LLM Evaluation

Within the past few years, the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate formal mathematical proofs has improved drastically. We provide a comparison of various LLMs' effectiveness in producing formal proofs in Lean 4 with the goal of assisting those seeking to use LLMs to support their own projects. We utilize both pass@$k$ and refine@$k$ metrics as the benchmark for our comparison and evaluate on subsets of both miniF2F and miniCTX datasets. Our testing shows that overall, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 perform best. Gemini 3.1 Pro achieved a 92% success rate on miniF2F via refine@32 whereas Opus 4.7 achieved a 86% success rate on miniCTX via refine@32. When taking cost into account, NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Super and GPT-OSS 120B were the most efficient, with competitive accuracies and average costs of <\0.01$ per correct proof.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in music understanding and generation tasks. However, existing works remain confined to Western tonal traditions, offering little insight into whether current LLMs can handle structurally distinct low-resource musical traditions. We present the first systematic evaluation of LLM competence in South Asian classical music, a tradition governed by raga, tala-based melodic constraints that impose fundamentally different structural principles from Western harmony-driven music. We ground our evaluation in Hindustani classical theory and Bengali classical forms, including Rabindra and Nazrul Sangeet -- representative low-resource traditions within South Asian classical music. For music understanding evaluation, we introduce a 504-question-answer benchmark spanning raga grammar, cultural knowledge, and symbolic notation reasoning, evaluating 33 LLMs where frontier models such as Gemini 2.5 Pro achieve 85-90% accuracy, while most open-source models remain in the 23-40% range. For music generation, we design a five-level controlled prompting framework and find that even the strongest model produces stylistically faithful outputs only 40% of the time. These results reveal that structural validity and stylistic faithfulness in music generation are distinct objectives and highlight an open challenge for culturally grounded music modeling.

Large language models are increasingly evaluated by other models, raising a natural question: can a model predict how a judge will score its own output? We find that the ability is largely present before any targeted training: prompted few-shot, a base model already predicts an external judge's multi-attribute quality scores on open-ended responses well above chance across three benchmarks. We introduce Self-Evaluation Elicitation (SEE), a method that surfaces this latent ability through a short cycle comprising a calibration-coupled reinforcement learning phase that improves the answer and predicts the judge, followed by a masked distillation phase that sharpens the prediction while leaving the answer untouched. From 160 unique examples, roughly 31x fewer than a reinforcement learning baseline, SEE improves held-out calibration across three benchmarks while preserving answer quality. The elicited self-evaluation is sharply localized within the model's own token distribution and stable across judges it was never trained against, indicating a transferable notion of quality rather than a single judge's preference. These results reframe judge-aligned self-evaluation as a problem of elicitation rather than acquisition.

