LLM Evaluation

Benchmark datasets are critical for reproducible, reliable, and discriminative evaluation of LLMs. However, recent studies reveal that many benchmark datasets are included in pretraining corpora, i.e., $\textit{contaminated}$, which diminishes their value as reliable measures of model generalization. In this paper, we argue that benchmark datasets should be $\textit{contamination-resistant}$, i.e., $\textit{unlearnable}$, but support $\textit{inference}$. To accomplish this, we first highlight the wide prevalence of benchmark dataset contamination and outline the properties of contamination-resistant datasets. Second, we highlight how the asymmetry between the inference and training pipelines in the Transformer architecture can be leveraged to support contamination-resistance. Third, we outline mathematical advancements to make these datasets interoperable across various LLM architectures. Based on the above, we call on the community to ensure the reliability of LLM benchmarking by: (i) advancing novel contamination-resistant methodologies, (ii) developing supporting methods and platforms, and (iii) adopting contamination-resistant benchmarks into existing evaluation pipelines.

Legal proposition generation is central to legal reasoning and doctrinal scholarship, yet remain under-examined in Legal NLP. This paper investigates the automatic generation and evaluation of legal propositions from decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union using large language models (LLMs). We introduce LP-Eval, a three-step evaluation rubric co-designed with legal experts that decomposes legal proposition quality into formal validity and substantive dimensions. Using this rubric, we release a dataset of two experts' annotations for 100 LLM-generated legal propositions. Our results show that LLMs can generate predominantly well-formed and high-quality propositions, while expert evaluations reveal higher quality for propositions derived from well established cases than from recent ones. We further examine LLMs as evaluators and find that rubric-guided LLM judgments align more closely with expert assessments than direct overall scoring, but remain insensitive to finer-grained distinctions captured by human experts.

Mathematical reasoning is essential for problem-solving in education, science, and industry, serving as a crucial benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence systems. As Large Language Models (LLMs) improve their reasoning capabilities, understanding how well they perform mathematical reasoning has become increasingly important. This survey synthesizes recent advancements in mathematical reasoning with LLMs through a structured analysis of datasets, architectures, training strategies, and evaluation protocols. Our systematic review encompasses approximately 120 peer-reviewed studies and preprints, examining the evolution of this research area and providing a unified analytical framework to understand current progress and limitations. Our study particularly introduces a unified taxonomy of mathematical datasets, distinguishing between pretraining corpora, supervised fine-tuning resources, and evaluation benchmarks across varying levels of reasoning complexity. A systematic analysis of reasoning architectures and training strategies, including tool integration, verifier-guided reasoning, and parameter-efficient adaptation, is presented to assess their effects on reasoning robustness and generalization. Moreover, a comparative evaluation of existing metrics highlights the gap between final-answer accuracy and process-level reasoning verification. By synthesizing insights across these areas, our analysis identifies recurring failure modes, such as reasoning faithfulness issues, benchmark biases, and generalization limitations, and outlines key research directions toward improving symbolic grounding, evaluation reliability, and the development of more robust and trustworthy LLM-based reasoning systems.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have shown their remarkable capacities in many NLP tasks. However, their substantial size often presents challenges for deployment. This necessitates efficient techniques for model compression, with quantization emerging as a prominent solution. Despite its benefits, the exact impact of quantization (from 2- to 6-bit) on the performance and accuracy of LLMs remains an active area of research. This paper investigates the performance of eight LLMs at various quantization levels, focusing on tasks such as MMLU-Pro for knowledge processing and reasoning, CRUXEval for code comprehension, and MuSR for reading comprehension. Our results show a consistent trend where higher precision (e.g., 8-bit Q8_0) yields improved performance, albeit with diminishing returns. Aggressive quantization (e.g., 2-bit Q2_K) usually retains acceptable accuracy, though some models show a substantial loss in performance. Our findings indicate that while lower bit precision generally reduces performance, the impact varies across models and tasks. Larger models show greater resilience to aggressive quantization, but can still undergo significant drops at lower precision levels. Mid-sized models in the 7-9 billion parameter range strike an optimal balance between efficiency and resource usage. Such results provide insights into the trade-offs between model size, quantization, and performance.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on natural-language logical reasoning is essential because rule-governed tasks require conclusions to follow strictly from stated premises. Many existing logical-reasoning benchmarks are generated by templating natural-language items from sampled formulas, provide only coarse or unaudited formal annotations, and are now quickly saturated by frontier reasoning models. We present LLMEval-Logic, a Chinese logical reasoning benchmark built from realistic situational scenarios. Its pipeline forward-authors and expert-audits natural-language items together with their reference formalizations, verifies annotated answers with Z3, constructs expert rubrics for natural-to-formal grading, and hardens selected items through a closed-loop adversarial workflow. The benchmark is released in two paired subsets: a 246-item Base subset shipped with 1,400 expert-developed rubric atoms, and a 190-item Hard subset with 938 multi-step sub-questions over closed model spaces. Evaluating 14 frontier LLMs on LLMEval-Logic reveals substantial gaps in current models: the best model reaches only 37.5% Hard Item Accuracy, and even with reference symbols the highest joint Z3+Rubric formalization score among evaluated models reaches only 60.16%. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Logic.

