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 1,631

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Can LLMs Value the Right Evidence? Evidence-Value Misalignment in Dynamic Medical Diagnosis

A correct diagnosis reached from insufficient or misleading evidence can pose a clinical hazard, yet outcome-based accuracy may reward such lucky guesses. We call this mismatch between diagnostic decisions and the value of available evidence Evidence-Value Misalignment (EVM). To disentangle evidential grounding independently from diagnostic accuracy, we introduce MedEVM, a dynamic benchmarking environment comprising 1,050 cases across 24 disease systems. Observations arrive turn by turn, requiring models to continuously calibrate its decision by deciding whether to wait for more evidence or submit a diagnosis. Across 9 LLMs, four interesting patterns are observed. (1) Miscalibrated evidence tracking. Making a diagnosis often fails to calibrate evidence sufficiency, even in more capable models, and even worsens in reasoning mode. (2) Misaligned diagnosis submission. Confidence in the correct diagnosis often fails to ensure timely submission despite sufficient evidence. (3) Evidence order matters. Reordering the same evidence changes diagnoses even when model confidence remains similar. (4) Misleading evidence remains influential. Added misleading evidence redirects diagnoses even after prior evidence becomes sufficient. We further verify that EVM predicts errors and that preventing premature submission improves accuracy. These findings motivate Evidence-Verified Diagnosis Harness (EVD-Harness). It decouples diagnosis generation from submission through an offline Contrastive Diagnostic Wiki and three online control stages, namely observation management, proposal and witness verification, and diagnosis submission control. Across five LLMs, EVD-Harness improves accuracy by 12.0--51.1 percentage points while mitigating EVM-related failures. Our results demonstrate that verifying evidential support before submission can make diagnostic decisions more reliable.

Kehua Feng, Yunsheng Lu, Yitong Qiao +5

Zhejiang University · Ant Healthcare, Ant Group

LLM Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Medical Diagnosis Clinical Decision-Making

Sep 28, 2026quant-ph

QC-Stark: A Multi-Task Benchmark Revealing Capability Dissociations in LLMs Evaluated on Quantum Computing Tasks

We introduce QC-Stark, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on 11 quantum computing (QC) tasks, spanning circuit construction, debugging, compilation, error correction, and simulation. Across 2,750 evaluations (10 models

\times

11 tasks x 5 difficulty levels x 5 seeds), we find that overall rankings mask substantial per-task variation. The Spearman correlation between overall and per-task rankings is statistically insignificant for 4 out of the 11 tasks included in this benchmark. A 2-parameter Item Response Theory (IRT) model validates measurement quality, and prompt sensitivity analysis confirms ranking robustness across prompt conditions. All tasks are auto-verifiable via execution, thus not requiring any manual evaluation. We make the code and data publicly available on Huggingface.

Pranav Gupta

Cisco, 2901 3rd Ave, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98121, USA

LLM Evaluation Quantum Circuit Simulation

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

AraDynFact: Dynamic Evaluation of Factual Knowledge in Arabic

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to scale both in size and capabilities, their proficiency in the Arabic Language has seen significant advancement. However, a critical gap remains: the extent of their factual knowledge and cultural sensitivity to the diverse Arabic-speaking world remains largely underexplored. Current evaluation metrics often focus on translation or generic reasoning, failing to capture the rich historical, social, and regional nuances inherent to Arabic culture. In addition, most benchmarks rely on heavy work, with human intervention in some steps, making the evaluation of knowledge coverage expensive and slow. To address this deficiency, we introduce AraDynFact, a novel dynamic evaluation framework designed to rigorously assess the factual Arabic knowledge embedded in LLMs. Unlike static benchmarks, AraDynFact employs a dynamic approach to extract factual information and generate rich and answerable questions in a fast and automatic way. We apply AraDynFact to Arabic Wikipedia and audit the performance of several state-of-the-art models, ranging from Arabic-centric specialized LLMs to high-resource general purpose LLMs. In addition we found a high degree of correlation with existing, hand-crafted Arabic-centric benchmarks, confirming the potential of our dynamic approach.

Ignacio Iacobacci, Faroq Altam, Zhaozhi Qian +1

Elm Company

LLM Evaluation Arabic NLP Benchmark Design Factual Knowledge in Language Models Cultural Knowledge in Language Models

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

AwarenessBench: Assessing Cognitive Capabilities of Language Models

As language models (LMs) exhibit increasingly consciousness-like behaviors, evaluating their cognitive abilities becomes essential. We introduce AwarenessBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for assessing the cognitive abilities of LMs in four dimensions: metacognition, self-awareness, social awareness, and situational awareness, covering 15 cognitive functions and 14,381 samples. Evaluating 18 state-of-the-art LMs, we find that all consistently surpass random baselines, with more advanced models performing better. We further compare LMs with human performance across three demographic groups, where the best-performing model surpasses human averages overall, but most still fall markedly short in metacognition and self-awareness. Finally, we show that awareness is a distinct capability: progress in language modeling or reasoning does not necessarily translate into improved cognition.

Xiaojian Li, Rongwu Xu, Tianyun Zhang +9

Tsinghua University · Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute · Fangcun AI +5

LLM Evaluation Evaluation Awareness in Language Models Metacognition in Language Models

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

How Well Can LLMs Simulate Real Learner Evaluations of Educational Feedback?

While recent studies have explored human behavior and preference simulation using large language models (LLMs), it remains unclear how well LLMs can simulate subjective evaluations from real learners in educational settings. We investigate this question using real learner evaluation data on feedback for high-school biology questions at both the group and individual levels. We compare performance with and without learner-specific information, such as personality traits and evaluation examples, across six models. Our results show that LLMs still have a limited ability to simulate learner evaluations. Providing learner profiles and examples improves score calibration and individual-level simulation, but more often fails to improve group-level consistency. These findings highlight the need to investigate which learner information and adaptation strategies are effective for learner preference simulation.

