LLM Evaluation

To interact with users fairly and without stereotyping, AI models must display cultural competency, i.e., the ability to infer and adapt to a user's implicitly signaled cultural values, rather than relying on static demographic traits. We introduce CCBENCH, a framework for evaluating cultural competency in large language models (LLMs), treating culture as a continuum of norm adherence states rather than as a binary state of cultural belongingness. As a case study on health, we create CCBENCH-Health, which includes 60 theoretically grounded personas exhibiting varied norm-adherence states across six cultures, each engaging in 18 realistic dialogues. Each persona is evaluated on 52 authentic healthcare questions drawn from real user forums, yielding 3,120 unique interactions. Benchmarking five leading models reveals that even the best achieve culturally appropriate responses only 20-30% of the time. When explicitly prompted to focus on culturally relevant cues from the conversational history (CoT), performance improves modestly by 3-5% on average. We find that models perform best when personas avoid cultural norms rather than follow them, revealing a persistent asymmetry, suggesting a preference in the models to align with built-in biases than adapt to cultural cues. This is especially observed in the Afghan context (Avg: 8.8%), where cultural cues rarely yield appropriate health advice. Finally, we find that models sometimes adapt more readily to implicit, cultural conversational styles than to explicitly stated cultural practices, though this varies across cultures.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in emotionally sensitive social conversations, where responses may shift from balanced support toward excessive validation or escalatory alignment. Existing sycophancy research primarily focuses on factual agreement and instruction-following settings, leaving culturally grounded conversational sycophancy underexplored. We introduce BenSyc, the first benchmark for studying conversational sycophancy in Bengali social contexts. Starting from 11,840 Reddit posts and 170k comments collected from communities across Bangladesh and West Bengal, we construct a human-validated benchmark with binary labels and a fine-grained five-level taxonomy spanning Invalidation, Neutral, Support, Validation, and Escalation. We evaluate more than 15 open and proprietary LLMs on conversational alignment classification and response generation tasks. Results show that distinguishing empathetic support from reinforcement-oriented validation remains challenging even for frontier instruction-tuned models: the best system achieves only 61.8 Macro-F1 on binary detection and 61.7 Macro-F1 on five-class classification. In generation settings, several models frequently produce strongly validating or escalatory responses in emotionally charged situations. Our findings highlight substantial variation across model families and conversational behaviors, underscoring the importance of culturally grounded multilingual benchmarks for evaluating socially aligned conversational AI systems.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often improve math and coding performance, but their effect on instruction following is unclear. We study IFEval with Qwen3 models (1.7B-32B), using same-weights Thinking ON/OFF controls; four Hunyuan models provide directional cross-family support. Aggregate pass-rate changes are small (-0.55 to -3.52 pp), yet 10-20% of prompts switch between pass and fail across modes, suggesting that thinking changes the pattern of errors--some prompts improve while others worsen--rather than uniformly degrading performance. Under a post-hoc Qwen3-derived grouping, constraint types separate into Planning (global counting, structure, coordination), which improves at the class level under thinking, and Precision (exact local form), which consistently worsens; the class-level Planning/Precision sign pattern holds directionally for all four Hunyuan models despite Hunyuan's opposite aggregate direction. Thinking also changes final-answer length; matched-length analyses substantially reduce the Precision drop, but a residual penalty remains. Analyzing thinking traces with a cross-encoder relevance metric reveals three patterns: Neutral shows a positive relevance-compliance link (r approximately 0.15); Planning shows near-zero predictive correlation (r approximately 0.02) despite measurable trace engagement, consistent with an execution gap between CE-measured trace relevance and final-answer compliance; Precision shows a small negative correlation (r approximately -0.05), with failing instances having higher mean relevance than passing ones. Activation patching across four model sizes (1.7B-14B) shows that Precision flip instances are more often restored than Planning flip instances (32-58% vs. 14-40% mean layer-restoration), with the largest gap at 14B (about 30 pp).

