging subfield of AI evaluations science at a critical moment in its evolution.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in settings that require collective reasoning on complex, value-laden problems. Confidence in these deployments rests largely on benchmarks for verifiable tasks (mathematics, coding, coordination games), yet many of these applications concern problems where no objectively correct answer exists and where decision quality instead depends on integrating pluralistic perspectives to find mutually acceptable solutions. We argue that LLM reasoning capacity on this class of problems cannot be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks, and that procedural evaluations of LLM discourse (respectfulness, justification, engagement) are systematically insufficient. We apply the Deliberative Reason Index (DRI), a measure developed in political science and validated across citizen assemblies, as a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems. Synthesizing recent evidence across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on 12 citizen-assembly topics across 11 frontier model configurations, we find that LLM groups produce discourse with procedural quality comparable to human deliberation, while gains in intersubjective consistency are small, topic-dependent, and concentrated on tractable rather than ethically contested questions. LLM groups exhibit roughly one-third the perspective diversity of human assemblies and reverse the human convergence pattern: human deliberation decreases dispersion as diverse views synthesise, whereas LLM deliberation increases it. Engineering diversity through persona prompting does not restore the human dynamic but inverts which component of deliberative reasoning is updated. Our conclusion is constraining rather than prohibitive: LLMs can function as tools supporting human reasoning on pluralistic problems, but current evidence does not license treating them as autonomous deliberative agents.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to perform subjective evaluations traditionally made by humans, yet their validity as social judges remains unclear. This paper examines whether LLMs can assess social attraction from theory-grounded persona profiles constructed from ten psychological and relational constructs and organized into three tiers: socially attractive, socially mixed, and socially unattractive. We examine LLM ratings in two studies and compare them with human judgments in a third study. In Study 1, 34 LLMs rated 12 profiles across three repeated runs. Although some models tended to give higher or lower ratings overall, they showed strong stability across runs, consistent three-tier ordering, and high agreement in relative profile ordering. Study 2 examined sensitivity to gender presentation using six matched name-and-pronoun profile pairs and a separate pronoun-only test with a gender-neutral name, finding no significant effects in either analysis. In Study 3, 198 human participants evaluated the six matched profiles from Study 2. Their ratings reproduced the three-tier structure and followed a profile ordering consistent with that of the LLMs. However, LLMs rated attractive profiles more positively and unattractive profiles more negatively than humans, while neither group showed a significant overall effect of gender presentation.

Theory of Mind (ToM) is essential for agent interactions, yet existing evaluations either rely on static scenarios that oversimplify mental-state reasoning or interactive settings that provide limited diagnostic insight. We present Avalon-ToM-Bench, a fine-grained benchmark that operationalizes ToM through the asymmetric-information mechanics of The Resistance: Avalon. Rather than evaluating end-to-end gameplay, it decomposes ToM into a 2$\times$2 taxonomy -- epistemic versus motivational reasoning crossed with inference versus action -- using human-crafted, perspective-constrained queries. Benchmarking 28 LLMs reveals three insights: 1) Reasoning, not knowledge. Models show strong game-rule comprehension but markedly weaker ToM abilities, isolating failures to social reasoning rather than missing domain knowledge. 2) Expression, not representation. Mechanistic analyses via linear probing and activation steering show that models frequently represent correct mental-state inferences in their hidden states but fail to express them during generation -- linear probes recover 77-82% accuracy versus 62-70% from the models' own chain-of-thought. 3) Policy, not deliberation. Dedicated reasoning training yields substantial improvements whereas test-time chain-of-thought provides only marginal gains (+11.0 versus +1.1 points on average), suggesting that robust ToM depends on a learned reasoning policy rather than increased inference-time deliberation.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in education as tutors, teaching assistants, and content generators. These roles place demands that ordinary question answering does not: a usable education-facing model is supposed to be accurate, safe under sensitive prompts, instructionally useful, and aligned with pedagogical goals at the same time. Existing benchmarks evaluate these requirements largely in isolation, so none assesses education-facing suitability as an integrated profile. We introduce ELBench, the first benchmark to evaluate all four requirements (General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation) on the same models under a common protocol, combining curated public sources with newly synthesized safety and cultivation data. We evaluate nine models, seven frontier general-purpose systems and two education-specialized variants, and report three findings. First, module-level profiles are more informative than a single aggregate: the top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall score, yet their module leaders differ substantially, and safety is anti-correlated with practical teaching (r = -0.83). Second, the Chinese-developed models lead the safety module, the most discriminative in the suite; this advantage is largest on region-specific normative content and narrows, but does not vanish, on universal-harm content. Third, the two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and on High-Level Cultivation all models share a systematic blind spot: on the structured judgment task they converge on the same non-reference option, favoring pedagogical style over fit to the stated goal, so the module scores uniformly low and does not separate models. This raises, but does not resolve, whether domain post-training keeps pace with frontier systems on education tasks.