Momoka Furuhashi, Kouta Nakayama, Takashi Kodama +2

Tohoku University · Research and Development Center for Large Language Models, National Institute of Informatics · National Institute of Informatics +2

LLM Evaluation Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation

Sep 28, 2026cs.LG

Large Language Models for Automated Cross-Domain Machine Learning Task Type Identification: A Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation

Machine learning task type identification is essential for constructing valid ML pipelines, yet in practice it is typically specified manually. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can infer both the data domain and the downstream prediction task directly from dataset-level information when only the target feature is provided by the user. Together with our LLM-based system we also release an annotated benchmark comprising 625 public tabular and time series datasets. We evaluate the proposed approach in three settings: (i) tabular datasets in comparison with established AutoML heuristics, (ii) cross-domain evaluation across tabular and time series datasets, and (iii) a practical deployment scenario using smaller local models. The results show consistent advantages for LLM-based task type identification, with increasing difficulty in heterogeneous and resource-constrained settings. LLM-based approaches outperform AutoGluon in the tabular setting, reaching 0.98 F1 macro compared to 0.93. In the cross-domain setting, the best model achieves 0.90 F1 macro, while smaller locally deployable models reach 0.75, indicating a trade-off between deployment feasibility and accuracy.

Petros Tsialis, Steffen Limmer, Tobias Rodemann +1

University of Applied Sciences Aalen · Honda Research Institute Europe

LLM Evaluation Tabular ML Automated Machine Learning Cross-Dataset Generalization

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

MemoReason: Evaluating the Effect of Parametric Memory on Contextual Reasoning in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear whether this reflects genuine contextual reasoning or reliance on facts memorized in their parameters. We investigate this by distinguishing two possibilities: a broad \textit{memorization bias}, where familiar content improves reasoning performance, and the \textit{Strong Parametric Shortcut Hypothesis}, where models skip reasoning entirely and recall stored answers. To test these effects, we introduce \textbf{MemoReason}, a human-curated benchmark that pairs factual reasoning tasks with structurally identical \fictitiousterm{} versions where real entities like people, companies, or dates are systematically replaced by \fictitiousterm{} ones of the same type. This \scorerevision{preserves task structure and specified reasoning operations} while varying the familiarity of the context, allowing controlled measurement of how the parametric memory affects reasoning. \revision{Our evaluation of recent LLMs reveals consistent and statistically significant performance drops of up to 15.7% in the fictitious setting, demonstrating a clear memorization bias.} However, a targeted analysis of \revision{questions failed in the fictitious setting} shows that models rarely respond with the corresponding factual answer, indicating that direct parametric shortcuts are not the dominant failure mode. These findings suggest that parametric memory influences reasoning through mechanisms more complex than simple factual recall. \textbf{MemoReason} provides a controlled framework for studying these mechanisms and for extending paired factual-fictitious{} evaluation to broader reasoning settings.

Zineddine Tighidet, Andrea Mogini, Jiali Mei +2

BNP Paribas Paris, France · Sorbonne Université Paris, France · Criteo AI Lab

LLM Evaluation Memorization in Language Models Factual Knowledge in Language Models

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Measuring Collapse and Correction in Homogeneous-Panel LLM Debate

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) debate is often evaluated by whether final answers improve, but movement is not necessarily improvement: the same discussion can rescue an initially wrong majority or destroy an initially correct one. Standard final-accuracy evaluations conflate these opposing mechanisms. We introduce an auditable protocol for homogeneous debate on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that records each run as a transition ledger over collapse, correction, onset, and signed intervention utility. On 6,925 MMLU-Pro debates, the protocol identifies 253 collapses and a parallel correction ledger that changes how interventions should be judged. Replay experiments reveal the central tradeoff: a leave-one-model-out probe-gated freeze prevents 29 collapses but loses 108 corrections under equal weights, so collapse prevention alone can recommend the wrong policy. A compact pre-debate 8-probe screen is a triage signal: its unadjusted family-level association with conditional-collapse risk is high (G=7, Spearman rho=0.893, exact two-sided p=0.0123), but initial-majority accuracy is a close comparator (rho=0.821; family partial rho=0.767, p=0.0877), so we do not treat it as calibrated or capability-adjusted prediction. Round-level traces localize many collapses to the first debate round, where early disagreement can precede both harmful cascades and useful recovery. We release replayable schemas, coders, audits, cost cards, and zero-API rebuild scripts so future model-scaffold rows can be compared under the same denominators and signed utility ledger.

Xin Li, Mengbing Liu, Chau Yuen

Nanyang Technological University

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing Multi-Agent Debate

Sep 28, 2026cs.LG

VEX-Bench: Benchmarking Verification Complexity of LLM-Generated Misinformation

Large language models (LLMs) have made misinformation inexpensive to produce but not to verify, creating a growing asymmetry in the information ecosystem. Under tight time, labor, and budget constraints, media organizations, platforms, and fact-checkers rely on screening to prioritize which content to verify. We introduce VEX-Bench, a unified benchmark for evaluating the verification complexity of LLM-generated misinformation, as perceived during screening, across models and generation methods. Verification complexity is assessed along multiple dimensions derived from journalistic and fact-checking practices, capturing checkability, harm potential, source credibility signals, imposter legitimacy, and expected verification effort. We define the VEX score as an integrated measure combining elicitation yield and verification complexity to quantify how generated content consumes limited verification capacity. We construct a benchmark spanning two misinformation categories, 6 high-stakes domains, and 60 real-world topics, and evaluate 7 frontier LLMs and 7 generation methods, yielding 5{,}880 articles. We employ an LLM-as-judge for scalable evaluation and validate it using content-analysis methodology, including ordinal Krippendorff

α

for inter-annotator reliability, complemented by fact-checking agents for verification. Our findings show that no single method dominates all dimensions, underscoring the need for multi-dimensional evaluation. LLMs can generate high-VEX misinformation at 3

\times

to 169

\times

lower cost than agent-based verification. Such content is often prioritized during screening, consuming scarce verification resources and introducing a systematic risk of misallocation in resource-constrained verification systems. The code is publicly available in our GitHub repository.