Tree of Thought (ToT) search has become a promising direction for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models, but deploying these methods in practice raises a question that has received little systematic attention: how do different search strategies behave under varying compute budgets, model sizes, and problem difficulties? In this work, we evaluate two representative ToT methods; DPTS, a Monte Carlo tree search based approach, and SSDP, a semantic deduplication based approach, across two mathematical reasoning benchmarks (Math500 and GSM8K), two model scales (Llama-3B and Llama-8B), and four token budgets (3k--10k). Our analysis reveals that the two methods exhibit limitations that pull in opposite directions. DPTS suffers from a cold-start bottleneck at low budgets: it requires sufficient exploration before its value estimates become reliable, making it a poor fit for resource-constrained settings despite strong scaling behavior at higher budgets. SSDP, on the other hand, reaches candidate solutions efficiently but is prone to frontier depletion; its aggressive node merging permanently discards unexplored paths, leaving it unable to improve regardless of how much budget remains. Together, these findings suggest that neither a fixed exploration strategy nor a fixed pruning strategy is sufficient across compute continuum. We argue that effective search for scientific reasoning agents requires strategies that can adapt their behavior based on search progress and available resources.

Progress in LLMs is increasingly measured through standardized benchmarks, where state-of-the-art improvements are often separated by fractions of a percentage point. At the same time, the computational cost of evaluating modern LLMs has driven widespread adoption of specialized inference backends, software systems that execute trained models efficiently at inference time. While critical for scalability, system-level optimizations, such as custom CUDA kernels and reduced-precision arithmetic, can alter token probabilities and introduce non-determinism, possibly cascading into divergent generation. In this work, we first survey the inference landscape, identifying 200 distinct engines, and analyze 35,000 ML publications, finding that the specific inference stack is rarely reported despite this widespread diversity. We then present a systematic empirical study of how inference backends affect LLM benchmark results. Holding model weights, decoding parameters, and hardware constant, we evaluate five widely used inference engines, including vLLM, SGLang, and llama$.$cpp, across multiple open-weight models and established benchmarks. We show that the choice of backend alone can shift benchmark scores by up to 16.6 percentage points and induce high rates of output disagreement. By isolating backend optimizations and tracing the execution pipeline, we find this divergence is driven by system-level optimizations like prefix caching and CUDA graphs, custom kernels, and engine-specific defaults in logit processing. Our findings identify the inference backend as a previously unreported but consequential hyperparameter in the evaluation of LLM and advocate standardized reporting of inference stacks to improve the reproducibility and interpretability of benchmark comparisons.

