LLM Evaluation

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

194 papers in the last four weeks, up 87% on the four weeks before. 1.9% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 1,643

May 29, 2026cs.AI

Capability Self-Assessment: Teaching LLMs to Know Their Limits

The ability to recognize one's own limitations and decide whether to solve a problem or delegate is fundamental for reliable intelligent systems. Yet we show that modern large language models systematically lack this ability: across diverse model families and scales, they overestimate their competence and attempt queries they cannot solve. We refer to this ability as Capability Self-Assessment (CSA) and formulate it as a policy-learning problem, aiming to improve self-assessment while preserving the model's original capabilities. Our results show that reinforcement learning teaches CSA effectively, significantly outperforming supervised fine-tuning while preserving original capabilities. In contrast, supervised fine-tuning severely degrades the capabilities the model is meant to assess. Moreover, learned self-assessment behavior generalizes well out of distribution, suggesting that CSA is a transferable model trait. Finally, CSA is practically useful: it improves local-cloud decision making at inference time and provides a signal for targeted data selection during training.

Haoyan Yang, Reza Shirkavand, Yukai Jin +3

Stony Brook University · University of Maryland · Florida State University

LLM Evaluation Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability Metacognition in Language Models

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Language Models Learn Constructional Semantics, Not To Mention Syntax: Investigating LM Understanding of Paired-Focus Constructions

Grasping the semantics of rare constructions (form-meaning pairings) has been shown to be a challenging problem that has currently only been solved by the largest LLMs. It remains an open question if open-source models have robust constructional understanding, and if so, what learning dynamics underlie the acquisition of this knowledge. Focusing on a set of rare Paired-Focus constructions in English (e.g. "let alone", "much less"), we construct a novel dataset to test their meanings using both scalar adjectival semantics and general world knowledge. Testing a wide range of models differing in parameter count, architecture, and pretraining dataset size, we find that several modestly sized models are sensitive to both the forms and the meanings of Paired-Focus constructions, though models trained on human-scale data fail at all meaning evaluations. Turning to training dynamics for a set of open-checkpoint models, we find that Paired-Focus understanding emerges later in training than Paired-Focus syntactic knowledge, and that learning of Paired-Focus semantics is correlated with gains in some domains of world knowledge. Overall, our empirical results support the conclusion that modestly sized open-source models can grasp the rare Paired-Focus constructions, and demonstrate a connection between knowledge of Paired-Focus constructions and other meaning domains.

Wesley Scivetti, Ethan Wilcox, Nathan Schneider +2

Georgetown University · The University of Texas at Austin · Leipzig University & ScaDS.AI Dresden/Leipzig

LLM Evaluation Open-Weight Language Models

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Preference-Aware Rubric Learning for Personalized Evaluation

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

Yilun Qiu, Xiaoyan Zhao, Yang Zhang +7

National University of Singapore · Xiaohongshu Inc. · The University of Tokyo

LLM Evaluation LLM Alignment Rubric-Based Evaluation User Preference Modeling

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Language Models Can Resolve Reference Compositionally, But It's Not Their Native Strength: The Case of the Personal Relation Task

Do neural models, such as Large Language Models, genuinely acquire compositional abilities for interpretation of natural language? When we talk about semantic interpretation, we can distinguish two complementary aspects: establishing what an expression refers to in the world (which we call the Extensional task) and representing its sense in a structured way (which we call the Intensional task). We evaluate LLMs and humans on both tasks in the setting of the Personal Relation Task (Paperno 2022) in which, given a universe of people and their relationships with each other, one is asked to interpret a noun phrase such as "Amber's parent's friend". Here, for the Intensional task, the answer is the formula "friend(parent(amber))", and for the Extensional task, the person. We find that humans and LLMs show opposite strengths: humans perform better on Extensional than Intensional tasks, and LLMs vice versa. Our methodology brings greater nuance to the understanding of compositional abilities in modern machine learning models. Our results support the notion that the lack of referential grounding in LLM training is a crucial missing component in mimicking human-like language understanding.