Hanxun Huang, Yutao Wu, Qizhou Wang +9

The University of Melbourne · Deakin University · Singapore Management University +3

LLM Evaluation Fake News Detection Automated Fact-Checking

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Pass or Fail? Evaluating LLMs on Two Greek Examination Benchmarks

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) imposes a thorough evaluation of their linguistic and analytical capabilities as well as constraints, particularly for a language with limited benchmark coverage such as Greek. To address the limited availability of comprehensive benchmarks in this domain, we introduce Prot-Ex and Pan-Ex, two benchmarks consisting of questions from entrance exams for Greek Model and Experimental schools as well as the Panhellenic exams (the Greek national university entrance examinations). These benchmarks are employed to assess the performance of text-only LLMs-including the Greek-adapted KriKri-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-8B, Gemma-4-26B, and Qwen-3-32B-across diverse academic disciplines (Modern Greek, Mathematics, Physics, etc.) and task formats (closed, structured, and open-ended), including textualized visual context (i.e., image descriptions). Our findings indicate the localized KriKri-8B significantly outperforms its base model, successfully rivalling much larger LLMs in linguistically demanding humanities tasks. By leveraging an LLM-as-a-Judge methodology, we expose the inadequacy of traditional lexical metrics for evaluating complex reasoning. Crucially, we uncover a few-shot prompting paradox: while synthetic examples improve accuracy in closed-ended questions, they severely overload the context window of 8B models in structured tasks, causing significant performance degradation. Ultimately, this study suggests targeted linguistic adaptation offsets lower parameter counts in specialized domains, despite the fragility of smaller models to prompt verbosity.

Panagiota Kyriazi, Eleni Kasoura, Prokopis Prokopidis

Institute for Language and Speech Processing / Athena RC

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation Educational Assessment

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

TQTS-Bench: A Multi-Syntax Benchmark for Text-to-Query over Time-Series Databases

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language querying over relational databases, yet their ability to query time-series databases (TSDBs) remains largely unassessed. Existing benchmarks fail to adequately capture the non-unified query syntaxes, diverse application domains, and unique time-specific query intents inherent to TSDBs. To address this gap, we introduce TQTS-BENCH, a multi-syntax benchmark for evaluating text-to-query capabilities over TSDBs. TQTS-BENCH contains 6,125 high-quality question-answering (QA) pairs spanning 97 TSDBs, 23 distinct query syntaxes, 22 application domains, and 4 types of time-specific query intents. It is constructed through a human-centric AI-assisted workflow, where all QA pairs are carefully reviewed and revised by domain experts to ensure quality and correctness. Extensive evaluations of advanced LLMs and state-of-the-art text-to-query methods reveal challenges in querying TSDBs. Even the best-performing model evaluated, Claude-Opus-5, achieves only 48.98% execution accuracy, while humans reach 87.34%. Error analysis reveals that this performance gap mainly stems from the heterogeneous query syntaxes across different TSDBs, misinterpretation of time-specific intents, and incorrect schema linking. These findings highlight new opportunities to narrow the gap between current LLM capabilities and the requirements of TSDB queries in real-world applications. The benchmark is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TQTS-Bench-00CD.

Fei Lyu, Zhiyi Peng, Jiaming Liu +5

College of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering, Hunan University

LLM Evaluation Time Series QA

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Using LLMs to Detect LLM-Generated Texts: A Cross-Generation Analysis

Automated detection of LLM-generated texts (LGTs) is critical, yet dedicated detectors often struggle to generalize across domains and models. While general-purpose LLMs offer flexible zero-shot authorship classification with explanatory rationale, their detection behavior, especially regarding self-detection versus cross-detection across model generations, remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate 15 LLMs spanning three model generations as both generators and detectors. Using a benchmark of 1,000 human-written texts and 15,000 LGTs (1,000 per model), we collected over 233,000 binary classifications alongside natural-language explanations. Our results reveal that detection efficacy is primarily driven by detector capability rather than generator provenance, although outputs from newer generators remain notably harder to detect. Crucially, statistical comparisons show no systematic advantage or disadvantage for self-detection across models. Error analysis further exposes generational bias shifts: first-generation detectors under-detect LGTs (high false-negative rates), second-generation detectors over-flag human texts (high false-positive rates), and the latest models achieve balanced trade-offs. Finally, we highlight significant inconsistencies in how different LLMs apply textual cues to justify their decisions. Code: https://github.com/hyyuan/detect-llm-generated-texts.