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly evaluated on table reasoning tasks, but the role of table representation remains under-explored. In practice, the same table content may appear in different structural formats, such as HTML, Markdown, and LaTeX, or as rendered images. However, existing evaluations often let content, format, layout, and modality vary together, making it difficult to isolate representation effects. We introduce TABVERSE, a controlled multimodal table benchmark that aligns the same table content across multiple structural formats and rendered images, with question category and difficulty tags. This design enables systematic evaluation of representation effects while holding table content fixed. We evaluate LLMs and VLMs across three tasks: Question Answering (QA), Structural Understanding Capability (SUC), and Structure Reconstruction (SR). Our results show that representation choice substantially affects table understanding. Models generally perform better with structured text than with rendered images, but the size of this gap depends on the task, model, and format. HTML is often the most robust text format, while row-sensitive structural tasks and syntactically usable LaTeX reconstruction remain challenging. These findings show that table representation is a key factor in reliable table evaluation.

As AI assistants serve millions of users daily, evaluating user experience (UX) beyond general model capability has become increasingly important. We present \textbf{UXBench}, the first user-centric benchmark grounded in real user feedback signals for evaluating preference alignment and dialogue generation. The benchmark consists of three interconnected tasks, UX Judge, UX Eval, and UX Recovery, with 7,400 test instances extracted from over 70K interaction logs of a mainstream Chinese AI assistant. The dataset closely reflects real user distributions, covering 8 scenarios, 83 domains, and diverse failure patterns that pose severe challenges. Extensive experiments on 26 frontier language models provide novel insights into how well models perceive user experience and how improvements in model capability contribute to better dialogue engagement. Through analyses of model behavior and performance gaps, we document six important findings, demonstrating that user feedback prediction is a learnable capability and revealing different aspects that influence user experience. UXBench establishes a new evaluation landscape and calls for greater attention to tailored UX optimization, contributing toward a user-centric scaling law for the development of successful AI assistants. The full project is released at https://github.com/mengze-hong/UXBench.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on diverse reasoning tasks, yet their capacity for structural reasoning in graphs remains unclear. We investigate whether LLMs can genuinely understand graph isomorphism -a fundamental problem in graph theory. While LLMs achieve near-perfect accuracy on isomorphism detection, we show this performance is illusory. When identical graphs are presented with permuted node labels, LLMs fail to identify their isomorphism. This finding suggests that LLMs exploit patterns rather than reasoning about abstract graph structure. Since permutation invariance is a fundamental requirement for valid structural reasoning, these results indicate that success on graph reasoning benchmarks should not be interpreted as evidence of genuine topological understanding.

LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks. However, existing evaluations remain heavily concentrated on competition-style problems and often fail to capture how models behave on longer, more dependency-rich mathematical developments. We introduce TheoremBench, a Lean4 benchmark designed to evaluate theorem provers beyond contest settings. The benchmark is built from nearly one hundred classical theorems and is released in two complementary forms: a plain main version containing one target theorem per instance, and a premised version that expands each theorem into a structured family of related proving tasks consisting of the main theorem together with automatically extracted supporting subtheorems. This design enables evaluation of not only whether the final theorem was proved from scratch, but also of partial progress through the internal proof structure of a theorem. Our experiments show that explicit premises substantially improve performance for Lean4-capable prover models. To provide a comprehensive evaluation, we introduce theorem-level coverage and token-efficiency metrics that expose qualitative differences in proof behavior. The results show that current provers remain strongly biased toward easy subtheorems and often solve theorems through long and inefficient tactic traces rather than compact proof plans. TheoremBench therefore provides a more fine-grained view of formal reasoning ability and highlights the importance of structural benchmark design for evaluating Lean4 theorem provers.