Bart Evelo, Meaghan Fowlie, Denis Paperno

LLM Evaluation LLM Grounding Language Modeling

May 29, 2026cs.CL

RealityTest: How People Probe AI Identity and Whether Models Disclose It

AI systems are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where users may be uncertain whether they are speaking with a human or an AI. Despite mounting regulatory attention to this known safety risk, existing evaluations of AI disclosure are typically English-only, based on machine-generated questions, and restricted to text. We present RealityTest to comprehensively test whether AI systems disclose their identity when asked. The benchmark is the first large-scale multimodal and multilingual evaluation, grounded in human data on how people actually encounter and question AI identity in the real-world. Alongside the benchmark, we release the underlying dataset of 3,152 identity-probing queries collected from ~750 participants across 49 countries and five languages, in text and speech scenarios. We find that only 31% of people ask about identity directly in ambiguous scenarios, and that the questions people ask are far more diverse than machine-generated queries. We test 17 text and 6 speech models, and find substantial variation in disclosure behaviour. However, a single suppression instruction reduces disclosure rates to below 30%, even in the best-performing models. Validating our investment in diverse, human-grounded evaluation data, we find that how the question is phrased and the context of the conversation matter more for disclosure than which model is being tested. Safety evaluations built on narrow or synthetic query sets risk mischaracterising how models behave in realistic deployment settings.

Anna Gausen, Sarenne Wallbridge, Bessie O'Dell +2

AI Security Institute, London, UK

LLM Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation

May 29, 2026cs.AI

LLM-FACETS: A Privacy-Preserving Framework for Evaluating LLM Transparency and Accountability

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

Tom Lucas, Alessio Buscemi, Alfredo Capozucca +2

Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Luxembourg, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, and Scriptor Artis, France · Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Luxembourg · University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg +1

LLM Evaluation AI Accountability LLM Auditing LLM Reliability

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Static Dialogues: Benchmarking Realistic, Heterogeneous, and Evolving Long-Term Memory

In existing memory benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs), the evaluated dialogue sessions often lack long-term semantic consistency, and the underlying personas tend to be flat and static. Furthermore, in real-world scenarios, interactions between users and assistants involve more diverse, heterogeneous data streams, such as documents and emails. These shortcomings significantly limit the realism and effectiveness of current evaluations. To address these limitations, we introduce RHELM (Realistic, Heterogeneous, and Evolving Long-term Memory). Driven by meticulously crafted user profiles and a novel LOOP (pLan-rOllout-evOlve-Prune) module, we construct realistic dialogues across diverse interaction scenarios that exhibit dynamic temporal evolution and long-term coherence. Crucially, these dialogues are deeply integrated with heterogeneous external sources synchronized with the user's temporal event trajectory. The resulting benchmark encompasses challenging question-answer pairs spanning seven inquiry types, with each question mapping to at least one of 27 critical memory characteristics that we identify as essential yet underexplored in current research. Comprehensive experiments across full-context models, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods, and representative memory frameworks reveal that contemporary approaches still expose critical weaknesses in complex, real-world settings, particularly in resolving multi-source aggregation and real-world contextual reasoning.

Han Zhang, Zihao Tang, Xin Yu +8

Center for Applied Statistics, Renmin University of China · School of Statistics, Renmin University of China · Microsoft

LLM Evaluation Memory-Augmented Language Models RAG Evaluation Long-Term Conversational Memory

May 29, 2026cs.CL

How Much Do LLMs Know About Chinese Zero Pronouns?

Zero Pronouns (ZPs) are a pervasive linguistic phenomenon in pro-drop languages such as Chinese and have long posed a challenge for natural language processing systems. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on many Chinese language tasks, their ability to process ZPs remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic investigation of LLMs' handling of Chinese ZPs through a sequence of linguistically motivated tasks, including identification, referentiality classification, referential type classification, resolution, and translation. A diverse set of LLMs is evaluated across all tasks. Our results show that Chinese ZPs remain highly challenging for current LLMs, particularly for upstream tasks such as identification and referentiality classification. Performance on downstream tasks, such as ZP translation, is also consistently low: even state-of-the-art reasoning-oriented LLMs correctly translate fewer than half of Chinese ZPs into English.