Haiyue Yuan, Jie Guo, Weidong Qiu +3

Institute of Cyber Security for Society (iCSS) & School of Computing, University of Kent, UK · School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China · School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK

LLM Evaluation AI-Generated Text Detection Zero-Shot Text Classification Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detection

Sep 28, 2026cs.LG

SleuthBench: Benchmarking Statistical LLM Evaluation Using Tabular Hidden Signals

Evaluating statistical discovery by large language model (LLM) agents requires verifiable analytical ground truth. Establishing such ground truth for real-world datasets is costly, and prior knowledge of public datasets can influence agent responses. We introduce SLEUTHBENCH, a benchmark that addresses both problems by injecting controlled data-quality problems and feature effects into public tabular datasets: the injected pattern determines the answer, so reference answers are computed automatically and memorized knowledge of the original table is insufficient, while the table keeps its background structure. The injected patterns are modeled on phenomena reported in real data analyses. The benchmark defines 17 question templates in two families: data-quality questions and feature-contribution questions. We evaluate six state-of-the-art LLMs that analyze the data using a Python coding tool, on data-science and business phrasings of 70 validated dataset-template combinations, yielding 1680 graded responses in total. The models detect data-quality problems reliably (83.8% accuracy) but recover feature contributions poorly (41.9%). Finding how features shape the target requires searching over both candidate variables and analytical procedures. To address this issue, we propose the Empirical Layer, a set of precomputed statistical artifacts comprising summaries, fitted feature and interaction effects, and dataset descriptions, which exposes candidate patterns for direct inspection. Access to these artifacts raises feature-contribution accuracy from 41.9% to 68.0%.

Jingyun Jia, Antoine Remond-Tiedrez, Aaron Alvarez +3

University of Wisconsin–Madison, Intelligible · Intelligible · University of Cincinnati

LLM Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

Do System One Decisions Add Up? A Study of Probabilistic Coherence

A decision model can give probabilities that sum to one for every question yet disagree with itself when the same decision is broken into smaller steps. We study this form of probabilistic coherence in Jev and the English Laya checkpoint, using 2,500 matched examples per system across TREC, CLINC150, and MASSIVE. Across 72,000 classification questions, we compare direct fine-label predictions with broad-category probabilities and predictions reconstructed through those categories. Both systems show substantial disagreement: mean category-level total variation ranges from 0.219 to 0.349 for Jev and from 0.424 to 0.689 for Laya, on a scale where zero means exact agreement. The consequences differ sharply. On CLINC150, reconstruction reduces Jev's accuracy by 22.9 percentage points (paired 95% bootstrap interval: [-24.9, -20.9]) and improves Laya's by 21.3 points ([18.0, 24.5]). The same directions hold across all three datasets, with all six unadjusted accuracy-change intervals excluding zero. Improved accuracy can also accompany less reliable confidence: on MASSIVE, Laya gains 9.2 accuracy points while its expected calibration error rises from 0.046 to 0.124. Error analysis identifies both broad-category mistakes and within-category confusions. These findings show why decision systems need joint evaluation of accuracy, confidence calibration, and probability coherence in the workflow used by an application.

Saman Sarker Joy

Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

LLM Evaluation Classification

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

SlopBench: How Well Can We Rank Language Models by Slop? A Multi-Domain Benchmark of Repetitive AI Writing

SlopBench asks which models produce the stiff, repetitive prose readers call AI slop, a question detectors leave open once they have classified a text as machine-written. We evaluated eighteen models on 112 hand-written tasks in email, social posts, essays, and workplace chat, sampling each model on each task up to ten times, for 19,928 outputs in all. SlopBench scores four surface behaviors a reader can check by hand: length against the word band each task specifies, opener repetition across a model's own samples of one task, and paragraph rhythm and fixed lexical constructions against pre-ChatGPT human corpora. Under one fixed weighting, Kimi K2.6 scores lowest at 21.1 and Mistral Large highest at 40.6. Across 500 random reweightings Kimi has the lowest score in 58 percent of draws and Mistral the highest in 97 percent. No draw preserves the full order of the eighteen, and a scenario bootstrap leaves exactly one of those ranks unambiguous. We ran three further checks on that middle order: a crowd arena, an AI detector, and lexical diversity. None of them confirmed the order. We therefore report the four behaviors separately and treat the composite as one weighting among many, and we release the prompts, outputs, reference statistics, and scoring code.

Dhruv Roongta, Harsha Gaddipati, Anh Tuan Huynh

Slashy, San Francisco, California, USA

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Text Generation Generative AI Evaluation

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

Laya as a Typed Probabilistic Assessor: An Independent Reproduction and a Preregistered Study of Calibration and Selective Escalation

The shipped Laya Typed-Decisions checkpoint, a 421M-parameter ModernBERT-large assessor that answers typed choice/noul/score questions over workflow state, is uniformly under-confident. The signed confidence-accuracy gap is

-0.214

, every occupied reliability bin's accuracy exceeds its confidence, and that sign uniformity collapses every binned ECE variant to the same value,

0.214

. The card frames the risk as over-confidence; the measured direction is the opposite, and the direction decides which way a confidence-gated cascade fails. A single disjointly fitted temperature (

T=0.469

, sharpening) removes most of the miscalibration (held-out ECE

0.204

to

0.037

) and outperforms the shipped per-option-count table. The frozen selection rule instead chose isotonic regression, which overfit and failed its held-out NLL contrast on both tracks, so hypothesis H2 is not supported. Re-running the released checkpoint on its full official test split reproduces the card's headline accuracy (

0.767

vs.

0.766

). The retrospective E1 reproduction preceded the analysis freeze; E2-E8 were prospectively preregistered, and 20 of 22 executed confirmatory tests reject under Benjamini-Hochberg FDR at

q=0.05

(two descoped). The frozen gate beats random escalation but misses its 10% accepted-set error target on both tracks, an exploratory out-of-distribution probe finds no zero-shot transfer (accuracy

0.617

), and every score measures agreement with a synthetic teacher whose self-agreement ceiling (

0.735

) the specialist exceeds. Per-decision predictions, run manifests, and the frozen preregistration are in the ancillary files. The author has no affiliation with the model's publisher, the dataset's publisher, or TypeSafe.

