LLM Evaluation

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

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

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 1,643

May 6, 2026cs.CL

Paraphrase-Induced Output-Mode Collapse: When LLMs Break Character Under Semantically Equivalent Inputs

When the substantive content of a request is rewritten, do large language models still answer in the format the original task asked for? We find that they often do not, even at temperature zero. On a 150-query evaluation over five compact 2025-era LLMs and four task types, we observe a systematic failure mode we call prompt-variant output-mode collapse: when a closed-form prompt asks for a bare label or a single choice token, content-preserving prompt variants can push the model into conversational prose, the requested format dissolves, and exact-match evaluation pipelines silently misjudge the result. To make this measurable, we release PARACONSIST, a 900-prompt benchmark of 150 base queries with five lexical, syntactic, and semantic-expansion prompt variants each, and a Semantic Consistency Score that decomposes prompt-variant robustness into answer consistency, sentence-BERT semantic similarity, and length stability. Under a whole-word answer-set match, only ~22% of closed-form variant responses preserve the ground-truth label inside their output, while ~78% drift away from the answer space entirely. In our pool, the dominant predictor of collapse is task structure rather than model identity, with model differentiation jointly carried by answer consistency and length stability. Robustness audits should therefore track response-mode preservation as a first-class reliability target alongside answer accuracy.

Aofan Liu, Jingxiang Meng

1Peking University. · University of Chicago.

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Structured Output Generation Language Model Robustness

May 6, 2026cs.SD

Benchmarking LLMs on the Massive Sound Embedding Benchmark (MSEB)

The Massive Sound Embedding Benchmark (MSEB) has emerged as a standard for evaluating the functional breadth of audio models. While initial baselines focused on specialized encoders, the shift toward "audio-native" Large Language Models (LLMs) suggests a new paradigm where a single multimodal backbone may replace complex, task-specific pipelines. This paper provides a rigorous empirical evaluation of leading LLMs - including members from the Gemini and GPT families - across the eight core MSEB capabilities to assess their efficacy and audio-text parity. Our results indicate that while a significant modality gap persists regarding performance and robustness, the empirical evidence for an "optimal" modeling approach remains inconclusive. Ultimately, the choice between audionative and cascaded architectures depends heavily on specific use-case requirements and the underlying assumptions regarding latency, cost, and reasoning depth.

Cyril Allauzen, Tom Bagby, Georg Heigold +2

Google USA & Germany

Audio-Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Audio Representation Learning Audio-Language Models

May 6, 2026cs.CL

CANDI: Contextual Alignment for Niche Domains Question Answering

The deployment of large language models (LLMs) in specialized domains like medical diagnostics and financial advisory necessitates evaluating capabilities beyond general knowledge. Traditional question-answering benchmarks often fail to capture the nuanced contextual grounding, user awareness, and domain understanding these fields require. To address this, we introduce CANDI-QA (Contextual Alignment for Niche Domains Question Answering), a novel dataset evaluating LLMs on delivering accurate, context-sensitive, and user-aligned answers in specialized settings. CANDI-QA features expert-curated question-answer pairs structured into two categories: (1) Information Assistance Questions, which are direct, factual queries requiring precise extraction, and (2) Applied Inference Questions, which are multi-hop reasoning tasks needing situational inference to generate actionable insights. We evaluate over ten diverse language models, from compact open-source to state-of-the-art proprietary systems. As a robust baseline, we present MTSS-Net, a lightweight neuro-symbolic framework combining neural retrieval with rule-based reasoning. Our findings highlight the profound challenges of achieving contextual alignment in niche domains, revealing the limitations of current LLMs without enhanced contextual or symbolic integration. Ultimately, CANDI-QA serves as a critical benchmark for advancing research in context-aware language models, stimulating the development of robust, trustworthy AI for high-stakes domains.