When the same LLM generates assessment items, simulates student responses, and scores them, the validation loop is self-referential. We introduce Generative-Evaluative Agreement (GEA), a validity criterion measuring whether an LLM's scoring function recovers the skill levels its generative function was instructed to produce. In the first direct measurement of GEA on a two-stage adaptive assessment, the model recovers roughly half the intended variance r = 0.698 with systematic positive bias. GEA is strong r > 0.7 for syntactically verifiable skills but near zero for design-level skills, and low-skill overestimation inflates scores near the routing threshold. We argue that granular, skill-decomposed rubrics are the principal proposed mechanism for strengthening GEA and outline complementary mitigations.

Generating Knowledge Graphs (KGs) remains one of the most time-consuming and labor-intensive tasks for knowledge engineers, as they need to identify semantic equivalences between input data sources and ontology terms. While declarative solutions (e.g., RML, SPARQL-Anything) have helped to generalize this process, aligning input schema elements with ontology terms still involves intricate transformations and requires considerable manual effort. With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is growing interest in leveraging their capabilities to assist KG engineers. Although some studies have explored using LLMs to automate KG construction, there is still no standardized framework for assessing how effectively they establish correspondences between data schemes and ontology concepts. Therefore, in this paper, we propose BLINKG, a benchmark designed to evaluate the mapping capabilities of LLMs in constructing KGs from heterogeneous data sources. The benchmark includes a set of scenarios with increasing complexity, based on real-world use cases. We conduct an extensive experimental evaluation of several stateof-the-art LLMs using BLINK and observe that they already offer promising solutions. However, their performance remains limited in complex scenarios. Thanks to this benchmark, we can already assess the current capabilities of LLMs for KG construction. Additionally, we define a set of requirements for achieving (semi)automated (LLM-driven) KG construction, opening new research lines in this area.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to scientific research, yet existing evaluations often fail to reflect the fine-grained capabilities required in practice. Most benchmarks are manually curated or domain-generic, limiting scalability and alignment with real scientific use cases. In this paper, we propose a new framework named SciCustom to address the problem. It enables the custom construction of benchmarks from large-scale scientific data to evaluate application-specific scientific capabilities in LLMs. SciCustom first organizes scientific knowledge into ontology-grounded knowledge units with controlled granularity and trains a tagger to map large-scale data instances into this knowledge space. Given a custom requirement, relevant knowledge units are identified via voting-based multi-model consensus. These units enable relevance-aware benchmark retrieval via binary search, followed by proxy subset selection and data-grounded benchmark generation for efficient evaluation. Experiments in chemistry and healthcare demonstrate that SciCustom reveals fine-grained differences in LLM scientific capabilities that standard benchmarks overlook, while requiring neither expert annotation nor synthetic question generation. This work provides a scalable and application-aware foundation for benchmarking scientific capabilities in LLMs. The source code is available at https://github.com/yjwtheonly/SciCustom.

Hallucination remains a central failure mode of large language models, but existing benchmarks operationalize it inconsistently across summarization, question answering, retrieval-augmented generation, and agentic interaction. This fragmentation makes it unclear whether a mitigation that works in one setting reduces hallucinations across contexts. Current benchmarks either require human annotation and fixed references that may be memorized, or rely on observations in settings that are difficult to reproduce. To study root causes, we introduce HalluWorld, an extensible benchmark grounded in an explicit reference-world formulation: a model hallucinates when it produces an observable claim that is false with respect to this world. Building on this view, we construct synthetic and semi-synthetic environments in which the reference world is fully specified, the model's view is controlled, and hallucination labels are generated automatically. HalluWorld spans gridworlds, chess, and realistic terminal tasks, enabling controlled variation of world complexity, observability, temporal change, and source-conflict policy, and disentangling hallucinations into fine-grained error categories. We evaluate frontier and open-weight language models across these settings and find consistent patterns: perceptual hallucination on directly observed information is near-solved for frontier models, while multi-step state tracking and causal forward simulation remain difficult and are not generally solved by extended thinking. In the terminal setting, models also struggle with when to abstain. The uneven profile of failures across probe types and domains suggests that hallucinations arise from distinct failure modes rather than a single capability. Our results suggest that controlled reference worlds offer a scalable and reproducible path toward measuring and reducing hallucinations in modern language models.