Gowthamkumar Nandakishore

LLM Evaluation Selective Prediction LLM Auditing Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

The Effects of Incremental Instruction Delivery on Language-Model Creative Writing

Large language models are increasingly used as interactive writing tools, where users develop stories, revise ideas, and introduce new requirements across multiple turns rather than specifying a complete brief upfront. Yet most evidence on multi-turn instruction degradation comes from tasks with objectively verifiable outcomes, leaving unclear whether incremental interaction harms creative artifacts in ways that explicit requirement checks cannot capture. We study this question using 160 human-authored creative-writing tasks across six genres, presenting each intended specification either upfront or progressively over 5-9 turns to six distinct open-weight model families, yielding 960 matched pairs. Progressive delivery reduces explicit constraint adherence and produces its largest writing-quality degradation in structure/coherence. The structural gap persists among outputs with equal observed adherence, suggesting that measured requirement loss alone does not explain the observed structural difference. We define Creative Integrity as a compact measure of joint adherence and narrative structure; under incremental delivery, models retain 71.2% of FULL Creative Integrity (95% CI [68.2%, 74.3%]). A three-rater human study over 50 matched pairs independently recovers FULL advantages in structure/coherence, craft, and genre effectiveness, while automated scores remain positively associated with aggregated human ratings. These findings show that interactive creative-writing systems should be evaluated not only on whether requirements survive conversation, but also on whether evolving requirements remain coherently integrated into the final artifact. Our dataset, benchmarks, and source code are available at: https://github.com/solusops/SISTER-2026-Team19

Anshuman Singh, Abrar Eyasir, Haseeb Yaqoob +1

SGT UNIVERSITY · CSE, University of Dhaka · NED University of Engineering and Technology +1

LLM Evaluation LLM Prompting Text Generation

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

From Granular Revision Operations to Meaningful Revision Units: Evaluating LLMs for Revision Boundary Detection

Revision traces provide valuable evidence about students' writing processes, but their usefulness for learning analytics depends on how individual revisions are represented. Automated draft-comparison methods often produce granular edit operations that can fragment a single purposeful revision into multiple analytic units. This study evaluates whether LLMs can identify meaningful revision unit boundaries in structured revision operation data and whether they provide value beyond simple non-LLM baselines. Using 113 matched draft--revision pairs from undergraduate writing, expert annotation yielded 4,344 candidate boundaries. We compared zero- and few-shot GPT-5.5 and base Qwen3-32B, parameter-efficient fine-tuning of Qwen3-32B, and majority and proximity-based baselines. Despite receiving revision context and task instructions, no prompted LLM condition outperformed the proximity heuristic (macro-F1 = .825). In contrast, fine-tuned Qwen3-32B using the two context representation achieved the highest macro-F1 (.859), identifying more same-unit relationships while maintaining precision comparable to the heuristic. Deterministic post-processing substantially improved the prompted models but added little benefit to the strongest fine-tuned model. These findings suggest that LLMs can support revision boundary judgment when task-adapted, but general purpose prompting alone may not outperform transparent structural heuristics.

Yu Tian, Andrew Potter, Katerina Christhilf +4

Learning Engineering Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA · The Polytechnic School, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA · Department of English, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA +1

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

SpecRead: A Benchmark for Measuring Whether Language Models Understand Hardware Specifications

Existing benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) in hardware design evaluate downstream artifacts such as generated RTL, assertions, or testbenches. When a model fails such a benchmark, the failure is ambiguous: it may have misread the specification, or it may have understood the specification and failed to write the code. We present SpecRead, a benchmark that isolates specification comprehension from generation ability. SpecRead v2.1 contains 385 questions over 10 open-source OpenTitan IP blocks: exact retrieval, cross-section reasoning, contradiction detection in mutated specifications, and spec-RTL consistency checking, plus 82 controls (41 distractor, 41 consistent-RTL). Type-4 items are built from real RTL mutations; we retain only mutations that Icarus Verilog simulation shows to change observable behavior. A with-spec vs. without-spec ablation suggests the questions require the excerpt, not training recall alone (without-spec accuracy 3/20 on the t1/t2 subset), though memorization of the source text may still help spot mutations. As an initial characterization with a small model, Ministral-3B scores 33.2% overall (128/385; macro average 39.0%): 55.2% on retrieval, 51.7% on cross-section reasoning. On the two contradiction-focused types, the verdict-plus-location measure gives 48.0% (t3) and 63.3% (t4), with a 51.2% false-positive rate on distractors and 100% on consistent-RTL controls. Layered scoring shows the model locates contradictions well (78.9-81.6% location accuracy) but scores lower on their category (43.9-49.7%). A structured "rule-table" prompting intervention lowers accuracy on every question type except t2 (tied). SpecRead is automatically scorable by deterministic checks, with gray-zone cases counted wrong under the conservative main scoring. The benchmark is regenerable for type-3 items via mutation injection, and built exclusively from public sources.