Megha Chakraborty, Darssan L. Eswaramoorthi, Het Riteshkumar Shah +5

University of South Carolina · IIIT-Delhi · Indian Institute of Technology Madras

LLM Evaluation LLM Grounding Question Answering

May 6, 2026cs.AI

How Does Thinking Mode Change LLM Moral Judgments? A Controlled Instant-vs-Thinking Comparison Across Five Frontier Models

We evaluate whether enabling provider-exposed reasoning mode changes moral judgments within the same model checkpoint. Across 100 moral-judgment scenarios and five frontier reasoning-trained LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT 5.5, Gemini 3 Flash, DeepSeek V3.1, and Qwen3.5 397B), aggregate binary-verdict agreement remains high and statistically indistinguishable between instant and thinking modes (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.78 vs. 0.79). However, disagreement is concentrated in 21 model-disputed scenarios, where instant-mode agreement is near chance (alpha = 0.08). On these scenarios, reasoning directionally narrows cross-model disagreement, increasing mean pairwise agreement from 5.4 to 6.7 out of 10. Reasoning also reduces demographic-judgment inconsistency in three of five models and does not increase it for any model. Across all five model families, reasoning changes self-labeled ethical frameworks more often than binary verdicts.

Sai Sourabh Madur

Independent researcher (ex-Meta)

LLM Evaluation Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Reasoning Moral Reasoning

May 6, 2026cs.AI

Deployment-Relevant Alignment Cannot Be Inferred from Model-Level Evaluation Alone

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.

Varad Vishwarupe, Nigel Shadbolt, Marina Jirotka +1

Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford

LLM Evaluation LLM Alignment LLM Auditing AI Safety Evaluation

May 6, 2026cs.HC

From Memorization to Creation: Evaluating the Cognitive Depth of LLM-Generated Educational Questions

While LLMs show promise in automating educational content creation, their ability to generate questions that stimulate higher-order thinking remains understudied. This work evaluates six widely-used LLMs through a Bloom's Taxonomy lens, focusing on their capacity to transcend rote memorization and achieve cognitive leaps. Using a hybrid human--AI evaluation protocol, we generate and analyze 20{,}700 questions across computer science, K--12 math, and social-science domains. Key contributions include: (1) a fine-grained prompting strategy that reduces question repetitiveness by 24.45% for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, and increases the proportion of higher-order cognitive level outputs by 11.53% for InternLM3-8B-Instruct; (2) quantitative metrics for cognitive shift intensity (CogShift) and category drift, revealing InternLM3's superior performance in multi-level transitions; (3) an interpretability analysis revealing metric-level correlations that enhance the transparency of Chain-of-Thought prompting. Our findings highlight the importance of cognitive-aware prompt design and provide benchmarks for deploying LLMs in personalized learning systems.

Xiaolong Wang, Zhe Zhao, Song Lai +5

Squirrel Ai Learning Shanghai, China · City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · Zhejiang Normal University Squirrel Ai Learning Jinhua, China +2

LLM Evaluation LLM Prompting Generative AI in Education

May 5, 2026cs.IR

Evaluating Advanced Prompting on Gemini Flash for Multi-Hop Biomedical QA

The MedHopQA challenge presents a critical test for Large Language Models (LLMs): complex, multi-hop reasoning in the high-stakes biomedical domain. This paper details our direct API-based evaluation of Google's Gemini Flash models, focusing on the impact of advanced prompt engineering. We designed a sophisticated, multi-component prompt for Gemini 2.0 Flash that combined role-playing, explicit multi-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) examples, and detailed formatting rules. Our best run, using this complex prompt, achieved a Concept Level Score of 0.720. This result dramatically outperformed a baseline prompt which scored only 0.565. Remarkably, this performance on the efficient Gemini 2.0 Flash was almost identical to the result from the next-generation Gemini 2.5 Flash. Our findings demonstrate that sophisticated prompt design is a critical factor for unlocking the full reasoning capabilities of modern LLMs.