In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence has undergone a paradigm shift from task-specific small-scale models to general-purpose large language models (LLMs). With the rapid iteration of LLMs, objective, quantitative, and comprehensive evaluation of their capabilities has become a critical link in advancing technological development. Currently, the mainstream static benchmark dataset-based evaluation methods face challenges such as the diversity of task types, inconsistent evaluation criteria, and fragmentation of data and processing workflows, making it difficult to efficiently conduct cross-domain and large-scale model evaluation. To address the aforementioned issues, this paper proposes and open-sources OpenCompass, a one-stop, scalable, and high-concurrency-supported general-purpose LLM evaluation platform. Adhering to the design philosophy of modularization and component decoupling, the platform boasts three core advantages: high compatibility, flexibility, and high concurrency. The core architecture of OpenCompass comprises five key components: the Configuration System, Task Partitioning Module, Execution and Scheduling Module, Task Execution Unit, and Result Visualization Module. Its workflow provides rule-based, LLM-as-a-Judge, and cascaded evaluators to adapt to the requirements of different task scenarios. Supporting mainstream benchmark datasets across multiple domains, including knowledge, reasoning, computation, science, language, code, etc., the platform offers a unified and efficient LLM evaluation tool for both academia and industry, facilitating the accurate identification of strengths and weaknesses of LLMs as well as their subsequent optimization.

Survey research faces mounting structural challenges: declining response rates, sample bias, block-wise missingness among at-risk respondents, and AI-assisted fraudulent completions in online panels. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as a remedy, yet rigorous evaluations across the full survey workflow remain scarce, particularly in disaster contexts where data quality matters most. We present and evaluate a five-stage framework for LLM integration covering questionnaire design, sample selection, pilot testing, missing-data imputation, and post-collection analysis, using the 2024 Hurricane Milton preparedness survey of Florida residents (n=946) as a shared empirical testbed. We introduce a Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-constrained co-occurrence knowledge graph and develop seven LLM configurations spanning zero-shot inference, retrieval-augmented baselines, and novel theory-informed variants. Our proposed Anchored Marginal Theory-Informed LLM (A-TLM) outperforms all three classical imputation baselines (IPW/MI, MICE+PMM, missForest) on RMSE under disaster-relevant block-wise MNAR conditions (S4 RMSE 1.439 vs. 1.496 for the next-best), while achieving near-zero signed bias (-0.121) where the random-forest imputer produces the largest absolute bias (-0.631). Organizing retrieval around PMT causal structure and integrating all evidence in a single model call outperforms unstructured retrieval and staged sequential inference (MAE 0.993 vs. 1.097 for standard RAG). We document that near-zero aggregate bias can mask opposing subgroup errors and propose subgroup-stratified bias auditing as a reporting standard. A retrieval-constrained knowledge-graph chatbot demonstrates that hallucination is architecturally manageable through grounded refusal.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is widely regarded as the primary safeguard for deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains. However, we argue that the field suffers from a category error: mainstream UQ methods for LLMs are just unsupervised clustering algorithms. We demonstrate that most current approaches inherently quantify the internal consistency of the model's generations rather than their external correctness. Consequently, current methods are fundamentally blind to factual reality and fail to detect ``confident hallucinations,'' where models exhibit high confidence in stable but incorrect answers. Therefore, the current UQ methods may create a deceptive sense of safety when deploying the models with uncertainty. In detail, we identify three critical pathologies resulting from this dependence on internal state: a hyperparameter sensitivity crisis that renders deployment unsafe, an internal evaluation cycle that conflates stability with truth, and a fundamental lack of ground truth that forces reliance on unstable proxy metrics to evaluate uncertainty. To resolve this impasse, we advocate for a paradigm shift to UQ and outline a roadmap for the research community to adopt better evaluation metrics and settings, implement mechanism changes for native uncertainty, and anchor verification in objective truth, ensuring that model confidence serves as a reliable proxy for reality.