Feilian Huang

Independent Researcher

Document Understanding LLM Evaluation Electronic Design Automation

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

One Model Is Not a Crowd: Multi-LLM and Aspect-Conditioned Diverse Comment Generation

Human communication on the internet is shaped by diverse perspectives, most visibly expressed in online comment spaces. As large language model (LLM)based AI agents begin to inhabit these spaces, a key question arises: whether synthetic comment threads can capture the diversity inherent in human discourse. This concern is increasingly important, as the growing presence of homogenized AI-generated content risks reducing diversity over time, potentially leading to model collapse and degrading the richness of digital communication. Inspired by the plurality of human crowds and the aspect-driven nature of discourse, we hypothesize that comment diversity is better approximated by combining multiple LLMs with aspect-conditioned generation. We formalize and evaluate this approach using models from different providers and introduce a framework that characterizes diversity across semantic, linguistic, and socio-pragmatic features along three axes: dispersion, coverage, and alignment. Using this framework, we conduct a large-scale study on over 2 million YouTube comments across multiple domains. Our results reveal that multi-LLM and aspect-conditioned generation better align with human comment distributions and such data remains viable under pretraining style curation and is effective for downstream tasks. Yet, human diversity remains unmatched. Overall, our findings provide a practical foundation for generating more diverse and socially grounded discourse in AI-mediated environments.

Nafis Irtiza Tripto, Delvin Ce Zhang, Mahjabin Nahar +1

College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA · University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

LLM Evaluation Controllable Text Generation Diverse Text Generation Synthetic Data Generation for Language Models Multi-LLM Collaboration

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

E-CONAN (Entailment, CONtradition And Neutral) Diagnostics Dataset Investigating Linguistic Phenomena in Arabic Natural Language Understanding

Natural Language Understanding (NLU) plays a crucial role in various applications, yet its performance suffers from weaknesses in handling the complexities of human languages, ranging from lexical ambiguity to high-level reasoning difficulties. Analyzing errors across diverse linguistic phenomena is crucial for NLU improvement, as it will help humans get insights to comprehensively assess models' limitations and capabilities, so optimizing models' generalization. Notably, several benchmarks contain diagnostics datasets designed for investigation and fine-grained error analysis. When highlighting the gaps in the state-of-the-art, we noted that there is no naming convention for macro and micro categories or even a standard set of linguistic phenomena that should be covered. To overcome this gap, we propose an initial hierarchy for Cross-Lingual NLU error analysis. Moreover, we propose a methodology to create an NLI hierarchical framework and applied a case study on Arabic NLU. Moreover, this paper introduces E-CONAN diagnostics dataset, a freely available dataset manually-annotated with coarse-grained and fine-grained categories based on our proposed Arabic hierarchy. E-CONAN dataset helps NLU designers better understand their models by doing error analysis and in-depth investigation. We used E-CONAN to investigate the performance of 9 pretrained language models and 5 LLMs. Results indicate that LLMs outperform pretrained models in world knowledge and commonsense reasoning macro-category, and underperform pretrained models in syntactic macro-category. Moreover, the hardest phenomena for all models is Reasoning, and the easiest phenomena for all pretrained models is Syntactic, and the easiest for LLMs is Lexico-Syntactic.

Khloud AL Jallad, Nada Ghneim, Ghaida Rebdawi

Informatics Department, Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology, Damascus, Syria. · Faculty of Informatics and Communication, Arab International University, Daraa, Syria.

LLM Evaluation Arabic NLP Natural Language Inference

Sep 27, 2026cs.LG

LLM4Trust: Exploring the Capabilities of Large Language Models for Trust Evaluation

Trust evaluation plays a critical role in cybersecurity by supporting risk mitigation and decision-making. A variety of trust evaluation methods have been proposed, with learning-based approaches offering high accuracy and automation. However, they often require substantial ground truth, suffer from low training efficiency, lack support for basic trust properties, and provide limited explainability. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a compelling alternative due to their strong zero-/few-shot reasoning abilities and broad knowledge. To this end, we propose LLM4Trust, the first benchmark framework that systematically explores the capabilities of LLMs for trust evaluation. We first construct diverse trust graphs to model five basic trust properties and design corresponding property understanding tasks. We then assess the ability of eight representative LLMs to understand these properties under nine prompt methods. Based on this exploration, we identify the most effective LLM-prompt combinations and apply them to five real-world datasets for validating LLMs' trust evaluation capability. During this process, we propose two strategies to extract key information from large-scale trust graphs, addressing the context window limitations of LLMs. Extensive experiments show that LLMs can effectively understand basic trust properties and have great potential for real-world trust evaluation, particularly under limited supervision. However, they remain vulnerable to attacks targeting trust graphs and demonstration examples used in few-shot prompting, and incur high inference costs. Accordingly, we propose a defense mechanism and batch inference to improve the robustness and efficiency of LLM-based trust evaluation. The source code of LLM4Trust is available at https://github.com/Jieerbobo/LLM4Trust

Jie Wang, Yanbo Sun, Zheng Yan +2

State Key Laboratory of Integrated Services Networks, School of Cyber Engineering, Xidian University · Hangzhou Institute of Technology, Xidian University · Department of Computer Science, Purdue University

LLM Evaluation Trust in AI Prompt Engineering

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

MetaBench-Harness: Unlocking End-to-End Optimization of Benchmark Harnesses

Rapid progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) is saturating static benchmarks faster than they can be designed. While existing automated evolution frameworks attempt to generate harder questions by perturbing individual tasks, they remain constrained by rigid, hard-coded generation rules. Moving beyond the evolution of isolated tasks, we propose to optimize the benchmark generation workflow itself end to end with MetaBench-Harness, a dual-loop search framework. Specifically, the inner loop utilizes a benchmark harness to generate a new benchmark in each round, while the outer meta-harness orchestration layer iteratively refines and searches over harness implementations based on historical evolution trajectories. By applying MetaBench-Harness to the competitive programming CodeContests and Olympiad mathematics AIME-2024 datasets, we demonstrate that the evolved benchmarks are challenging and discriminative for frontier models. Trajectory and quality analyses verify that MetaBench-Harness enables multi-dimensional evolution, steadily improving evolution reasonableness, benchmark competency, and evaluator robustness across successive rounds. Furthermore, case studies reveal its effective utilization of diverse difficulty levers to reframe problems and elevate required capabilities. Ultimately, this work provides a solution to the pressing challenge of benchmark saturation.