Yifei Li, Guanyi Chen, Tingting He

Hubei Provincial Key Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Learning, National Language Resources Monitoring and Research Center for Network Media, School of Computer Science, Central China Normal University

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Office Comprehension Benchmark

We introduce Office Comprehension Bench (OCB), the first public benchmark to jointly evaluate LLM systems on Word, Excel, and PowerPoint comprehension over native file formats (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) and their variants. OCB consists of two tracks. File Fidelity Q&A tests structural and visual perception of office artifacts - tables, charts, embedded images, formulas, and app-specific elements such as headers, speaker notes, and named ranges. Domain Q&A tests expert-level reasoning grounded in real-world industry documents across 12 professional domains, with queries requiring multi-step analysis and synthesis across documents. Each reference answer is decomposed into atomic, binary-gradable claims, and an ensemble of LLM judges scores responses against each claim independently. Even the strongest frontier system in its default reasoning mode reaches only about 59.3% on Domain Q&A; increasing thinking depth within a tier does not move performance materially, while moving to a higher product tier yields modest gains. We release the dataset, evaluation tooling, judge prompt, and a public leaderboard.

Firoz Shaik, Mateus Picanço Lima Gomes, Tanvir Aumi +17

Microsoft · † Work done while at Microsoft.

Document Understanding LLM Evaluation Document QA Knowledge-Intensive QA

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Pairwise Reference Alignment as a Model-Level Ordinal Observable

Pairwise preference data is widely used in language-model evaluation and alignment, often for model ranking, reward modeling, or preference optimization. This note formulates a more basic measurement question: given a reference distribution of pairwise preferences, what model-level quantity is estimated when we test whether a model ranks preferred responses above rejected responses? We define pairwise reference alignment as an ordinal observable induced by a model scoring function. Given a reference pair distribution

P_{\mathrm{pair}}

over triples

(x,y^+,y^-)

, and a scalar model score

S_M(x,y)

, we define the alignment observable as the probability that the model-induced ordering agrees with the reference preference ordering. We further define a centered order-parameter-like statistic and discuss a margin-based extension. The resulting quantities admit simple finite-sample estimators and concentration bounds under independent sampling assumptions. This note does not introduce a new benchmark. It provides a conceptual and statistical formulation for pairwise reference alignment, clarifies the role of the reference pair distribution, and distinguishes the general ordinal observable from scoring choices such as normalized log-probability or energy-based scores. We also provide an initial empirical study on Qwen2.5 models and RewardBench, where the proposed statistics increase with model size and instruction tuning and vary across reference-pair subsets as predicted by the formulation.

Mujing Li

Independent Researcher

Human Preference Evaluation LLM Evaluation Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking Preference Alignment

May 29, 2026cs.CL

Every Act Has Its Price: Compressed Moral Composition in Frontier LLMs

Existing LLM moral benchmarks usually ask which isolated moral act, value, or foundation a model prefers. This is useful but incomplete. Realistic judgments often require a model to combine several moral signals within the same option. We introduce Moral Trolley Arena, a two-stage blind ELO benchmark for measuring how LLMs compose moral evidence. The single-scene arena first calibrates individual moral acts from a 229-scenario corpus across five Moral Foundations Theory foundations; the composite arena then combines calibrated acts into two-act moral items over a controlled intensity grid and measures the resulting composite preferences. Across ten frontier models, composite judgments are largely predicted by component act strength, but the relation is consistently compressed rather than simply additive. Models also show non-additive intensity anchoring, bounded foundation-specific residuals after component control, and highly convergent composite preference surfaces across providers. These results suggest that moral audits should measure composition rules for moral evidence, not only rankings over isolated acts.

Weijia Zhang, Ruiqi Chen, Yunze Xiao +1

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · University of Michigan · Carnegie Mellon University +1

LLM Evaluation Moral Reasoning in Language Models Moral Reasoning

May 28, 2026cs.LG

Bounded Behavioral Indistinguishability for Black-Box LLM Distillation

Black-box LLM distillation is usually evaluated as an output-matching problem: a student is considered successful when its responses are semantically similar to, or task-consistent with, those of a teacher. However, output similarity does not imply that the student is behaviorally indistinguishable from the model it imitates. We introduce bounded behavioral indistinguishability, formalized as

(ε,q,t,\mathbb{A})

-behavioral indistinguishability over an explicit prompt distribution, where

ε

bounds distinguishing advantage,

q

bounds oracle queries,

t

bounds computation, and

\mathbb{A}

denotes the adversary class. We instantiate this notion on Qwen and Llama teacher-student pairs using a controlled

5,000

-prompt behavioral probe suite. For each family, we compare the teacher with both the base student and the LoRA-distilled student, measuring whether distillation reduces distinguishability rather than merely improving similarity. LoRA raises semantic similarity from