Ahmed Bajaber, Mohammed Alliheedi

1Saudi Med AI Lab (SMAIL) 2Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia · 2Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia · 3Al-Baha University, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia

Multi-Hop QA LLM Evaluation LLM Prompting Biomedical QA Few-Shot Prompting

May 5, 2026cs.CL

Towards Self-Referential Analytic Assessment: A Profile-Based Approach to L2 Writing Evaluation with LLMs

Automated essay scoring (AES) research often relies on rank-based correlation metrics to validate analytic assessment. However, such metrics obscure both intrinsic intercorrelations among analytic dimensions that arise from the structure of writing proficiency itself and halo effects, whereby holistic impressions bleed into fine-grained component scores. As a result, high correlations may mask a system's true diagnostic behaviour. In this study, we propose a novel self-referential assessment evaluation framework that focuses on identifying intra-learner strengths and weaknesses rather than assessing inter-learner rankings. We conduct experiments on the publicly available ICNALE GRA, a uniquely dense second-language writing dataset annotated holistically and analytically by up to 80 trained raters. To obtain reliable reference scores, we apply two-facet Rasch modelling to calibrate rater severity and derive fair average scores across ten analytic aspects and holistic proficiency. We compare the analytic scoring performance of human operational raters and three large language models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting. Our results show that LLMs tend to outperform single human raters in identifying relative weaknesses (negative feedback) across several proficiency aspects, while human raters remain stronger at identifying relative strengths (positive feedback). Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of rank-based evaluation for analytic assessment and demonstrate the value of intra-learner, profile-based methods for assessing and deploying LLMs in AES.

Stefano Bannò, Kate Knill, Mark Gales

ALTA Institute, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge (UK)

LLM Evaluation Automated Essay Scoring Psychometric Validation

May 5, 2026cs.LG

ReplaySCM: A Benchmark for Executable Causal Mechanism Induction from Interventions

Most causal benchmarks for language models score local answers or graph structure. We introduce ReplaySCM, a 1,300 item benchmark for executable causal mechanism induction from finite interventional evidence. Each item contains binary worlds generated by a latent fully observed acyclic Boolean structural causal model (SCM). A system must output a mechanism map in a restricted Boolean DSL; the submission is parsed, checked for legality and acyclicity, and replayed on training and held-out intervention worlds. Scoring uses replay behavior rather than formula strings, so syntactically different mechanisms receive credit when they behave correctly. ReplaySCM varies the structural information disclosed to the model through Ordered, Block-order, Hidden-order, and Hidden-roots settings, and includes Alternative-SCM tasks that supply a valid reference SCM and ask for a semantically distinct alternative that fits the training worlds, together with a separating intervention and witness. Frontier LLMs infer parts of the functional-parent structure, but held-out replay drops sharply when order or root structure is hidden. We also evaluate a matched support-audit ladder: Original, Extra Worlds, and Counterexample Audit (CEx), that raises mean local predecessor-pattern coverage from 0.8949 to 0.9815 to 1.0; under the audited searches, no discovered semantic alternative remains consistent with the training worlds. The Ordered/Hidden-order gap persists under this stronger evidence. ReplaySCM complements answer-level causal reasoning and graph-discovery benchmarks by evaluating executable replay generalization from finite interventional evidence, without claiming unique identification of the latent SCM.