While scaling laws govern aggregate large language model performance, no scaling law has linked factual recall to both model size and training-data composition. We evaluated 38 models on over 8,900 scholarly references evaluated by an automated reference verification system. Recall quality follows a sigmoid in the log-linear combination of model parameter count and topic representation in training data. These two variables alone explain 60% of the variance across 16 dense models from four families, rising to 74-94% within individual families. The form matches a superposition-inspired account in which recall is gated by a signal-to-noise ratio: signal strength scales with concept frequency and the noise floor with model capacity.

As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring (median 6 independently judged criteria). A balanced public--private split provides built-in contamination diagnostic. We calibrate a continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model over >200k prompt-response pairs across 28 models, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors or missing data, addressing a common challenge in benchmark reporting. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 test-configurations (unique model, thinking-level pairs), and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection. We release the evaluation framework, calibrated IRT parameters, and all public problems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as scientific AI as- sistants, and a growing body of benchmarks evaluates their capabilities across knowledge retrieval, reasoning, code generation, and tool use. These evaluations, however, typically assume the scientific problem is already well-posed, whereas practical scientific assistance often begins with an ill-posed user request that must be refined through dialogue before any computation, analysis, or experiment can be carried out reliably. We introduce SCICONVBENCH, a benchmark for multi- turn clarification in scientific task formulation across four computational science problem domains: fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and par- tial differential equations (PDEs). SCICONVBENCH targets two complementary capabilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and detecting and correcting erroneous requests containing internally contradictory information (in- consistency resolution). Our benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric-based evaluation framework, enabling systematic measurement of LLM per- formance across three dimensions: clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final-specification fidelity. Current frontier models perform relatively well on inconsistency resolution, but even the best model resolves only 52.7% of the disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics. We further find that frontier LLMs fre- quently make silent assumptions and perform implicit specification repairs that are not grounded in the conversation with users. SCICONVBENCH establishes a foundation for evaluating the upstream conversational reasoning that a reliable computational science assistant requires. The code and data can be found at https://github.com/csml-rpi/SciConvBench.

Progress in language model development is often driven by comparative decisions: which architecture to adopt, which pretraining corpus to use, or which training recipe to apply. Making these decisions well requires reliable performance forecasts, yet the two commonly used signals are fundamentally limited. Cross-entropy loss is poorly aligned with downstream capabilities, and direct downstream evaluation is expensive, sparse, and often uninformative at early training stages. Instead, we propose to construct proxy metrics by aggregating token-level statistics, such as entropy, top-k accuracy, and expert token rank, from a candidate model's next token distribution over expert-written solutions. Across three settings, our proxies consistently outperform loss- and compute-based baselines: 1) For cross-family model selection, they rank a heterogeneous population of reasoning models with mean Spearman Rho = 0.81 (vs. Rho = 0.36 for cross-entropy loss); 2) For pretraining data selection, they reliably rank 25 candidate corpora for a target model at roughly $10{,}000\times$ less compute than direct evaluation, pushing the Pareto frontier beyond existing methods; and 3) for training-time forecasting, they extrapolate downstream accuracy across an $18\times$ compute horizon with roughly half the error of existing alternatives. Together, these results suggest that expert trajectories are a broadly useful source of signal for assessing model capabilities, enabling reliable performance forecasting throughout the model development life cycle.

Accurate estimates of item difficulty are essential for valid assessment and effective adaptive learning. However, for newly created tasks, response data are typically unavailable. Pretesting and expert judgement can be costly and slow, while machine learning methods often require large labelled training datasets. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) may help. However, there is limited evidence on the elicitation procedures and prompt configurations used to emulate experts for difficulty estimation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating three off-the-shelf LLMs as difficulty raters for newly created items without access to response data. Using an item bank from an online learning system, the study examined 6 domains of primary-school mathematics, with empirical difficulty estimates treated as empirical reference. The study used a full factorial design crossing three factors: judgement format (absolute vs pairwise), decision type (hard decisions vs token-probability-based estimates), and prompting strategy (zero-shot vs few-shot). LLM-derived difficulty estimates were compared with empirical difficulties using Spearman rank correlations. Across domains, LLM-based estimates exhibited moderate to strong positive correlations with empirical item difficulties. For simpler arithmetic tasks, some configurations approached the upper end of the accuracy range reported for human experts in previous research. Pairwise comparison consistently outperformed absolute judgement in the absence of additional refinements. However, when token-level probabilities were incorporated and examples of items with known empirical difficulty were provided, the absolute judgement configuration likewise demonstrated moderate-to-high alignment. The study positions LLMs as a promising tool for initial item calibration and offers insights into effective workflow configuration.