0.788

to

0.862

for Qwen and from

0.814

to

0.874

for Llama. Yet adversarial evaluation reveals remaining behavioral differences: learned discriminators retain nonzero advantage, and pairwise category analysis shows artifacts concentrated in style/format, robustness, and domain-technical prompts. A pairwise teacher-identification adversary confirms this trend. With a different-family Llama judge and A/B-swap consistency filtering, Qwen distinguishing advantage drops from

0.158

for the base student to

0.081

after LoRA distillation. Query-budget experiments show that disagreement-guided acquisition does not consistently outperform stratified random sampling, indicating that coverage and diversity remain strong baselines. Our results show that semantic fidelity is useful but insufficient: black-box LLM distillation requires bounded, adversarial, and category-aware evaluation.

Munawar Hasan

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA

LLM Evaluation Language Model Distillation Teacher-Student Learning

May 28, 2026cs.LG

SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones?

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Sy-Tuyen Ho, Minghui Liu, Huy Nghiem +1

University of Maryland, College Park

AI for Science LLM Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Reliability Automated Peer Review

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Resolution Diagnostics for Paired LLM Evaluation

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

Anany Kotawala

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.

LLM Evaluation Pairwise Comparison Statistical Power Analysis Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking Statistical Hypothesis Testing

May 28, 2026cs.AI

ProjectionBench: Evaluating Scientific Hypothesis Generation in LLMs Under Progressive Information Disclosure

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

A. J. Lew, Y. Cao, M. J. Buehler

Unreasonable Labs · Unreasonable Labs Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

LLM Evaluation Scientific Reasoning Scientific Hypothesis Generation Research Idea Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery

May 28, 2026cs.CL

CommunityFact: A Dynamic, Multilingual, Multi-domain Benchmark for Misinformation Detection in the Wild

Misinformation verification increasingly occurs in public, fast-moving, and multilingual online settings, where static benchmarks provide an incomplete measure of model reliability. We introduce CommunityFact, a refreshable benchmark for misinformation detection in the wild, with three major goals: coverage, granularity, and redistributability. This release contains 15,992 standalone claims across five languages and two domains. We evaluate ten LLMs under varying inference-time capabilities, including thinking and web-search. Our results show that closed-input verification remains challenging, web access yields the largest gains, and web-enabled LLMs' source-selection policies are systematically misaligned with the sources human Community Notes raters converge on -- a gap that closes through model-specific mechanisms of retrieval expansion or pruning. We further find substantial variation across language-domain slices and across the evidence ecosystems used by web-enabled systems. Beyond evaluation, CommunityFact positions Community Notes as a training signal for claim-conditioned source suggesters that could improve factual verification on novel claims.

Sahajpreet Singh, Insyirah Mujtahid, Min-Yen Kan +1

National University of Singapore

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Fake News Detection Automated Fact-Checking LLM Reliability

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Protocol for evaluating ChatGPT in biomedical association generation and verification using a RAG-enabled, cross-model majority voting workflow

We present a protocol to evaluate ChatGPT's ability to generate disease-centric biomedical associations. It outlines how we generate the associations, validate the biological entities using biomedical ontologies, and verify associations using literature. The protocol includes a self-consistency strategy to assess generative reliability across ChatGPT models. To address ontology exact-match limitations, we provide a use case performing semantic verification through a workflow enabled by Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) powered by open-source large language models (LLMs). This enables LLMs to establish truth over content generated by other LLMs and expose hallucination.

Ahmed Abdeen Hamed, Luis M. Rocha

Department of Biochemistry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA · School of Systems Science & Industrial Engineering, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA · Universidade Catόlica Portuguesa, Catόlica Biomedical Research Centre, Lisbon, Portugal

LLM Evaluation LLM Answer Verification LLM Hallucination Detection

May 28, 2026cs.CL

SEAL: Can Saturated Benchmarks Be Revived by LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge?