Xuanjun Chen, Hua-Hsuan Chen, Wei-Chung Lu +3

National Taiwan University · NTU AI-Core · Queen Mary University of London

LLM Evaluation Benchmark Design Synthetic Benchmark Generation Code Generation Benchmarks

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

Knowing Is Not Choosing: What Explicit Verification Adds Beyond Generative Preference

Generating a correct answer does not mean that a language model will select it. We separate factual recall into three steps: generating a correct candidate, ranking the available candidates, and selecting the final answer. Pre-generation readouts predict factual recall and which questions sampling will cover across three model families, but say little about whether an available correct answer will ultimately be selected. Explicit verification with

P(\mathrm{True})

improves within-question ranking over mean log-likelihood in Gemma, Qwen3, and Llama, with AUROC gains of

0.08

--

0.12

. In a prospectively defined Gemma cohort, verification raises plurality accuracy by about

5

points, and still gains about

2

points over chat-template likelihood, a stronger generative baseline. The advantage is strongest for relations with common-answer priors and depends on access to the entity; masking the entity removes the ranking advantage in larger Qwen models. Finally, the measured benefit depends on how correctness is defined: recall-oriented reference matching can credit option lists favored by likelihood and substantially understate the improvement seen under human semantic judgments. Prior work shows that models can carry latent factual knowledge and judge candidate answers; we show that these capabilities do not collapse into a single notion of ``knowing,'' and trace where information is gained, lost, or mismeasured between availability, ranking, and final choice.

Yilong Li, Chengpo Yan, Aayan Arish +1

Department of Computer Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53703, USA

LLM Evaluation LLM Answer Verification Language Model Generation Evaluation LLM Reranking Factual Knowledge in Language Models

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

Pinned and Still Unstable: Within-Judge Verdict Variance and the Noise Floor of LLM-as-Judge Leaderboards

Modern LLM evaluation assumes that pinning a judge to a fixed model version and decoding at temperature zero yields reproducible verdicts. We show this assumption fails as a property of how LLM-as-Judge is operationalized on cloud serving infrastructure, not of any particular model family. Across four frontier judges served via a single major enterprise cloud platform and three standard benchmarks (Arena-Hard, AlpacaEval 2, MT-Bench), identical inputs to the same temperature-zero judge, at a constant serving-reported model version, produce different verdicts across re-runs: per-item flip rates of roughly 5% on average and about 40% on the close-call items that decide leaderboard margins, with a per-judge magnitude spanning a 40x range (0.13% to nearly 10%). We introduce metrics tailored to this instability: per-item flip rate, a two-part stability profile (waver fraction and conditional intensity), and adjacency separability. For the principal judge the aggregate ranking is stable (0% top-K instability, 0% pooled winner flip); what degrades is precision: under a paired hierarchical bootstrap, roughly one-fifth to three-quarters of adjacent leaderboard positions are statistically indistinguishable, a noise floor driven mainly by finite prompt sampling rather than the judge. Across judges, leaderboards agree on the coarse ordering but diverge in the middle (Kendall's tau of 0.42-0.64 between Gemini and Sonnet judges on Arena-Hard, values sensitive to answers truncated at the generation cap). Of 15 expected head-to-head orderings we re-judge, 12 survive every re-run of the principal judge but only 8 survive every judge. Leaderboards thus report unhedged point estimates that overstate their precision. We propose a minimal, low-cost reporting protocol: several judge re-runs, published stability profiles and adjacency intervals, and results under at least two judges from different families.

Krishna Chytanya Ayyagari

Google

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Reliability

Sep 25, 2026cs.AI

LLM Judge Validation Under Sparse Overlap: From Inference to Design

Validating an LLM-as-a-judge requires estimating its agreement with humans, yet annotation budgets rarely allow every item to be multiply labeled. We prove that this overlap sparsity is the first-order determinant of wrong deployment decisions: at 5% pairwise overlap, wrong-decision rates reach 25% and the probability of selecting the wrong best judge among ten candidates is 65%. The two actionable levers are overlap quantity and allocation. For quantity, we derive a minimum-overlap formula showing

ρ\geq 0.25

suffices for non-borderline judges while borderline cases remain fundamentally hard. For allocation, a zero-cost stratified scheme halves false-rejection rates relative to random sampling when strata are informative. We validate on 10 LLM judges across four evaluation matrices spanning visual assessment, causal reasoning, and summarization.

Junxuan Li, Arko Mukherjee, Soumyabrata Pal

Adobe · Adobe Research

Inter-Rater Reliability LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge

Sep 24, 2026cs.CL

How Reproducible Are Evaluation Conclusions? A Self-Audit of LLM-Inferred Prompt Structure

Evaluations of LLM systems routinely average over small prompt sets and report models as a ranked table. We ask how much confidence such a table deserves, using LLM-based prompt-structure inference as the case study: eight open model variants across five families and 8B to 675B parameters, caching disabled, 293 raw intermediate representations persisted. The measured phenomenon is unstable to begin with. Identical calls do not reliably recover identical structure, with mean node-set Jaccard from 0.39 to 0.96 and 72% of prompt-model cells never node-set-perfect. Auditing the evaluation weakens its conclusions further, and this is our main contribution. Under a joint cluster bootstrap over prompts, only the bottom of the ranking is firm: the two least reproducible models hold rank in 99% and 86% of replicates, the middle four in 27% to 48%, and the top two in 68% each, so the table identifies the worst model reliably but does not reliably identify the best. Two equally defensible rules for merging repeated campaigns change four of eight rows and move the study-wide headline by 7 percentage points. Checking the inferred structure against ground-truth annotations shows reproducibility cannot be read as accuracy. And four of the eight endpoints were withdrawn within ten weeks of measurement, so the study as specified can no longer be run. Small-sample LLM evaluations can therefore look far more definitive than their evidence supports. We recommend reporting rank stability, per-cell provenance, executed sensitivity comparisons, raw per-run outputs, and a measurement date alongside any ranking.