We introduce an extensive qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning (QSTR) benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs). We pose questions concerning compositional reasoning (using composition tables, CT), converse relations, and conceptual neighbourhoods (CN) for QSTR calculi, Point Algebra (PA), Allen's Interval Algebra, Interval and Duration (INDU), Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5, RCC-8, and RCC-22), the nine intersection model, cardinal direction calculus, and STAR. The RCC-22 CN is published here for the first time. An extended benchmark systematically varies question presentation including prefix/infix, words/symbols/nonce terms and schematic descriptions for selected calculi. We report results for contemporary frontier models. All models tested perform better than guessing but none can consistently answer all questions correctly. Performance varies sharply by calculus, with PA being the most straightforward, and RCC-22 the most difficult. We release the benchmark, and our results under an open licence to facilitate further assessment of qualitative spatio/temporal reasoning in LLMs.

Presupposition projection in conditionals is central to theories of meaning and pragmatics, yet it remains largely unevaluated in large language models. We address this gap through a parallel behavioral study comparing human judgments and LLM predictions on a normed dataset of conditional sentences that controls the relation between the antecedent and the projected presupposition. We collect likelihood ratings from 120 participants and four LLMs under matched contextual conditions. Results show that humans integrate probabilistic and pragmatic cues in their judgment, whereas LLMs show variable alignment with human patterns. Using a linguistically motivated checklist within an LLM-as-a-Judge framework, we further evaluate model reasoning. We observe models that best match human ratings often lack coherent pragmatic reasoning, while models with stronger reasoning produce less human-like judgments. These findings suggest that LLMs' performance on such tasks may result from surface pattern matching rather than pragmatic competence. Our findings highlight the importance of benchmarks grounded in linguistic theory for comparing humans and models.

While Large Language Models have achieved remarkable integration in various vertical scenarios, their deployment in the telecommunications domain remains exploratory due to the lack of a standardized evaluation framework. Current telecom benchmarks primarily focus on static, foundational knowledge and isolated atomic skills, neglecting the equipment-specific documentation and end-to-end industrial workflows essential for real-world production systems. To bridge this gap, we present TeleCom-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 12 evaluation sets with 22,678 curated samples, which evaluates LLMs across a synergistic hierarchy: (1) Multi-dimensional Knowledge Comprehension, which integrates telecommunication fundamentals, 3GPP protocols, and 5G network architecture with proprietary product knowledge across wired, core, and wireless networks via knowledge graph-driven synthesis; and (2)End-to-End Knowledge Application, which formalizes six core tasks on authentic trajectories from live network agent workflows, including intent recognition, entity extraction, event verification, tool invocation, root cause analysis, and solution generation-across network optimization and fault maintenance scenarios. Evaluations of eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a universal Execution Wall: while models achieve 90% accuracy in linguistic interface tasks such as intent recognition and entity extraction, performance collapses to approximately 30% in procedural execution tasks like solution generation. This capability gap demonstrates that current LLMs function competently as diagnosticians but fail as field engineers. TeleCom-Bench provides standardized diagnostics to precisely pinpoint this deficit, offering actionable guidance for domain-specific alignment toward production-ready telecom agents. The dataset and evaluation code have been released at https://github.com/ZTE-AICloud/TeleCom-Bench.