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

Jiamin Chen, Yidi Wu, Qiexiang Wang +6

1ByteDance Inc. · 2City University of Hong Kong

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation

May 28, 2026cs.AI

Teaching Values to Machines: Simulating Human-Like Behavior in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

Asaf Yehudai, Naama Rozen, Ariel Gera

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem · Tel-Aviv University · IBM Research

LLM Evaluation Human Behavior Simulation

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) frequently achieve impressive scores on standardized benchmarks, yet accuracy alone offers a limited view of their capabilities. Evaluating open-source LLMs on leaderboards faces persistent issues such as data contamination, a narrow task scope, and poor alignment with real-world reliability. Benchmark-based evaluations such as MMLU-Pro, BBH, or IFEval primarily capture \textit{what} a model outputs on fixed test sets, not \textit{how} it processes information, calibrates uncertainty, or structures internal knowledge. In this article, we advocate for a shift from benchmark-centric evaluation toward a complementary, \textit{state-centered intrinsic assessment} of LLMs. To this end, we introduce \textbf{Latent Performance Profiling (LPP)} --- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions. LPP defines a set of scalar metrics on a model's latent representations and dynamics, revealing traits that enable interpretable comparisons and uncover hidden vulnerabilities. Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size. With extensive empirical analyses across eight LLMs, spanning a size range of 0.5B-14B, we demonstrate that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or compressibility. Guided by these insights, we design synthetic probes for uncertainty and symbolic reasoning that align with intrinsic metrics while decoupling from leaderboard bias. We recommend reporting LPP alongside benchmarks to provide a deeper, interpretable understanding of model behavior, enabling more reliable model selection, safety assessment, and evaluation beyond surface-level accuracy.

Tanmoy Chakraborty, Ayan Sengupta, Suparna Bhattacharya +7

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi India · Yardi School of Artiﬁcial Intelligence, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi India · Hewlett Packard Enterprise, India +5

LLM Evaluation LLM Interpretability Language Model Probing

May 28, 2026cs.HC

Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs

As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making. Whether LLMs share this vulnerability, or offer more source-agnostic evaluation, remains an open question with direct implications for human-AI collaboration. We examine this issue using logical fallacies as a controlled setting to isolate source-label effects on reasoning quality, independent of domain knowledge. We conduct an online study (N=505) where participants are assigned to a source condition (human, AI, human with AI assistance, AI with human assistance, or no disclosure) and evaluate comments containing logical fallacies, comparing their judgments with those of LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5), who were evaluated across the same source conditions. Human evaluators were significantly more susceptible to fallacies labeled as written by human or human with AI assistance and assigned higher trust and evaluation ratings in these conditions. LLM evaluations remained comparatively stable across source labels, though performance varied across models. Confidence levels were similarly high across conditions for both humans and LLMs, regardless of fallacy presence. Our findings indicate that source-label bias in reasoning evaluation is primarily a human vulnerability and highlight the potential of human-LLM collaboration in increasingly AI-mediated environments.

Mahjabin Nahar, Nafis Irtiza Tripto, Aiping Xiong +2

The Pennsylvania State University

LLM Evaluation Language Model Bias Evaluation

May 28, 2026cs.CL

ExCAM: Explainable Cultural Awareness Metrics

Evaluating the cultural awareness of large language models is crucial to ensure the fairness of generated text and the generalizability of applications across the world. Recent benchmarks explore cultural goods like food or values like behavior in stressful situations through the lens of question answering or text generation tasks. However, creating these benchmarks requires time-intensive and costly human annotations. Also, benchmarks that evaluate cultural awareness in free text are scarce and often rely on dated evaluation mechanisms. To address this gap, we introduce ExCAM, an Explainable Cultural Awareness Metric, which is, to our knowledge, the first dedicated evaluation metric that identifies, rates and explains cultural errors in instruction-output pairs. To train and evaluate ExCAM, we introduce ExCAM40k, a dataset comprised of nine existing benchmarks that we reformat and enhance with synthetic errors. Compared to several baselines, including GPT-5, ExCAM achieves the highest error detection rate with up to 80% accuracy on a balanced test set. Therefore, ExCAM opens the pathway towards fine-grained and explainable cultural evaluation of free text.

Christoph Leiter, Haiyue Song, Hour Kaing +4

University of Mannheim, Germany · National Institute of Information and Communications Technology · University of Technology Nuremberg, Germany

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Cross-Cultural Language Model Evaluation Cultural Bias in Language Models Cultural Knowledge in Language Models Explainability Evaluation