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular in educational settings, they raise important questions about the ethical implications of their use. Publicly available online chatbots are quickly improving in capability and accuracy leading to more widespread use, including among students looking for help with their homework. This makes it crucial to consider whether these models are aligned with educational standards. Because curriculum standards in the United States are set at the state level, they differ significantly in required content, emphasis, and narrative focus. In this work, we develop an LLM-based pipeline to identify variations in U.S. History curricula across states and evaluate the extent to which different LLMs reflect these state-specific curricular differences. In addition, we conduct controlled experiments that vary user personas by stating user attributes such as geographic location, grade level, gender and race to evaluate the sensitivity of LLM responses to user characteristics. We find that while models are able to adjust their presentation of historical topics, these shifts may come from the perceived political leanings of states and do not necessarily reflect actual curriculum content. Additionally, models successfully adapt to a student's grade level while showing minimal sensitivity to race or gender, suggesting they are capable of useful adaptation to student personas with limited demographic bias. Together, these findings highlight potential risks that open access to LLM chatbots may cause to student learning outcomes stemming from misalignment with state curriculum standards and highlight the need for more robust alignment techniques.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in scientific tasks. Yet whether these systems can effectively engage in forms of inductive reasoning relevant to scientific discovery remains an open question. In this work, we introduce FALSIFYBENCH, an evaluation framework for hypothesis-driven reasoning inspired by the classic Wason 2-4-6 task, in which agents must discover hidden semantic properties by iteratively proposing examples and receiving feedback. This task captures key elements of scientific reasoning: hypothesis generation, evidence gathering, and belief revision in response to both confirming and disconfirming evidence. Our evaluation of 12 LLMs across model families and scales shows that reasoning models are generally stronger scientific reasoners than instruction-tuned models, although no model comes close to optimal performance. The primary driver of success is the capacity for negative testing: models that actively seek to falsify their hypotheses consistently outperform those that primarily seek confirmation. Moreover, a fine-grained turn-level analysis, neglected in previous work, reveals that failure is tied to identifiable patterns in how models navigate the hypothesis space.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for automated software vulnerability detection, particularly in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) settings. However, for approaches relying on proprietary models and APIs, reproducibility and replicability remain largely unexplored, raising the question of whether reported results generalize or depend primarily on specific model choices. In this work, we present a reproducibility study of Vul-RAG, a RAG-based framework for source code vulnerability detection that enhances LLMs with high-level vulnerability knowledge. We first replicate the results in a fully local and open-weights setting using the reported open-weight baseline models. We then extend the evaluation to a diverse set of recent open-weight LLMs, including code-specialized, general-purpose, and reasoning models of varying parameter sizes. The results confirm that the findings of Vul-RAG are reproducible under local deployment, but with minor deviations. Across all evaluated models, we observe a performance plateau at approximately 0.30 pairwise accuracy (code pairs for which both the vulnerable and the patched function are correctly classified). Notably, this plateau persists even for more recent and advanced models, indicating that improvements in model capacity alone do not substantially enhance performance. Finally, we discuss practical implications and trade-offs between detection effectiveness, model capabilities, and model scale. Implementation and evaluation artifacts are publicly available at https://github.com/hs-esslingen-it-security/revisiting-Vul-RAG.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly adopted in daily applications, with deep research standing out as a particularly important capability. Unlike traditional question-answering (QA) tasks, deep research report generation lacks definitive ground-truth, making reward design inherently unverifiable and limiting effective reinforcement learning. Existing approaches mitigate this challenge with LLM-as-a-judge and query-dependent evaluation rubrics, but they still rely on static evaluators that cannot adapt their standards as the solver improves, leading to insufficient and eventually saturated optimization pressure. We address this limitation with a \textbf{s}elf-evolving \textbf{co}-evolutionary training framework for deep \textbf{re}search evaluation and generation (SCORE), which tightly couples an evaluator and a solver in a shared-parameter learning process. Rather than treating generation and evaluation as isolated modules, we leverage their intrinsic connection to enable joint improvement within a single shared-parameter model. To restrict this process, we introduce a meta-harness, which dynamically controls the evaluation environment based on solver performance, encouraging valid evaluation dimensions and sufficiently deep evaluator search. Extensive experiments on deep research benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvement in report generation quality, showing that co-evolving evaluation and generation is a promising direction for training open-ended research agents.

High-throughput microscopy generates large, structured datasets capturing cellular responses to pharmacological perturbations, but accessing these datasets typically requires SQL expertise. Large language models offer a natural-language alternative, yet their tendency to hallucinate raises concerns about result reliability . We present SANE Schema-Aware Natural-language Evaluation, a novel paradigm for domain-specific text-to-SQL evaluation: schema-grounded, automatically generated benchmarks tied to real and specific experimental structure. SANE makes evaluation more scalable, systematic, and reproducible. Using SANE, we evaluate a few-shot large language model and show that, under constrained schemas with structured prompting and guardrails, accurate query generation is achievable without any model training or fine-tuning. Most failures stem from ambiguous or underspecified inputs and manifest as overly cautious clarification requests or answers to queries that should first be disambiguated, rather than incorrect SQL generation. These results indicate that few-shot large language models can provide reliable database access in well-defined domains when combined with schema-aware prompting.