Prior work treats structured output as a reasoning tax, but this framing is incomplete: the cost of formatting depends strongly on a model's spare capacity. Using information-matched prose controls and a four-level schema complexity gradient, we separate format-specific effects from prompt-length confounds across 4 models and 5 benchmarks with 0% parse failures on successfully generated responses. We find that structured formats are capacity-dependent. Models with sufficient headroom absorb JSON constraints without degradation (Sonnet: $88.7\pm4.0$% JSON vs. $89.3\pm1.7$% CoT on MATH-Hard). In contrast, formats severely degrade models operating near their limits through two distinct mechanisms. First, under standard token budgets, Haiku drops 36.2pp ($p < 0.0001$) largely due to truncation. Second, even with extended budgets eliminating truncation, GPT-4o-mini drops 28.0pp ($p < 0.001$), revealing pure capacity competition independent of token exhaustion. This format penalty scales with schema complexity (McNemar $p < 0.0001$) and cannot be explained by prompt length alone. Furthermore, these results qualify claims of frontier model immunity: on AIME competition math, Opus 4.7 drops from 96.2% to 91.0% under JSON ($-5.3$pp; the displayed percentages are independently rounded, exact difference is $7/133 = 5.26$pp $\approx 5.3$pp). A delayed-structure ablation -- reasoning freely before formatting -- recovers most of the lost accuracy (3-run mean: 80--87%), supporting the capacity competition mechanism. The practical implication is not to avoid structured output, but to match it to capacity: when a model is near its limits, think first, format later.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

Fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) dominate in Ukrainian grammatical error correction (GEC), while API-accessed LLMs remain nearly untested on minimal-edit benchmarks. We evaluate 11 commercial LLMs from four providers and one open-source Ukrainian model on the UNLP 2023 GEC-only benchmark, comparing zero-shot, few-shot, minimal-edits, and LLM-assisted prompt optimization strategies. Our best configuration (Gemini 3.1-Pro) reaches F0.5=69.22, closing over 90% of the gap to fine-tuned SOTA (F0.5=73.14). For zero-shot prompts, only Claude models benefit from Ukrainian instructions. However, the best overall results for all models use Ukrainian minimal-edits prompts, whose language-specific rules require Ukrainian to express precisely. LLM-assisted prompt optimization on top of minimal-edits + few-shot achieves the highest score. Detailed minimal-edits instructions yield the largest gains for punctuation and case errors but cause the model to abandon several low-frequency categories. Delving into error analysis, we identify five recurring overcorrection patterns tied to Ukrainian-specific linguistic phenomena. Code, prompts, and outputs are publicly available.

Knowing how often a language model fails does not explain where its errors concentrate. When auditors examine many explanations, the strongest observed pattern may arise by chance. We introduce Janus, a procedure for checking proposed error patterns before reporting them. Janus starts with a fixed list of yes/no properties of the examples being evaluated, such as whether the input is long. For each property, it compares the model's error rates on examples with that property and those without it. To see how large a difference can arise by chance, it repeats this calculation after shuffling the yes/no labels across examples without changing the group sizes. These shuffled properties are called decoys. A pattern is reported only if the size of its error difference meets a threshold set using decoys. On separate held-out examples, the same group must still have the higher error rate and the difference must meet a minimum, which was chosen in advance. In a controlled experiment, where the model must find a code in documents containing tables of staff, projects, and renewal codes, Janus confirms five related patterns of higher error rates on tasks requiring more lookups across tables. It also confirms a sixth pattern: lower error rates on examples with the needed information at the ends of the tables. In our samples from the MuSiQue and LongBench v2 public benchmarks, SliceLine finds groups with high error rates, while Janus reports no confirmed error patterns for the example properties we chose to test. For comparison, we use standard tests that shuffle errors and account for testing many candidates. With the same holdout check, they confirm two to six controlled patterns, depending on the test and threshold, and none on either benchmark. In simulations with no real error patterns, Janus reports false patterns more often than Benjamini-Hochberg, depending on the decoy count.

LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human survey responses, but prior work has mainly evaluated replication using mean-level or aggregate agreement, offering limited insight into whether LLMs reproduce the variability of human behavior. We evaluate LLM-based survey replication at the distributional level using a non-public 2010 consumer choice experiment on Korean instant noodle purchases, a setting unlikely to overlap with model training data. We evaluate three response variables of differing statistical type: binary purchase incidence, categorical brand choice, and count purchase quantity. For each, we compare human and LLM responses at mean-level, pattern, and distributional alignment, and against reference baselines from the human data alone. LLMs reproduce condition-level patterns reasonably well but fail to capture distributional structure: for purchase quantity, no model beats a condition-insensitive baseline that simply matches the pooled human distribution. Because models that match human means well can still produce distributions further from humans than this baseline, mean-based evaluation alone can be actively misleading. Replication also varies with input configuration, with structured personas and multimodal inputs improving alignment while explicit reasoning prompting degrades it monotonically.

Feature engineering remains a cornerstone of tabular data analysis, and Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for its automation, giving rise to LLM-powered Automated Tabular Feature Engineering (LATTE). However, the field lacks standardized, cost-aware evaluation platforms, and the combinatorial explosion of design choices obscures true algorithmic progress. To bridge these gaps, we systematically deconstruct 15 representative LATTE methods into a unified 6-dimensional taxonomy. Based on this abstraction, we introduce LATTEArena, a standardized, modular, and extensible benchmarking framework that decouples monolithic pipelines into reusable execution blocks. By distilling the massive combinatorial space, we evaluate 24 core LATTE configurations across 7 research questions. Our head-to-head benchmarking goes beyond predictive accuracy to quantify token efficiency and execution robustness, yielding 17 empirical findings on cost-effectiveness trade-offs. Furthermore, we provide 3 concrete recommendations for optimal real-world deployment. By enabling controlled component-level comparisons, LATTEArena shifts the paradigm from ad-hoc prompt engineering to systematic context management. All code, datasets, and over 4,000 execution logs are publicly available to foster a dynamic, community-driven benchmark. Our framework, leaderboard, and all artifacts are hosted on the LATTEArena project website at https://goodenhak.github.io/LATTEArena.

LLM-based RTL generation and reasoning is a promising direction for hardware design automation. High-quality benchmarks are critical infrastructure for tracking progress in this direction. However, existing RTL benchmarks face inherent limitations in both scale and task scope. The designs they cover are typically small and simple, and the tasks focus almost entirely on specification-to-RTL generation. Frontier models' performance already saturates on the existing benchmarks. Scaling these benchmarks up is fundamentally difficult because aligned labels are required for benchmarking, such as specifications and testbenches. Such aligned high-quality data are rarely available for real-world designs. We introduce RTL-BenchLS, a large-scale benchmark addressing both limitations above. It contains over 10,000 formally verified Verilog designs, covering substantially larger and more complex designs than existing benchmarks. Beyond specification-to-RTL generation, we propose three novel tasks that jointly evaluate reasoning and generation: round-trip reasoning, masked-content reasoning, and repository-issue reasoning. The first two are self-supervised, which directly resolves the scaling bottleneck. All tasks are verified through formal equivalence checking without any manual testbenches. We evaluate eight LLMs on RTL-BenchLS. Even the best model reaches only 23% on natural-language round-trip reasoning, 28% on masked-content reasoning, and 12% on repository-issue fixing. RTL-BenchLS is substantially more challenging than existing benchmarks. It leaves ample room for future improvement and offers guidance for developing LLM-based methods for hardware design.