Serafim Batzoglou

LLM Evaluation Structural Causal Models Causal Interventions in Language Models

May 5, 2026cs.CL

Not All That Is Fluent Is Factual: Investigating Hallucinations of Large Language Models in Academic Writing

Large Language models (LLMs) show extraordinary abilities, but they are still prone to hallucinations, especially when we use them for generating Academic content. We have investigated four popular LLMs, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and Copilot for hallucinations specifically for academic writing. We have designed 80 prompts across four categories, namely, reference generation, factual explanation, abstract generation, and writing improvement. We evaluated the model using a 0-5 rubric score, which checks factual accuracy, reference validity, coherence, style consistency, and academic tone. A novel weighted metric, Hallucination Index (HI), was introduced to measure hallucination in the responses generated by the models. Some of the most widely used evaluation metrics often fail to check errors which alter sentiment in machine-translated text. We found that Grok and Copilot perform better on reference generation tasks, but they often struggle with abstract or stylistic prompts, with HI values of 0.67 and 0.70, respectively. Whereas, Gemini and ChatGPT have done well with having stronger tone control, but they lack in writing factual tasks and higher hallucination risk with HI scores of 0.53 and 0.57, respectively. Our study found that hallucination behavior does not depend solely on model architecture but also on the type of task and the prompting conditions we are providing. We propose that our work opens new research dimensions for future researchers.

Humam Khan, Md Tabrez Nafis, Shahab Saquib Sohail +2

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SEST Jamia Hamdard New Delhi, India · Energy, Resources and Industry WSP Calgary, Canada

LLM Evaluation LLM Prompting Hallucination in Language Models

May 5, 2026cs.CY

Frontier Lag: A Bibliometric Audit of Capability Misrepresentation in Academic AI Evaluation

LLM evaluations in applied domains tend to reflect models that were already outclassed at time of publication. We observe a publication elicitation gap: the distance between the AI systems generating the results reported in an academic paper and the AI systems that a current reader of that paper would reasonably assume are being referenced. We systematically sweep OpenAlex from 2022-01-01 to 2026-04-01 (n = 112,303 LLM keyword matches). Then, we identify what models were evaluated (n = 18,574 admissible records). We then rank each evaluated LLM against a frontier LLM based on the Epoch AI Capabilities Index (ECI), an aggregate LLM capability score. We find that the median paper's models are worse than the frontier LLM at the time of evaluation (a median gap of +10.45 ECI; H1, n = 12,668). The gap is increasing at a rate of +4.07 ECI per year (H2, nominal 95% CI [+3.75, +4.45]). An explicitly stated evaluation date can be found in only 18.4% of full-text papers. A Bayes-corrected 52.5% (95% CI: [47.3, 57.9]) of the abstracts audited discuss their conclusions in terms of "AI" as a category, rather than specific models. Just 2.2% of abstracts and 21.2% of full-text articles evaluating reasoning models disclose whether the models were tested with reasoning turned on or off (H4). We propose a solution to this problem that is distributed among authors, editors, and funders. First, reporting from authors; VERSIO-AI v1.2 is a proposed 13-item checklist to cover the configuration surface described herein. Second, enforcement from journal editors and peer reviewers. Third, conditioning grants on disclosure and providing API access.

David Gringras, Misha Salahshoor

Harvard University · AISST, Cambridge, MA

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing

May 5, 2026cs.CL

The Counterexample Game: Iterated Conceptual Analysis and Repair in Language Models

Conceptual analysis -- proposing definitions and refining them through counterexamples -- is central to philosophical methodology. We study whether language models can perform this task through iterated analysis and repair chains: one model instance generates counterexamples to a proposed definition, another repairs the definition, and the process repeats. Across 20 concepts and thousands of counterexample-repair cycles, we find that, although many LM-generated counterexamples are judged invalid by both expert humans and an LM judge, the LM judge accepts roughly twice as many as humans do. Nonetheless, per-item validity judgments are moderately consistent across humans and between humans and the LM. We further find that extended iteration produces increasingly verbose definitions without improving accuracy. We also see that some concepts resist stable definitions in general. These findings suggest that while LMs can engage in philosophical reasoning, the counterexample-repair loop hits diminishing returns quickly and could be a fruitful test case for evaluating whether LMs can sustain high-level iterated philosophical reasoning.