Do LLMs have emotions? A recent paper from Anthropic reports finding internal representations of emotion concepts in Claude Sonnet 4.5, concluding that the LLM has 'functional emotions.' We evaluate this claim against what is known about how emotions actually function in biological systems. We argue that emotions serve two core functions: the context-sensitive interpretation of situations, and the reorganization of processing across multiple systems in response to those interpretations. The Anthropic findings offer partial support for the first function, though the consistent, discrete emotional representations identified in Claude sit uneasily with affective neuroscience findings that human emotion is characterized by variable rather than uniform neural signatures. On the second function, the evidence is mixed: Claude's representations modulate output without producing the dynamic reorganization of attention, decision speed, and motivational state that defines emotion in biological systems. We close by proposing what it would take for an LLM to have emotions.

Standard benchmarks report aggregate accuracy, but practitioners need to know which specific capabilities a model lacks. We introduce FailureScope, a behavioral-diagnosis method that clusters evaluation probes by their cross-model pass/fail patterns (leave-one-model-out, LOMO), and show it yields stable, interpretable failure taxonomies across three regimes usually studied separately: single-turn benchmarks, multi-turn dialogue, and adversarial agent attacks. On 2,664 single-turn tasks across 18 models, taxonomy-conditioned sampling reaches Kendall's tau = 0.81 at 50 tasks (versus 0.34 for random selection), and cross-model failure prediction reaches AUC 0.88. The same primitive recovers interpretable clusters on a 363-task multi-turn corpus and on 630 adversarial agent traces, where it exposes a meta-failure mode: a 73-100 percentage-point gap between LLM-judge ASR and real execution. Cluster cohesion remains strong across all three regimes, which we take as evidence that behavioral clustering is a portable diagnosis primitive that generalizes beyond any single benchmark. We release the pipeline, three annotated corpora, and the cross-regime taxonomies.

As large language models (LLMs) become default tools for online information verification, an implicit assumption follows them: that scale and general capability are sufficient for nuanced classification of misinformation discourse. We test this assumption directly on 900 Reddit comments spanning three PolitiFact-verified misinformation claims (environment, health, immigration), labelled as belief (propagates the claim), fact-check (corrects it), or other. We compare nine models across three paradigms -- BART-MNLI, three Llama variants, three commercial frontier LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6), and fine-tuned DistilBERT and RoBERTa -- under universal and topic-specific label schemas. The assumption does not hold. Fine-tuned RoBERTa reaches 0.62 macro-$F_1$ against a best zero-shot result of 0.50 (Claude Haiku 4.5), at a fraction of the per-query cost; the supervised advantage is concentrated on the belief class, the implicit, affective category every zero-shot model under-detects. Scaling does not help: Llama-3-8B matches Llama-3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 underperforms the smaller Haiku under generic labels, collapsing belief detection to 0.17 and refusing outright on a subset of comments flagged as sensitive. This is a safety-alignment artefact, not a capacity limit. Label schema and topic jointly shape zero-shot performance, with the same model varying by more than 0.13 macro-$F_1$ across topics under matched labels. In a verification context, where missing belief is the costlier error, task-specific fine-tuning remains the more reliable choice despite the proliferation of large generative models.

Large language models are reshaping research practice while quietly eroding researchers epistemic accountability. This commentary introduces PEEL - Protocols for Epistemically Engaged Literacy in AI, a working scaffolding that combines deterministic distant reading via Voyant Tools with LLM interpretation via Claude, grounded in Peircean semiotics and abductive reasoning. Applied to AI-generated condensations of three source texts, PEEL reveals systematic distortions in quantity, term frequency, and epistemic voice that are invisible without non-AI measurement -- and yields three design implications: deterministic instruments must accompany AI tools; fluency is not fidelity; epistemic authority must be designed in, not assumed.