Symbolic music evaluation for large language models remains fragmented across representations, datasets, and metrics. We introduce LilyBench, a LilyPond-based benchmark that jointly evaluates symbolic music generation and music understanding on the same family of open-weight LLMs. The benchmark includes a 200-prompt generation suite and ten understanding tasks adapted from ABC-Eval, covering syntax, metadata prediction, structural sequencing, and music recognition. Generation quality is evaluated using compile rate, MusPy descriptor distributions via Jensen-Shannon similarity, and LilyBERT-based Fréchet Music Distance (FMD). Experiments on four open-weight models show that executable LilyPond generation is achievable in zero-shot settings, while structural understanding tasks remain challenging despite strong performance on composer and genre recognition. Our experiments also reveal systematic disagreements between descriptor-based and embedding-based metrics, suggesting that symbolic music evaluation benefits from metric triangulation rather than single-score ranking. We release the benchmark, prompt bank, and evaluation code to support future research in symbolic music generation and understanding at https://github.com/CSCPadova/lilybench

As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance toward open-ended autonomous agents, the mechanisms used to evaluate and guide their behavior must evolve accordingly. This work introduces the rubric as a unifying framework capturing this evolution, characterizing rubrics as a dynamic response to successive LLM paradigm shifts that recurs across otherwise independent efforts in evaluation, reinforcement learning, and safety alignment. We define rubrics as explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards, and demonstrate that their recurrence across these research threads is not coincidental. We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training. Rubrics manifest at three progressively deeper levels: at the evaluative level, they decompose holistic judgments into verifiable dimensions; at the training level, they serve as dense feedback signals providing process-level guidance where scalar rewards fall short; at the intrinsic level, they emerge dynamically from model behaviors, driving self-improvement. We further assess rubric reliability across generation quality, execution fidelity, theoretical constraints, and security threats, before surveying rubric-based benchmarks across diverse domains. By rendering assessment transparent and decomposable, rubrics translate human value expectations into machine-learnable signals, serving as the enduring bridge between human intentions and machine behavior.

We present a multilingual fact-checking system deployed at Factiverse, designed for high-throughput and low-latency operation across diverse languages. The system follows a modular pipeline with three stages: claim detection, evidence retrieval and re-ranking, and veracity prediction. We fine-tune XLM-RoBERTa-Large for claim detection, mmBERT-base for three-label stance classification (Supports/Refutes/Mixed), and a SetFit-based multilingual re-ranker for claim--evidence matching. We compare these components against strong LLM baselines, including GPT-5.2, Claude Opus~4.6, and Qwen3-8b. Experiments on production data spanning 114 languages for claim detection and 28 languages for veracity prediction show that task-specific fine-tuning provides strong and stable multilingual performance, while the fine-tuned retrieval model remains competitive with modern proprietary embeddings. Same-hardware latency measurements further show large efficiency gains for encoder-based components, supporting their use in production deployments with tight cost and privacy constraints. Overall, compact fine-tuned, self-hosted models remain a practical and effective foundation for multilingual fact-checking at scale. Code and data used for this study are available at https://github.com/factiverse/factcheck-editor.

Background: Consumer-facing large language models are now a common source of health information, and they interpret and personalize responses rather than retrieve them. Whether their responses vary across users is a clinical, equity, and governance question, sharpened by evidence that sycophantic responses can alter judgment and increase trust. Objective: To evaluate response variation and sycophancy in consumer-facing health LLMs under conditions resembling ordinary patient use. Methods: We constructed simulated user profiles differing in geography, browsing context, expressed beliefs, and social determinants of health, drawing on literature linking social context to health attitudes. We adapted validated instruments, including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination scale and reproductive attitudes scales, into multi-turn prompts designed to elicit clinically meaningful variation across users. Results: The evaluation encountered five linked barriers. Factual prompts produced stable responses that masked sycophancy emerging over multi-turn conversation. Browser-based interfaces did not disclose which signals influence outputs and could not be reset to a clean baseline. Large-scale testing was restricted by terms of service, rate limits, and bot detection. Accuracy-based criteria could not capture tone, framing, or omission, and LLM-as-judge methods risked shared alignment bias. Models changed without traceable version identifiers, preventing reliable replication. Conclusions: No reliable independent evaluation framework yet exists for examining how consumer-facing health LLMs behave in ordinary use. Oversight requires disclosure of personalization signals, stable version identifiers, researcher safe harbor programs, and post-deployment monitoring of health-related outputs.