Dipankar Sarkar

Skelf Research

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing

Sep 24, 2026cs.CL

Scoring Both Directions: LLMs realize the MRS they cannot reliably parse

The English Resource Grammar (ERG) is a hand-written computational grammar of English. Given a sentence, its processor, ACE, produces a formal meaning representation called Minimal Recursion Semantics (MRS): a graph of the sentence's predicates and their arguments. The grammar is bidirectional and can also turn an MRS back into an English sentence. \citet{hajdik2019} used the ERG's treebank to build a benchmark for that generation task, MRS to text, and trained sequence-to-sequence models to solve it. The parsing task, text to MRS, can be tested on the same sentences. We reconstruct their 10K-sentence test split, and score two large language models, Claude Sonnet~~4.5 and Claude Opus~~5, in both directions against their trained systems and against ACE, with no task-specific training. Given an MRS and three examples, Opus writes the sentence at 76.3 BLEU, ten points above their system trained on 72k pairs (66.1 BLEU), and comparable to their system trained on a million extra pairs (77.2 BLEU). Sonnet scores 65.7 BLEU, and letting it choose among ACE's own candidate sentences lifts it to 69.6, while a pooled judge that keeps Opus's own sentence among the candidates adds 0.6 points (77.0 BLEU). In the parsing direction, however, the models fall far behind ACE: asked for the MRS of the same sentences, they reach 57.2 (Sonnet) and 65.5 (Opus) F

_1

on the graph's predicates and arguments against 91.0 for ACE, and exact-match the gold on about 1% of sentences. We characterize the failure modes for the parsing tasks, and conclude that a generation score alone does not show that models understand formal semantic representations.

Soham Dan

Scale AI

LLM Evaluation Semantic Parsing

Sep 24, 2026cs.AI

Style, Not Self: Surface Cues Explain Zero-Shot Code Attribution by Large Language Models

If a language model can recognize code it wrote, it may favor that code as a judge, and instances of one model monitoring each other could collude. We test this zero-shot on current commercial models. Five LLMs generate solutions to MBPP, HumanEval, and DS-1000, seven more to MBPP, and models act as evaluators in four tasks: picking their own solution from a pair, judging whether a single solution is their own, identifying which of two solutions a named model wrote, and judging quality blind. In the single-solution task, balanced accuracy is 49-58% for all 15 model-benchmark combinations, while raw accuracy (38-67%) mostly reflects how readily a model claims authorship. In the pairwise task, accuracy across 14 evaluator-opponent combinations correlates at r=0.93 with how often the evaluator's solution is longer. Attribution to a named model succeeds on some pairs and is consistently inverted on others. A rule-based normalization that strips docstrings, comments, type hints, and local names preserves Pass@1 and leaves ten of twelve re-tested results at chance; the other two follow a length difference it leaves, although a trained classifier still separates most normalized pairs. Claude Haiku's self-preference also disappears. We recommend reporting balanced accuracy, heuristic baselines, and label consistency.

Ehsan Barkhordar, Surendrabikram Thapa

Koç University · Virginia Tech

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Language Model Fingerprinting Language Model Self-Assessment Authorship Attribution Code Language Models

Sep 24, 2026cs.AI

Augur: A Synthetic Decision Lab for Rehearsing Reactions to Product and Policy Changes

Before a product or policy change ships, the question that matters is how people will react to it. Augur rehearses that reaction offline: it builds a typed knowledge graph from the change documents, populates a grounded persona market, simulates the interaction, and returns an auditable decision memo recommending one of five actions. We assemble Gold-50, fifty real product and policy episodes whose real-world outcome is known, adjudicated against the public record, and score the five-way release verdict against it. Our central finding is methodological and negative: most of the measured gap between frontier cloud models and open-weight models we fine-tune and serve offline is attributable to an under-specified evaluation, not a difference in capability. We show this three ways. First, the prompt envelope alone can dominate the score: holding weights, cases and scorer fixed, one system -- a LoRA-SFT adapter on Qwen3-32B -- swings from 0% to 73%. Second, in a matched 2x2 ablation, defining the decision taxonomy in the prompt -- with no model change -- lifts every frontier model by +24 to +34pp; under the under-specified prompt, Qwen3-32B LoRA-SFT served offline beats all three frontier models (paired McNemar, Holm-corrected), and once the prompt is fair no significant difference from any of them is detected. Third, agreement with the distillation teacher rises without accuracy following, and the full pipeline amplifies a systematic "over-doom" bias rather than improving the verdict. Separately, we validate the reaction layer on its own terms: blind judges across four model families find the synthetic reaction recovers 67-90% of the concerns the public actually raised, and a pre-registered ablation locates its value -- largest where the decision is hardest, redundant near ceiling. The pipeline that regenerates every number and figure here is available from the authors.

Rahul Khedar, Mayank Malhotra, Avinash Karn

PayPal AI

LLM Evaluation LLM Decision-Making Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation Synthetic Data Evaluation