Context-augmented language model systems often wrap supplied content with labels such as Reference:, Evidence:, Instruction:, Note:, or Example:, but the effect of these labels on reader-model behavior remains underexplored. We introduce a paired fixed-content probe over 500 MMLU-Pro items: each item receives the same misleading answer-bearing assertion under different discourse-role labels, and adoption is measured by whether the model outputs the injected wrong option. Across GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Llama-3-8B-Instruct, and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Misleading Adoption Rate shifts by 56-84 percentage points. Binding or source-like labels such as Instruction: and Reference: produce high adoption, whereas Example: consistently suppresses it. Paired tests, bootstrap intervals, final-instruction ablations, and Qwen final-step log-probability probes support a label-conditioned candidate preference. Boundary probes show where the effect weakens or persists: arithmetic tasks reduce adoption, passage-shaped external context preserves smaller label gaps, short-answer evaluation rules out option-letter copying, and nested-label conflicts suggest that illustrative framing can delimit adoption scope. A 200-case single-author manual audit confirms that the short-answer contrasts are stable under conservative adjudication. The resulting claim is bounded but practical: context-utilization and reader-side RAG benchmarks should report and control wrapper labels, because presentation choices can change measured reliance on supplied context.

Quantities with measurement units, such as 110 cm and 1.2 m, require language models (LMs) to combine a numeral with a symbolic unit scale. Here, we study how LMs compare such quantities in controlled settings spanning several unit systems. We find that accuracy degrades near the comparison boundary, where small changes in value determine the correct answer. The resulting errors are systematic: linear surrogate models predict LM preferences from numerical-difference and unit-scale-difference cues, and causal interventions on subspaces aligned with these variables shift model's output. The results suggest that LMs compare quantities through a bag of heuristics over numerals and units, rather than first converting both expressions to an exact shared-scale representation.

Reliable uncertainty communication is critical to the trustworthiness of LLMs, yet faithful calibration (FC)--the alignment between models' intrinsic and (linguistically) expressed confidence--is a persistent failure mode. This challenge is key for large reasoning models (LRMs), whose extended reasoning traces are often interpreted by users as evidence of deliberation, competence, and confidence. Despite the importance of FC and wide usage of LRMs, the extent to which LRMs can faithfully express their confidence remains poorly understood. Moreover, the prevailing paradigm to measure FC does not generalize well to the long chain-of-thought outputs generated by LRMs, which tend to lack clear step boundaries, involve inconsistent step structure, and encode complex conditional dependencies throughout the trace--complicating estimation of intrinsic confidence. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel framework to systematically quantify FC of LRMs. Our framework analyzes linguistic decisiveness relative to three sources of internal uncertainty, based on token probabilities, hidden states, and sampled response consistency. We also devise a prefix-conditioned sampling approach to control for conditional and structural variation across traces. Applying our framework to a diverse suite of leading models, datasets, and prompts, we find that faithful confidence expression is a significant challenge for LRMs. Reasoning behaviors do not automatically translate to improved FC, and prompt interventions for non-reasoning models do not improve faithfulness in the reasoning setting. Different confidence estimators further produce divergent assessments of the same traces, revealing fragility in prior evaluation methodologies. Taken together, our work establishes FC as a distinct reliability and alignment target for LRMs, particularly as such systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) are often evaluated using metrics such as final-answer accuracy or token count. However, identical scores on these metrics can hide fundamentally different reasoning structures. To address this limitation, we introduce a scalable LRM benchmark of logic puzzles and a pipeline that converts unstructured traces into verifiable reasoning graphs of claims and dependencies. This turns reasoning into a structured, measurable object whose topology can be quantitatively analyzed. Building on this, we define a reasoning efficiency metric that quantifies how concentrated the model's logical flow is. Our analysis on open-source reasoning models shows that structural measurements separate behaviors that token count and accuracy conflate, providing a practical tool for diagnosing failure modes and comparing how reasoning scales with puzzle difficulty.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance across diverse tasks, but they often generate responses that appear plausible while being factually incorrect. This problem is compounded by the lack of explicit uncertainty estimates, which makes it difficult for users to judge the reliability of model outputs. Existing uncertainty quantification methods typically rely on indirect signals, such as entropy across sampled generations. These signals can be difficult to interpret and do not fully leverage the model's ability to assess its own uncertainty. We propose a simple yet effective self-assessment method for uncertainty quantification in LLMs. Our approach groups sampled generations into semantically distinct clusters, converts them into answer options in a structured multiple-choice question, and uses the probability assigned by the LLM to each option as a confidence estimate. Experiments across multiple models and datasets show that our method consistently outperforms baseline approaches. Notably, it achieves competitive performance with as few as two additional samples, demonstrating both its effectiveness and efficiency.