Daniel Drucker, Kyle Mahowald

Department of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin · Department of Linguistics The University of Texas at Austin

LLM Self-Correction LLM Evaluation Counterexample-Guided Refinement LLM Reasoning

May 5, 2026cs.AI

EvoLM: Self-Evolving Language Models through Co-Evolved Discriminative Rubrics

Language models encode substantial evaluative knowledge from pretraining, yet current post-training methods rely on external supervision (human annotations, proprietary models, or scalar reward models) to produce reward signals. Each imposes a ceiling. Human judgment cannot supervise capabilities beyond its own, proprietary APIs create dependencies, and verifiable rewards cover only domains with ground-truth answers. Self-improvement from a model's own evaluative capacity is a reward source that scales with the model itself, yet remains largely untapped by current methods. We introduce EVOLM, a post-training method that structures this capacity into explicit discriminative rubrics and uses them as training signal. EVOLM trains two capabilities within a single language model in alternation: (1) a rubric generator producing instance-specific evaluation criteria optimized for discriminative utility, which maximizes a small frozen judge's ability to distinguish preferred from dispreferred responses; and (2) a policy trained using those rubric-conditioned scores as reward. All preference signals are constructed from the policy's own outputs via temporal contrast with earlier checkpoints, requiring no human annotation or external supervision. EVOLM trains a Qwen3-8B model to generate rubrics that outperform GPT-4.1 on RewardBench-2 by 25.7%. The co-trained policy achieves 69.3% average on the OLMo3-Adapt suite, outperforming policies trained with GPT-4.1 prompted rubrics by 3.9% and with the state-of-the-art 8B reward model SkyWork-RM by 16%. Overall, EVOLM demonstrates that structuring a model's evaluative capacity into co-evolving discriminative rubrics enables self-improvement without external supervision.

Shuyue Stella Li, Rui Xin, Teng Xiao +8

University of Washington · 2Allen Institute for AI · University of Pennsylvania

RL for Language Models LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Self-Training for Language Models Language Model Self-Assessment Language Model Post-Training+1

May 5, 2026cs.CL

MCJudgeBench: A Benchmark for Constraint-Level Judge Evaluation in Multi-Constraint Instruction Following

Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in {yes, partial, no}, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.

Jaeyun Lee, Junyoung Koh, Zeynel Tok +2

University of Oxford · Yonsei University

LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Instruction Following LLM Reliability

May 5, 2026cs.CL

TriBench-Ko: Evaluating LLM Risks in Judicial Workflows

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal workflows. However, existing benchmarks primarily address proxy tasks, such as bar examination performance or classification, which fail to capture the performance and risks inherent in day-to-day judicial processes. To address this, we publicly release TriBench-Ko, a Korean benchmark designed to evaluate potential deployment risks of LLMs within the context of verified judicial task requirements. It covers four core tasks: jurisprudence summarization, precedent retrieval, legal issue extraction, and evidence analysis. It jointly assesses model behavior across multiple deployment risk categories, including inaccuracy (hallucination, omission, statutory misapplication), biases (demographic, overcompliance), inconsistencies (prompt sensitivity, non-determinism), and adjudicative overreach. Each item is structured to systematically assess both task performance and a specific risk type based on real judicial decisions. Our evaluation of a range of contemporary LLMs reveals that many models frequently manifest significant risks, most notably struggling with precedent retrieval and failing to capture critical legal information. We provide a comprehensive diagnosis of these LLMs and pinpoint critical areas where LLM-generated outputs in judicial contexts necessitate rigorous inspection and caution. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/holi-lab/TriBench-Ko

Haesung Lee, Gyubin Choi, Eun-Ju Lee +5

Center for Trustworthy AI, Seoul National University · Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University · Responsible AI Team, KT +1

LLM Evaluation Language Model Safety Evaluation Language Model Bias Evaluation Language Model Robustness

May 5, 2026cs.AI

OracleProto: A Reproducible Framework for Benchmarking LLM Native Forecasting via Knowledge Cutoff and Temporal Masking