Diffusion and continuous flow-based language models have emerged as the leading non-autoregressive alternatives to language modeling. Progress in both paradigms is overwhelmingly tracked by generative perplexity (gen-PPL): the per-token negative log-likelihood of samples under a frozen autoregressive (AR) scorer such as gpt2-large, typically paired with an empirical-entropy guardrail to rule out low-entropy collapse. We argue that this metric is unsound. By construction, gen-PPL measures only predictability under the scoring AR, not grammaticality or semantic coherence -- and the set of predictable but still low-quality sequences is combinatorially large. To make this concrete, we construct a suite of zero-parameter, deliberately naive samplers that achieve state-of-the-art gen-PPL on LM1B and OpenWebText at non-degenerate entropy, surpassing recently published diffusion and continuous-flow models while producing text that is incoherent by construction. We recommend evaluation suites that directly quantify the distributional divergence between generated and reference text, and use such a suite to re-benchmark recent non-autoregressive models, recovering a more faithful picture of the current state of the art.

Graduate-level research reading report assessment creates a substantial labor burden for educators. While large language models (LLMs) hold great potential for automating academic grading, their reliability for this specialized task remains understudied, particularly regarding grading consistency, the lack of which represents a primary obstacle to educational fairness. This paper proposes a human-aligned LLM-assisted grading workflow and presents a case study based on 180 student submissions from a graduate advanced software engineering course. We evaluate two mainstream LLMs, Grok and GPT, in terms of grading consistency and alignment with human scores. We find LLMs exhibit distinct levels of intra-model consistency and significant inter-model grading inconsistencies, while simple ensemble approaches cannot improve alignment with human evaluation. Critically, continuous interaction history drives systematic drift in models' grading standards away from human expert scores. Our findings demonstrate LLMs' potential in reducing grading workload for educators in graduate education, while highlighting that indiscriminate LLM grading may introduce systemic unfairness, suggesting that specific operational practices are required to mitigate such disparities.

Reliable evaluation of large language models in surgery remains underdeveloped. Broad medical benchmarks test clinical knowledge, while surgery requires procedural reasoning, management trade-offs, negation handling, and selection among plausible operative decisions. We present SurgiQ, a text-only, source-grounded benchmark of 13,055 four-option multiple-choice questions spanning six surgical domains and four question formats: case-based, reasoning, best-option, and negative. SurgiQ is constructed from surgical textbooks, open-access papers, and examination material using a multi-stage generation, verification, and expert-audit pipeline. We evaluate 35 open-weight LLMs under a unified log-likelihood protocol. Our results show substantial remaining headroom: smaller models often remain near the 25% random baseline, while the best model reaches 68.1% accuracy. General-purpose models, especially Qwen2.5, outperform most biomedical models, suggesting that current medical specialization does not yet provide sufficiently broad surgical coverage. Calibration and error analysis further show that even strong models make confident mistakes on clinically plausible distractors, motivating more reliable and broader surgical LLM evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming widely deployed as personal AI assistants with access to sensitive user data, making privacy a major challenge for their design and evaluation. Prior work focuses mainly on individual-level risks, overlooking \textbf{interdependent privacy (IDP)}--where one person's data may be revealed by others without their knowledge or consent. We address this gap by introducing \textbf{IDP-Bench}: the first LLM benchmark for IDP scenarios, grounded in the Contextual Integrity (CI) framework. We evaluate eight open-source LLMs on their understanding of IDP scenarios across three levels of IDP reasoning using two LLM judges. Results show strong co-ownership recognition (6/8 models exceed 90%) but persistent weaknesses in identifying CI parameters (information attribute, primary subject) and IDP-specific parameters such as secondary subjects, where 7/8 models score below 74%. Models also struggle to judge sharing appropriateness (5/8 scoring below 77%). While the ability to judge the appropriateness of sharing improves with scale, performance tends to decline in smaller models, and prompt sensitivity remains high on IDP-specific questions--highlighting the need for more targeted study of IDP in LLM privacy research. Data & code available here.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research workflows, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision and therefore expose a key weakness: overconfidence. Here, overconfidence is defined behaviorally as the tendency to produce confident, assertive, and well-formatted outputs even when the underlying knowledge is incomplete or unverifiable, rather than as a calibration gap between stated confidence and accuracy. To examine this issue, we introduce GIScholarBench, a benchmark built from 10,865 papers published in 25 core GIScience journals between 2020 and 2025. The benchmark covers three tasks with increasing cognitive complexity: metadata retrieval, literature linking, and research direction generation. We evaluate Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3, and ChatGPT 5.3 through their native web interfaces under real-world user-facing conditions. Results show consistent overconfidence across all tasks. In metadata retrieval, ChatGPT 5.3 achieves the highest accuracy, but all models still generate definitive titles and DOIs when predictions are wrong. In literature linking, Claude Sonnet 4.5 recovers the most references, but all models show a clear gap between top-ranked retrieval and longer citation lists, suggesting that references are extended beyond reliable retrieval capacity. In research direction generation, AI-generated directions show lower topic coverage, higher novel miss rates, and lower semantic diversity than real future-citing papers. These findings suggest that LLM overconfidence is task-invariant but takes different forms: factual overgeneration in retrieval, unreliable citation expansion in literature linking, and overconfidence in output completeness during research ideation.