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of legal tasks. In legal practice, time is a critical concept that governs the validity of statutes, the progression of legal cases, and the enforcement of procedural deadlines. However, legal temporal capabilities remain underexplored in existing legal AI benchmarks. To address this gap, we propose LexKairos, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the temporal capabilities of LLMs in the Chinese legal context across three dimensions: statutory temporal knowledge, case temporal modeling, and statute-case temporal reasoning. LexKairos comprises nine sub-tasks drawn from real-world Chinese judicial cases and statutes. We conduct systematic evaluations of eight LLMs under multiple inference settings, including vanilla, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and thinking modes. Our results show that Gemini-3-Flash achieves the strongest overall performance, yet even the best-performing model exhibits notable limitations on tasks demanding precise time-sensitive statutory metadata recall or complex reasoning in time limits, indicating that legal temporal knowledge and reasoning remain open challenges for current LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/thunlp/LexKairos.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

The generation of mathematically precise diagrams from tex- tual prompts has emerged as a critical yet underexplored capability of Large Language Models (LLMs). This has been of interest to researchers in the areas of curriculum preparation, automated ranking of problem sets, and scientific publishing. For LLMs to achieve this, it requires per- fect coordination between Spatial Reasoning, Mathematical Reasoning, and Rendering systems. While existing benchmarks such as MathVision, MathVista are built for Math Reasoning or DiagramGenBenchmark, Mer- maidSeqBench on general purpose diagram generation, no prior work provides a standardized set of prompt, image pairs that can be used to evaluate the LLMs specifically on math diagram generation. This includes fields that span both both text-to-code and text-to-image paradigms. We introduce Math-Vision Diagrams, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs on mathematical diagram generation, and the first to assess text-to-code and text-to-image generation paradigms together in a single unified setting, agnostic of the underlying coding lan- guage or model type. Building on the Math-Vision benchmark, we select a subset of 2920 images out of 3040 from high-quality competition problems with essential visual context. A novel pipeline combining an ensemble of LLMs with Subject Matter Expert (SME) curation is presented, together with a suite of evaluation metrics. Testing several leading models against this benchmark, we demonstrate that LLMs struggle with math diagram generation. All code, data, curation pipeline, and evaluation scripts will be fully open-sourced.

Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research. While recent advances have begun incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs) for statute prediction, current approaches primarily focus on accuracy metrics without addressing the critical need for legal reasoning, a fundamental requirement in judicial contexts where decisions must be explainable and justifiable. To address this research gap, we present PROSLEX (PRediction Of Statutes and LEgal eXplanation), a comprehensive dataset comprising 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents from the Indian context. Each document is paired with statute predictions and detailed explanations, totaling 7,450 explanations, capturing the underlying legal reasoning. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thoughts approaches, to generate both statute predictions and their corresponding legal rationales. Our evaluation framework measures not only predictive performance but also the coherence and legal validity of generated explanations, positioning PROSLEX as a benchmark for developing explainable AI systems that can support legal practitioners while advancing research in interpretable legal NLP. To ensure reproducibility, we have made our PROSLEX dataset and model code available on GitHub: https://github.com/subinay494/Legal_Statute_Prediction_Explanation.

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.

Open-weight language models from Chinese AI labs caught up on benchmarks relative to proprietary frontier models in recent months. Yet their reliability on real-world financial tasks remains largely untested. We updated the Financial Touchstone benchmark, which now has 2,967 question context-answer triplets across 495 international annual reports. We also apply a new set of models on the benchmark, expanding coverage from eleven to twenty models across ten providers, including recent open-weight models such as GLM 4.7, GLM 5, Kimi K2.6, and DeepSeek V3.2, as well as Alibaba's proprietary flagship Qwen3-Max. Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 achieves the highest accuracy (88.4%), while Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro maintains the lowest hallucination rate (0.08%). Notably, the open-weight Kimi K2.6 ranks third in accuracy, and the non-reasoning models GLM 5 and Mistral 3 rank fourth and fifth, challenging the assumption that reasoning architectures or proprietary weights are a prerequisite for strong financial comprehension. Information retrieval remains the primary bottleneck, accounting for 48.9% of all failures. We also document a new finding: geopolitical content filters in Chinese models refuse legitimate financial questions (0.08% of attempts), sometimes without clear reason, and the refusal behavior depends on the access route as much as on the model. The complete dataset and evaluation framework are publicly available.