Large language models are moving from static text generators toward real-world decision-support systems, where forecasting is a composite capability that links information gathering, evidence integration, situational judgment, and action-oriented decision making. This capability is in broad demand across finance, policy, industry, and scientific research, yet its evaluation remains difficult: live benchmarks evaluate forecasts before answers exist, making them the cleanest way to measure forecasting ability, but they expire once events resolve; retrospective benchmarks are reproducible, but they cannot reliably distinguish genuine forecasting from facts a model may have already learned during pretraining. Prompting models to "pretend not to know" cannot replace a genuine knowledge boundary. We propose OracleProto, a reproducible framework for evaluating LLM native forecasting capability. OracleProto reconstructs resolved events into time-bounded forecasting samples by combining model-cutoff-aligned sample admission, tool-level temporal masking, content-level leakage detection, discrete answer normalization, and hierarchical scoring. Instantiated on a FutureX-Past-derived dataset with six contemporary LLMs, OracleProto distinguishes forecasting quality, sampling stability, and cost efficiency under controlled information boundaries, while reducing residual leakage to the

1\%

level, an order of magnitude below tool-only temporal filtering. OracleProto turns LLM forecasting from one-off evaluation into an auditable, reusable, and trainable dataset-level capability, providing a unified interface for fair cross-model comparison and a controlled signal source for downstream SFT and RL. Code and data are available at https://github.com/MaYiding/OracleProto and https://huggingface.co/datasets/MaYiding/OracleProto.

Yiding Ma, Chengyun Ruan, Kaibo Huang +2

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

LLM Evaluation Forecasting Benchmarks LLM-Based Time Series Forecasting Temporal Data Leakage

May 5, 2026cs.CL

PatRe: A Full-Stage Office Action and Rebuttal Generation Benchmark for Patent Examination

Patent examination is a complex, multi-stage process requiring both technical expertise and legal reasoning, increasingly challenged by rising application volumes. Prior benchmarks predominantly view patent examination as discriminative classification or static extraction, failing to capture its inherently interactive and iterative nature, similar to the peer review and rebuttal process in academic publishing. In this paper, we introduce PatRe, the first benchmark that models the full patent examination lifecycle, including Office Action generation and applicant rebuttal. PatRe comprises 480 real-world cases and supports both oracle and retrieval-simulated evaluation settings. Our benchmark reframes patent examination as a dynamic, multi-turn process of justification and response. Extensive experiments across various LLMs reveal critical insights into model performance, including differences between proprietary and open-source models, as well as task asymmetries between examiner analysis and applicant-side rebuttal. These findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of LLMs in modeling complex, real-world legal reasoning and technical novelty judgment in patent examination. We release our code and dataset to facilitate future research on patent examination modeling.

Qiyao Wang, Xinyi Chen, Longze Chen +4

Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Dalian University of Technology +2

LLM Evaluation Legal Document Analysis Text Generation

May 5, 2026cs.CL

Revisiting Graph-Tokenizing Large Language Models: A Systematic Evaluation of Graph Token Understanding

The remarkable success of large language models (LLMs) has motivated researchers to adapt them as universal predictors for various graph tasks. As a widely recognized paradigm, Graph-Tokenizing LLMs (GTokenLLMs) compress complex graph data into graph tokens and treat them as prefix tokens for querying LLMs, leading many to believe that LLMs can understand graphs more effectively and efficiently. In this paper, we challenge this belief: \textit{Do GTokenLLMs fully understand graph tokens in the natural-language embedding space?} Motivated by this question, we formalize a unified framework for GTokenLLMs and propose an evaluation pipeline, \textbf{GTEval}, to assess graph-token understanding via instruction transformations at the format and content levels. We conduct extensive experiments on 6 representative GTokenLLMs with GTEval. The primary findings are as follows: (1) Existing GTokenLLMs do not fully understand graph tokens. They exhibit over-sensitivity or over-insensitivity to instruction changes, and rely heavily on text for reasoning; (2) Although graph tokens preserve task-relevant graph information and receive attention across LLM layers, their utilization varies across models and instruction variants; (3) Additional instruction tuning can improve performance on the original and seen instructions, but it does not fully address the challenge of graph-token understanding, calling for further improvement.