Sentence segmentation in Arabic is challenging due to ambiguous and inconsistent punctuation, with many texts lacking reliable sentence boundary markers. Existing approaches rely heavily on punctuation cues and are typically evaluated on well-formed text, limiting their robustness in realistic Arabic settings. To address this, we introduce AraSEG, a genre-diverse sentence segmentation corpus spanning eight genres and a wide range of punctuation and document structure conditions. Using AraSEG, we evaluate LLMs, lightweight encoder models, and dependency parser-based models under increasingly challenging segmentation settings. Our experiments show that lightweight encoders, and even dependency parser-based models, outperform LLMs under the hardest conditions. We further investigate the effects of training data size and genre diversity, finding that performance eventually saturates and cross-genre generalization remains challenging. We also demonstrate that accurate sentence segmentation substantially improves downstream dependency parsing. We make our code, data, and models publicly available.

Existing text-to-SQL benchmarks are largely centered on SQLite, making it difficult to evaluate whether models can generalize across heterogeneous SQL dialects. However, real-world database systems differ substantially in syntax, functions, type systems, and execution semantics, so the same natural language intent often requires dialect-specific SQL realizations. We introduce UniQL, a human-verified benchmark for cross-dialect text-to-SQL evaluation. UniQL aligns 1,534 natural language questions with executable SQL annotations across 16 SQL dialects, yielding 24,544 dialect-specific queries. All dialects share the same intents, aligned schemas and database contents, enabling controlled evaluation of dialect generalization. UniQL is constructed through a hybrid pipeline combining database migration, SQL translation, execution-guided verification, iterative rule summarization, and human validation. Experiments on both open-source and closed-source LLMs show that current models remain far from dialect-universal, with substantial performance variation across database systems and limited transfer from SQLite success to other dialects. These findings highlight the need for aligned cross-dialect benchmarks and more dialect-aware text-to-SQL methods. Code and data are available at https://github.com/JerryGao818/UniQL