Large language models are increasingly used as chemistry assistants, yet most chemistry benchmarks still score only final answers. This masks a critical failure mode: a model may output the correct molecule, product, or option while its reasoning violates chemical logic. Existing process-level evaluators are hard to scale because LLM judges and human step-level process annotation are costly, inconsistent, and vulnerable to hallucination. We introduce ChemCoTBench-V2, a rule-verifiable diagnostic benchmark for low-cost, auditable evaluation of structured, verifier-addressable chemical reasoning traces. It spans molecular understanding, molecule editing, molecular optimization, and reaction prediction, with 5,620 evaluation samples across 18 reporting tasks. Models must expose key intermediate steps in expert-designed templates, and those steps are checked with deterministic chemistry rules and, for closed-answer tasks, reference traces rather than another LLM judge. Open-ended molecular optimization is evaluated with oracle-verifiable state constraints rather than strict trace matching. The benchmark reports three separate signals: final-answer correctness, template adherence, and step-wise verifier correctness over expert-refined intermediate commitments. Experiments on frontier models reveal a persistent gap between final-answer success and structured-reasoning-state consistency: models often follow the requested format while failing chemical-step checks, or answer correctly with weak supporting reasoning. ChemCoTBench-V2 enables fine-grained model comparison and identifies the concrete step at which the trace first violates the verifier.

Selecting a pretrained language model, or evaluating a fine-tuned one, for a specific application is a high-value decision, yet the public benchmarks used to make it are poorly suited: a generic benchmark need not reflect a particular sub-domain or sub-task, and its scores are suspect when its items have leaked into pretraining and are recalled rather than solved. We present CoEval, an open framework that supplies a trustworthy, task-specific signal through ensemble self-evaluation: from a task or domain description, a pool of models rotates through all three roles, teacher, student, and judge, to generate a fresh, contamination-free benchmark, answer it, and score one another, with no human labels or raters. Because every model also answers as a student, the responses are the data that weight each question by its discriminative power and each judge by its consensus with the panel. Where ground truth exists, CoEval recovers the true ranking and tracks objective correctness at \r{ho}=0.86, and the weighting recovers the gold ranking of thirteen models at Spearman 0.95. Reliability comes from panel composition, not size: this label-free weighting zeroes out broken judges and down-weights saturated questions, so neither distorts the ranking. Generated items show zero verbatim overlap with five public benchmarks, the panel cancels verbosity bias and precludes same-family self-preference, and rankings are domain-specific: three different models top four de-novo domains, so a generic leaderboard misdirects most practitioners. The same pipeline reruns on each model release, giving any team a contamination-free leaderboard for its application.

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

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

Translation quality depends on purpose: the same source text demands different translations depending on audience, tone, and communicative intent. Yet MT models and metrics treat translation as a fixed mapping from source to target. LLMs enable users to explicitly specify purpose alongside source text, yet this capability has not been evaluated at scale. We introduce a systematic evaluation of purpose-driven MT across 50 languages, 5 model sizes and 8 text domains. We find that (1) explicit instructions substantially improve translation adaptedness, with larger gains on informal domains (conversation, social media), for larger model sizes and for higher-resource languages; (2) instructions outperform semantically-matched few-shot examples and paragraph-level context; (3) traditional MT metrics fail to capture adaptation quality, often penalizing adapted translations; (4) when curated instructions are unavailable, models can self-generate them from surrounding document context, closing up to 80% of the adaptedness gap to curated instructions. Our results establish that purpose-adapted MT is a viable and measurable capability of LLMs, while highlighting the need for purpose-aware metrics.