Prompt compression reduces inference cost and context length in large language models, but prior evaluations focus mainly on autoregressive architectures. This study examines whether LLMLingua-2 transfers effectively to diffusion large language models (DLLMs), specifically LLaDA-8B-Instruct. We evaluate GSM8K, DUC2004, and ShareGPT using 250 prompts per dataset at an approximate 50% compression ratio, covering mathematical reasoning, prompt reconstruction, and summarization. Outputs from original, compressed, and reconstructed prompts are compared using exact-match accuracy, BLEU, ROUGE, and BERTScore. Results show that high semantic preservation does not necessarily ensure stable downstream behavior in diffusion models. Summarization remains relatively robust, while mathematical reasoning degrades substantially despite high semantic similarity. Reconstruction further shows that semantically similar prompts may omit reasoning-critical information needed for stable denoising. Overall, compression failures are mainly driven by information omission rather than semantic drift, suggesting that autoregressive prompt compression methods may not transfer uniformly to DLLMs. These findings motivate diffusion-aware compression strategies.

Automating the classification of negative treatment in legal precedent is a critical yet nuanced NLP task where misclassification carries significant risk. To address the shortcomings of standard accuracy, this paper introduces a more robust evaluation framework. We benchmark modern Large Language Models on a new, expert-annotated dataset of 239 real-world legal citations and propose a novel Average Severity Error metric to better measure the practical impact of classification errors. Our experiments reveal a performance split. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest accuracy on a high-level classification task (79.1%), while OpenAI's GPT-5-mini was the top performer on the more complex fine-grained schema (67.7%). This work establishes a crucial baseline, provides a new context-rich dataset, and introduces an evaluation metric tailored to the demands of this complex legal reasoning task.

Recent work has fine-tuned language models on chess data and reported high benchmark scores as evidence that the resulting models can understand the rules of chess, play full chess games at a professional level, or generate human-readable explanations grounded in expert knowledge. We train KinGPT, a 25M-parameter character-level language model trained only on (position, best-move) pairs, who exceeds 3B-parameter ChessGPT on a 600-puzzle mate-in-N suite and 4B-parameter C1-4B over a 20-theme puzzle benchmark. We examine several claims made in existing literature regarding chess-trained language models and assert that their impressive benchmark performance is largely explained by pattern-matching. We also demonstrate how LLM-Modulo, a verifier-in-the-loop framework, raises RedPajama 3B's best move accuracy from 1.2% to 21.2% and move generation validity from 19.3% to 95.3% on mate-in-N chess puzzles, comparable to gains achieved from ChessGPT's fine-tuning on chess-specific web corpora at a fraction of the cost. Our results illustrate how pairing a general LLM with an external verifier offers a more flexible alternative to directly training on synthetic data for well-defined domains. We open source all training/evaluation code, datasets, puzzle samples, and KinGPT model checkpoints for reproducibility.

Large language model (LLM) self-correction -- the ability to detect and fix errors in generated outputs -- remains largely ad hoc, relying on generic prompts such as "please reconsider your answer" without systematic error analysis or convergence guarantees. We propose CyberCorrect, a framework that formalizes LLM self-correction as a closed-loop control system grounded in cybernetic theory. The framework models the LLM generator as the plant and introduces a tri-modal Error Detector (combining self-consistency, verbalized confidence, and logic-chain verification) as the sensor. A type-directed Correction Controller generates targeted repair instructions based on diagnosed error categories, while a Convergence Judge determines iteration termination using stability criteria adapted from control theory. We further introduce three control-theoretic evaluation metrics -- convergence rate, overshoot rate, and oscillation rate -- that capture correction dynamics beyond final accuracy. Experiments on our constructed CyberCorrect-Bench (440 reasoning tasks with annotated error types and correction paths) show that CyberCorrect achieves 79.8% final accuracy, improving upon the best existing self-correction method by 6.2 percentage points, while reducing overshoot (erroneous over-correction) by 41% through its convergence control mechanism.