We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models). The first, RPC, aggregates token probabilities and self-consistency at inference; the second, LCF, trains projectors that split hidden states into "content" and "logic" and edits the logic part toward a valid region. Validating such reliability claims matters because the original evaluations are run by each method's own authors and were never independently reproduced or stress-tested across models and domains, and LCF shipped no public code. We re-run RPC's published-path aggregation and re-implement LCF's projector, contrastive, and intervention pipeline, then extend both to text-to-SQL, legal extraction, fallacy identification, and precedent grading, and probe LCF's representation directly. RPC reproduces the original grid exactly on the authors' released reasoning paths; on four new domains its edge over self-consistency is never significant (ties or small mixed differences, paired p >= 0.28), and on BIRD, the one domain where we vary the budget, the edge grows with K as predicted but its largest gap (+2.5 accuracy at K=32, p=0.16) reverses to -0.25 when we enlarge the sample to n=200. LCF's logic-validity direction is real but weak (0.82 separability at the single best sub-layer versus 0.95 for a semantic-attribute control); its one positive effect (Qwen3 $Δ$Prob) is not significant (p=0.56), while it significantly reduces $Δ$Prob on two of the other three models.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to drive embodied social agents, yet it remains unclear whether larger models improve user perception during brief human-robot encounters. This paper examines the effect of LLM parameter size on short-duration, open-ended social interactions with a robot interface. In a within-subjects study, 19 participants interacted with robot faces driven by Qwen3-VL models at 4B, 8B, and 30B parameters. Participants evaluated the interactions in terms of perceived intelligence, naturalness, enjoyment, and humor. Results showed no significant overall preference for the 30B model over the smaller variants, including no significant advantage over the 4B model in perceived naturalness or intelligence. A significant relationship between AI interaction frequency and intelligence rankings for the 30B model suggests that more experienced users may be more sensitive to differences in model capability. Overall, the findings indicate diminishing returns from model scaling in brief open-ended social HRI, where conversational flow, responsiveness, and socially appropriate behavior potentially matter as much as raw parameter count.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown considerable capability for situational understanding, reasoning, and decision making in different domains, most notable in the automotive sector. Therefore, we explore current state-of-the-art LLMs as a tool for maritime navigation, which includes both codified rules in the Collision Regulations (COLREGs) and uncodified best practices summarized in the concept of ``Good Seamanship''. We construct a dataset consisting of 50 diverse, real-world navigation scenarios from AIS data, label scenarios with applicable COLREG rules, recommended actions, and the reasoning for the action. We explore a variety of different LLM architectures and sizes to determine their understanding of maritime navigation tasks as well as evaluate their reasoning capabilities in this domain. The results obtained indicate that the maritime navigation task remains difficult to solve without fine-tuning, even for larger online models.

Oracle routing measures how much a pool of language models could gain from per-query selection, but the diagnostic has two flaws: testing against a best fixed model selected on the same examples invalidates paired inference, and a full-information oracle sees outcomes no deployable router observes. We separate three estimands (outcome-oracle opportunity, the Bayes-optimal gain from a declared pre-answer signal, and the held-out gain of a learned router) and prove selection-valid confidence intervals that survive choosing the best fixed model or the best member of a router family, a signal-information sandwich, and a $(1-1/e)$ greedy guarantee for building compact pools from submodular complementary coverage. On eight checkpoints from six families over four benchmarks, selection-valid intervals certify a population oracle gap of $9.7$--$30.7$ points on every task, yet the strongest deployable prompt router recovers only $7.5$--$14.4\%$ of it, and the simultaneous interval for the best of eleven tested policies has lower limit zero throughout. The realizable share of oracle opportunity is small and certifiable: strong routers beat the best fixed model, and most of the gap remains.

LLM applications deployed at scale face a fundamental challenge: privacy constraints prevent direct inspection of user interactions, making it difficult to obtain any representative evaluation dataset or to track the ongoing evolution of production traffic. We present ProxyDrift, a framework that (i) identifies and measures drift between production traffic and offline evaluation sets, and (ii) constructs and refreshes those evaluation sets accordingly; all without access to raw user data. Our approach operates entirely on non-PII proxy representations: structured, multi-dimensional descriptors derived from LLM-based classification of user interactions. We introduce (1) a chance-calibrated, redundancy-aware (RA) alignment score that aggregates per-dimension drift measurements via mutual information; (2) a conditional sampler that generates synthetic proxies respecting inter-dimensional dependencies; (3) a roundtrip consistency analysis that exposes generator/classifier disagreements and guides proxy taxonomy refinement; and (4) a feedback-linkage analysis that ties per-dimension and per-value proxy distributions to user satisfaction, surfacing actionable failure and success modes. Serving hundreds of millions of users, ProxyDrift enables continuous drift monitoring and targeted synthetic data generation without exposing sensitive user data. Experiments confirm strong roundtrip consistency, discriminator-level indistinguishability of synthetic queries from human queries, and tight end-to-end alignment (RA~0.9) with production.

Focus particles such as "even" and "only" are central to formal semantic theories that posit structured representations over sets of alternatives. "Even" highlights unexpected or extreme alternatives, while "only" enforces exclusivity. If such scalar representations are robust and generalizable, they should give rise to consistent judgments across contexts and systems. In this work, we test whether humans and large language models (LLMs) construct stable scalar representations from sentences containing these particles. Using a dataset of approximately 100 items, participants and models were asked to make scalar judgments. Preliminary results suggest that similar outputs across humans and LLMs may arise from different underlying mechanisms.