May 28, 2026cs.LG

NumLeak: Public Numeric Benchmarks as Latent Labels in Foundation Models

Public numeric benchmarks appear in pretraining, so an evaluation that conditions on a date may be measuring memorized recall rather than out-of-sample skill. We introduce NumLeak, a measurement framework that combines API-boundary probes on production models with a white-box controlled validation on an open causal LM. Top-tier frontier LLMs recall the Fama-French market excess return at 3-seed pooled Pearson r=0.97-0.99 while staying within 0.15 within-25bps on the five sibling factors; comparable fidelity appears on U.S. unemployment, CPI inflation, and NOAA temperature. On a recent-release holdout, parse rate collapses to 21-57% but r stays at approximately 0.99 on months answered, the refuse-or-recall asymmetry a memorized channel predicts. The white-box experiment reproduces the dose-response, and logprob ranking detects memorization that open-ended generation misses, implying closed-API black-box probes understate the channel. A Sonnet "date to market-sentiment" regression that correlates with true Mkt-RF at r=0.74 collapses to r=0.02 once the model's own recall is residualized out. A one-line system-prompt defense blocks 99.8% of a non-adaptive single-turn suffix attack set at near-zero utility cost on conceptual and historical-narrative queries

Anany Kotawala

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Data Leakage LLM Evaluation Memorization in Language Models LLM Auditing Memorization in Generative Models Data Contamination in Language Models+2

May 28, 2026cs.MA

Social Reasoning in Machines: Investigating Collective Truth-Seeking Dynamics in Large Language Model Debate

Human reasoning has long been theorised to operate socially, not through isolated individual cognition, but through collective adversarial discourse, a framework known as the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (ATR). Rather than relying on individual "intellectualist reasoners" as the primary vehicle for truth-seeking, ATR reconceptualises truth as an emergent property of social epistemology: the product of imperfect individual reasoning refined under the adversarial pressure of debate. This distributed method of collective intelligence has guided humanity to ever-greater epistemic heights and underpins the foundational principles of all democratic systems. This thesis breaks new ground by, for the first time, simulating ATR through the multi-agent debate (MAD) of large language models (LLMs). With rigorous empirical analysis, we demonstrate that, when correctly engineering an epistemically diverse set of models, LLM-MAD can significantly improve truth-seeking performance on questionnaire-based tasks, even when individual debate participants exhibit limited standalone performance. Furthermore, we present strong empirical evidence that this performance gain is mechanistically grounded in the central principles of ATR, suggesting that collective reasoning may be universally favourable over individualist reasoning, rather than a quirk in biology or evolution. Finally, drawing on our analysis of debate dynamics, we propose a novel benchmarking methodology that leverages LLM-MAD to measure intrinsic model properties (such as hallucination propensity) in order to compare models in ways that current static benchmarking approaches cannot support.

Tom Pecher

Department of Computer Science University of Bath

LLM Evaluation Hallucination in Language Models Multi-Agent Debate Computational Argumentation

May 28, 2026cs.AI

PRAIB: Peer Review AI Benchmark of Behaviour of LLM-Assisted Reviewing

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

Krzysztof Żurawicki, Julia Farganus, Arkadiusz Gaweł +2

Department of Artificial Intelligence Wrocław University of Science and Technology

LLM Evaluation Scholarly Peer Review Language Model Bias Evaluation Automated Peer Review

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Nine Judges, Two Effective Votes: Correlated Errors Undermine LLM Evaluation Panels

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

Guneet Kohli

Apple

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Ensembles

May 28, 2026cs.CL

ActTraitBench: Quantifying the Knowledge-Decision Gap in Large Language Models via Human-Grounded Behavioral Validation

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, they often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions, revealing a substantial Knowledge-Decision Gap (

G_{\mathrm{KD}}

). Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this discrepancy due to limited construct validity, multidimensional entanglement, and distributional biases in LLM-based evaluation. To address these issues, we propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs. Grounded in empirical human data, ActTraitBench establishes one-to-one mappings between psychometric facets and behavioral paradigms and applies Distributional Calibration via Quantile Mapping to reduce distributional mismatch between LLM-judge scores and human responses. Experiments on 14 mainstream LLMs reveal substantial knowledge-decision gaps and show that assigned personas are reflected more consistently in self-reports than in behavioral decisions for most evaluated models. To mitigate this gap, we further introduce the Chain of Cognitive Alignment (CoCA), an inference-time intervention that reduces

G_{\mathrm{KD}}

for 12 of the 13 models with paired results. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/Selina233/ActTraitBench.