Abstract reasoning ability reflects the intelligence and generalization capacity of LLMs to extract and apply abstract rules. However, accurately measuring this ability remains challenging: existing benchmarks either rely on expensive manual annotation, limiting their scale, or risk measuring memorization rather than genuine reasoning. To address this, we introduce an automated pipeline named A2RBench, encompassing generation, expansion, evaluation, and analysis. Specifically, in the generation stage, LLMs create diverse tasks demanding genuine reasoning; in the expansion stage, LLMs reuse validated rules and expand new input spaces to generate task variations, achieving scaling. However, such a process may cause hallucinations. To eliminate it, we further establish a theoretical framework and prove that programmatic verification--testing whether the inverse operation perfectly reverses the forward operation (cycle consistency)--guarantees a unique solution. Through extensive evaluations on mainstream LLMs, we find: (1) Current LLMs exhibit fundamental deficiencies in abstract reasoning, with top models significantly underperforming humans on a representative subset (39.8% vs. 68.5%). (2) Current LLMs fall far short of 2D and 1D in the complexity of generated 3D tasks, revealing their lack of understanding of high-dimensional tasks. (3) Counterintuitively, inputs with higher information complexity can simplify the reasoning process.

Emotion understanding is a core capability for LLMs to interact effectively with humans, yet existing evaluation paradigms rely on discrete emotion label prediction and fail to capture the cognitive processes underlying emotion generation. Grounded in appraisal theory, we introduce CAREBench, the first benchmark with complete inferential chain annotations from both first- and third-person perspectives on real-world narratives, spanning appraisal reasoning, appraisal ratings, and multi-label emotion annotation. We propose a process-level evaluation framework and conduct systematic experiments across six LLMs organized around four research questions. We find that stronger models match or surpass human observers on certain tasks, yet fall short on appraisal reasoning and positive emotion recognition; performance across chain steps and sensitivity to appraisal interventions exhibit dissociations across models; and current models have not internalized the mechanisms needed to capture human subjective heterogeneity. These findings suggest that downstream emotion prediction metrics may overestimate LLMs' true emotion understanding, and CAREBench provides a foundation for more diagnostically informative evaluation of LLMs' affective cognitive capabilities.

Query clustering organizes queries into groups that reflect shared latent capability demands, enabling capability-aware LLM evaluation. Existing clustering methods, which primarily rely on semantic taxonomies or embeddings, often fail to capture such latent capability requirements due to a misalignment between surface-level semantics and actual model performance. We propose ECC, an algorithm that calibrates prior semantic embeddings using limited posterior model comparisons to bridge the gap between surface-level semantics and latent capability requirements. ECC characterizes each cluster through a capability profile parameterized by a Bradley-Terry model and uses trainable mixture weights to accommodate queries with mixed capability demands, jointly learning a flexible, capability-aware clustering structure that supports query-specific inference of LLM capabilities. Extensive quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrate that ECC significantly improves LLM capability ranking quality, outperforming human-labeled and embedding-based baselines by an average of 17.64 and 18.02 percentage points, respectively, and proves effective in downstream tasks such as query routing.

LLMs are increasingly used as ``digital consumers'' to simulate public opinion, pre-test marketing decisions, and anticipate audience response. However, existing evaluations rarely ask whether a model can reconstruct the concrete reaction patterns that real consumers surface in public discourse. We introduce ConsumerSimBench, a benchmark built from 1,553 real Chinese social-media topics and 23,122 atomic, rule-audited criteria spanning four reaction families. Rather than scoring open-ended generations with a holistic preference judge, ConsumerSimBench decomposes each task into auditable yes-no decisions over concrete reaction points, raising three-judge agreement from 65.8% to 92.1% with 98.4% agreement between pointwise judge decisions and human-majority labels. Across 13 frontier generators, the strongest model, Gemini-3.1-Pro, covers only 47.8% of real reaction criteria, while GPT-5.2 and Claude-4.6 trail far behind despite their strength on technical benchmarks. The failures reveal a sharp gap between technical-benchmark performance and socially grounded consumer intuition. A direct structured reasoning prompt decreases coverage, while a generate--reflect multi-agent pipeline improves MiMo-V2.5-Pro from 32.9% to 37.6% on a subset. ConsumerSimBench reframes consumer simulation as a forecasting problem over real public-discourse reactions, showing that frontier LLMs remain far from reliably predicting what consumers will actually care about in high-context Chinese consumer discourse.