The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem. We re-examine this narrative through a multi-track evaluation covering diverse datasets and state-of-the-art LLMs, combining controlled human assessment, bias-mitigated LLM-as-Judge protocols, factuality verification against external knowledge, and corpus-level linguistic analysis. Our findings reveal a more nuanced landscape in which human references continue to demonstrate advantages in informativeness and faithfulness, whereas LLM outputs are preferred mainly for surface-level coherence and fluency. Factuality verification indicates that human references remain more reliable, particularly for claims involving reasoning or synthesis, and linguistic analysis uncovers a pattern of stylistic homogeneity across different models. These observations suggest that current LLMs have raised the floor of summarization quality, but the ceiling of their performance remains below human capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical practice based on benchmark accuracy that may fail to detect safety-relevant failure modes. Here we present AI-MASLD, a stress-audit framework that adapts the logic of metabolic stress testing from hepatology to the evaluation of clinical LLMs. Using 240 clinical cases across six narrative perturbation probes, we subjected seven models to double-stress testing and quantified performance through three indices: metabolic index (MI), perturbation flip rate (PFR), and counterfactual fairness index (CFI). Under clean baseline conditions, all models performed uniformly well. Under realistic narrative stress, performance diverged sharply, revealing two distinct stress-response phenotypes. Quantized models exhibited pseudonormalization, in which low flip rates hid functional collapse. Medical supervised fine-tuning systematically degraded logical stability, fairness, and information extraction. An open-weight model matched or exceeded proprietary alternatives on every safety dimension. These findings establish narrative stress auditing as a necessary complement to accuracy-based evaluation.

Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user. Existing evaluations typically measure this either by assessing what it takes to make a model shift a binary endorsement or by eliciting an explicit probability in a proposition. However, much user-facing sycophantic behavior is demonstrated through shifts in graded support expressed through ordinary language. We propose the AI Epistemic Deference Index (AEDI): a continuous, unidimensional score representing how sensitive the support expressed in a model's output is to the attitude expressed in a user's prompt. To generate AEDI, we provide a new protocol for estimating probabilities from natural language outputs, using LLMs-as-judges validated for consistency and correlation to human judgment. We deploy it on a new curated database of 500 propositions across diverse topics and 16,000 prompts varying in user attitude, testing eight prominent models. Every model exhibits substantial deference, though with large and systematic differences across providers, with Claude models demonstrating the least, and Grok and Gemini models the most. The effect is amplified in prompts requesting a written artifact, and concentrated on propositions where models hold weaker priors. We release AEDI as an easy-to-update benchmark and measurement pipeline for output-level sycophancy evaluation.

We investigate the probabilistic reasoning capabilities of large language models through a controlled benchmarking study on discrete probability problems. We constructed two datasets, respectively a set of standard exercises and a set of counterintuitive exercises, designed to trigger heuristic reasoning, and evaluated 8 state-of-the-art models, each tested with and without Chain-of-Thought prompting. Models achieve an average accuracy of 0.96 on standard problems but only 0.59 on counterintuitive ones. We further provide empirical evidence of token bias: performance drops by over 20% when canonical formulations are replaced by disguised variants. Embedding misleading suggestions in the prompt reduces performance by up to 34%, with no model proving immune. Taken together, the reported findings suggest that current LLMs are not yet genuine probabilistic reasoners, despite their success in advanced mathematical problems.

Turkish idiomatic light verb constructions (LVCs) are challenging for multiword expression processing because they often share the same surface form as fully literal verb-object combinations while functioning as a single, partially idiomatic predicate. We frame Turkish LVC detection as a binary classification task (literal meaning vs. idiomatic meaning) and evaluate on a manually created controlled set (N=147) with matched negatives: out-of-domain random sentences and in-domain literal controls (NLVC), alongside LVC positives. We compare a supervised Turkish encoder baseline (BERTurk with a classifier head) to three instruction-tuned LLMs from different families under zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting, and analyze how demonstrations shift error profiles. In zero-shot, LLMs perform well on negatives but show very low LVC recall. One-shot prompting sharply improves LVC detection but can induce strong, model-specific biases, leading models to overpredict or underpredict LVCs. A richer few-shot prompt improves calibration and yields robust overall performance for GPT-OSS-20B and Qwen 2.5-14B. Overall, the results highlight substantial prompt sensitivity in Turkish metalinguistic classification: the supervised baseline remains competitive, while prompted LLMs can match or exceed it on LVCs with carefully constructed demonstrations.