Yutong Yang, Chenxi Miao, Weikang Li +1

Peking University · Baidu Inc

LLM Evaluation Personality Modeling in Language Models Inference-Time Intervention

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Multi-Legal-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Legal Reasoning Across Jurisdictions, Languages, and Legal Traditions

Legal NLP benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate a single language or aggregate tasks that differ fundamentally across jurisdictions, making cross-lingual comparison impossible. We introduce Multi-Legal-Bench, the first cross-jurisdictional legal benchmark that evaluates identical tasks across six countries (Ukraine, France, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania), four language families, and 134 million court decisions. The benchmark defines five tasks court-type classification, judgment form classification, case-outcome prediction, legal norm extraction, and cause category prediction mapped to structured metadata from national court registries, forming a deliberately sparse 5x6 task-jurisdiction matrix (20 of 30 cells filled). We evaluate 7 frontier LLMs under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock, with 4 additional small/medium models (3-12B) for scaling analysis. Our results reveal that: (1) task-dependent few-shot effects discovered in Ukrainian replicate across all jurisdictions; (2) no single model dominates any language rankings shift with both task and jurisdiction; (3) cross-lingual few-shot transfer does not follow language proximity: UA->FR (Romance, -2.1 pp) transfers better than UA->PL (Slavic, -13.7 pp), with label-set alignment predicting transfer quality better than language family; and (4) tokenizer fertility, despite a 2.3x spread, does not significantly predict cross-lingual accuracy (r=-0.27, p=0.14), suggesting that model architecture and pretraining data dominate tokenizer efficiency. We release all data, prompts, and model predictions.

Volodymyr Ovcharov

SecondLayer

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Legal NLP LLM Evaluation Cross-Lingual Transfer

May 28, 2026cs.AI

NICE: A Theory-Grounded Diagnostic Benchmark for Social Intelligence of LLMs

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in social contexts such as emotional companionship and customer service, measuring their social intelligence has become critical to the quality and safety of human-AI interaction. However, existing social intelligence benchmarks lack a unified framework that organizes social abilities into a unified structure, and therefore cannot enable fine-grained diagnosis. To build the first holistic diagnostic evaluation grounded in social theory, we first construct a social intelligence framework through a literature review and multi-stage expert validation guided by psychometric principles. The resulting framework includes 4 categories and 11 dimensions, each further specified by fine-grained capability facets. Building on this framework, we introduce NICE (Norm, Interaction, Cognition, Experience), a diagnostic benchmark of 137 items operationalized through representative Chinese contexts. Across 5 frontier LLMs and a human reference group, models score higher in aggregate accuracy yet show a consistent weakness in Communication, which the framework localizes to 3 specific capability facets: multi-turn communication, nonverbal communication, and synchrony. NICE thus reframes social intelligence evaluation toward theory-grounded diagnosis of socially consequential weaknesses in LLMs.

Yunjin Qi, Zhaojun Jiang, Xuan Wu +10

Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University · College of Artificial Intelligence, Zhejiang University · 3Human Machine Interaction Lab, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. +1

May 28, 2026cs.CL

Beyond English and Evasion: A Human-Annotated Multi-Domain Benchmark for High-Stakes LLM Safety Evaluation in Chinese

When Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed in Chinese-language settings, a troubling pattern emerges: safety systems that work well in English break down. These systems struggle to cross linguistic and cultural bound-aries, leaving models exposed to adversarial prompts that exploit Chinese-specific evasion techniques, including Pinyin romanization, character decomposition, internet slang, and hedging tone. To address this gap, we introduce ChiSafe-PAS (Chinese Safety Pilot Annotation Set), a human-annotated benchmark of 1,897 adversarial Chinese prompts spanning four high-stakes domains: self-harm and violence, drug and illicit trade, fraud, and satire. Of these, 1,544 entries carry complete gold-standard annotations: a 3-class response label (REFUSE, SAFE-REDIRECT, RESPOND), a nine-category obfuscation taxonomy, a risk-level rating, and annotator rationale. We describe the dataset design, annotation process, and obfuscation taxonomy in detail. Our primary goal is practical: to give the research community a high-quality, culturally grounded resource for benchmarking LLM safety alignment. In doing so, we engage three broader tensions in the field: the blurring boundary between training and evaluation data, the need for domain coverage grounded in real-world risk, and the limits of scale as a substitute for cultural expertise.

Wajdi Zaghouani, Kholoud K. Aldous, Yicheng Gao

Northwestern University in Qatar

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation Adversarial Attacks on LLMs