RLHF evaluation should track how failures emerge, where they localize, and which warning signals appear before external quality degrades. We study this problem with a compact RLHF pipeline built for this paper, including PPO, DPO, uncertainty-penalized PPO (UP-PPO), reward-model uncertainty, approximate policy drift, diversity and repetition diagnostics, and two external LLM judges. Rather than treating reward hacking as a single terminal event, we classify matched checkpoint and prompt-level transitions by the directions of learned reward R_phi, judge scores R_dag and R2_dag, and their average R_dag. The main empirical findings are that aggressive PPO produces the clearest localized reward-hacking signal, UP-PPO reduces but does not eliminate that signal, row-level diagnostics reveal failures hidden by checkpoint averages, and pre-transition features partially anticipate future localized reward hacking. The central conclusion is methodological: RLHF failures are training dynamics that can be classified, localized, and partially anticipated, not only final-model pathologies. The repository is available at github.com/zabahana/rlhf-failure-modes-diagnostics. The pipeline is also deployed as a live interactive web demo for model comparison and diagnostic views at rlhf-failures.zelalem.ai.

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

The language used by digital chat assistants such as ChatGPT can diverge from human expectations (misalignment). Research, mostly on Scientific English, has described both what divergences occur and, to some extent, why, linking them to the training stage of human preference learning. Yet, existing approaches rely on manual curation. This paper introduces two curation-free, assumption-light evaluation metrics: the Lexical Alignment Score, which identifies lexical overuse, and the Triangulated Preference Shift, which quantifies how much of such shifts can be attributed to human preference learning. Using PubMed abstracts, continuations were generated and measured using windowed document prevalence across six model families (Falcon, Gemma, Llama, Mistral, OLMo, Yi). The procedure identifies, without manual intervention, overused items such as 'suggest', 'additionally', and 'strategy', and estimates their link to preference learning. Our findings replicate prior work and remain stable across parameter settings, random seeds, and evaluation on further data. The approach scales readily and enables systematic study of lexical (mis)alignment beyond Scientific English and across languages, and as such, the metrics have the potential to contribute to improved alignment for future models and understanding of its origins.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for molecular tasks, but it remains unclear which molecular representation to use. We present a systematic benchmark evaluating LLM molecular competence across nine representations and eight chemical tasks. We benchmark 16 LLMs across five model families, including reasoning and non-reasoning variants, chemistry-specialized LLMs, and closed frontier models. Performance is strongly representation-dependent and no single representation wins across tasks, though CML is the best, followed by MolJSON, InChI, and then canonical SMILES. Explicit structured text representations (CML and MolJSON) dominate structural tasks; IUPAC dominates semantic tasks, winning molecule retrieval for all 16 LLMs; and SMILES variants are rarely optimal despite their prevalence in pretraining. Chemistry-specialized models perform well with SMILES at the cost of large degradations with structured text representations, suggesting SMILES-only evaluation rewards specialization that does not generalize. Using LLM-as-a-judge, we find that IUPAC produces the highest fraction of correct molecule generations. A mechanistic study via tokenization audits, linear probes and attention shows that representations are encoded differently inside the model; for example, structured representations require higher attention across the molecular span. Our results argue against representation-invariant evaluation and motivate task-aware representation routing for LLM-based chemistry.

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

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

We introduce TypewriterLM, a 7.24B History language model (LM) trained exclusively on English text predating 1913. Developing History LMs requires addressing challenges in data quality and availability, preventing temporal leakage, designing temporally consistent post-training pipelines, and constructing reliable evaluations. To address these issues, we construct TypewriterCorpus, a 54B-token historical corpus collected from diverse archival and linguistically annotated sources with extensive data cleaning and leakage mitigation procedures. Furthermore, we introduce lexically grounded instructing tuning, a post-training framework that constraints responses to remain directly grounded in historical source documents. Using this framework we construct two historical instruction tuning datasets: History-LIMA and History-SelfInstruct. To evaluate capability and temporal consistency, we introduce History-Event, a benchmark suite for evaluating competence, temporal grounding and data leakage. We release TypewriterLM and all associated resources to support future research on historical language models.