Zhongjian Zhang, Yue Yu, Mengmei Zhang +3

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · China Telecom Bestpay · Beihang University

LLM Evaluation LLM Reasoning with Graphs Graph Foundation Models LLMs for Graph Learning

May 5, 2026cs.AI

Revisiting the Travel Planning Capabilities of Large Language Models

Travel planning serves as a critical task for long-horizon reasoning, exposing significant deficits in LLMs. However, existing benchmarks and evaluations primarily assess final plans in an end-to-end manner, which lacks interpretability and makes it difficult to analyze the root causes of failures. To bridge this gap, we decompose travel planning into five constituent atomic sub-capabilities, including \emph{Constraint Extraction}, \emph{Tool Use}, \emph{Plan Generation}, \emph{Error Identification}, and \emph{Error Correction}. We implement a decoupled evaluation protocol leveraging oracle intermediate contexts to rigorously isolate these components, thereby measuring the atomic performance boundary without the noise of cascading errors. Our results highlight a clear contrast in performance: while LLMs are proficient in extracting explicit constraints, they struggle to infer implicit, open-world requirements. Furthermore, they exhibit structural biases in plan generation and suffer from ineffective self-correction, characterized by excessive sensitivity and erroneous persistence. These findings offer precise directions for improving LLM reasoning and planning abilities.

Bo-Wen Zhang, Jin Ye, Peng-Yu Hua +4

State Key Laboratory of Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China

LLM Self-Correction LLM Evaluation LLM Planning

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating Prompting and Execution-Based Methods for Deterministic Computation in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in natural language understanding and reasoning. However, their ability to perform exact, deterministic computation remains unclear. In this work, we systematically evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Least-to-Most decomposition, Program-of-Thought (PoT), and Self-Consistency (SC), on tasks requiring precise and error-free outputs, including binary counting, longest substring detection, and arithmetic evaluation. To support this study, we introduce a synthetic dataset with diverse natural language instructions, enabling controlled evaluation of exact computation across multiple task types. Our results show that standard prompting methods achieve only moderate accuracy on sequence-based tasks. CoT provides limited improvement, while Least-to-Most suffers from error accumulation. In contrast, PoT achieves perfect accuracy by generating executable code and delegating computation to an external interpreter. Self-Consistency improves robustness through majority voting, but incurs substantial computational overhead. We further train a small domain-specific model (CodeT5-small) to generate executable programs, which achieves perfect accuracy on held-out synthetic test data across all tasks with minimal training cost. Overall, our findings suggest that LLMs may simulate reasoning patterns rather than reliably perform exact symbolic computation. For deterministic tasks, combining LLMs with external tools or using specialized models provides a more reliable and efficient solution.

Hongkun Yu

Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, USA

LLM Evaluation LLM Prompting LLM Code Generation Prompt Engineering

May 4, 2026cs.RO

Benchmarking Local Language Models for Social Robots using Edge Devices

Social-educational robots designed for socially interactive pedagogical support, such as the Robot Study Companion (RSC), rely on responsive, privacy-preserving interaction despite severely limited compute. However, there is a gap in systematic benchmarking of language models for edge computing in pedagogical applications. This paper benchmarks 25 open-source language models for local deployment on edge hardware. We evaluate each model across three dimensions: inference efficiency (tokens per second, energy consumption), general knowledge (a six-category MMLU subset), and teaching effectiveness (LLM-rated pedagogical quality), validated against five independent human raters using the Raspberry Pi(RPi)4 as the primary platform, with additional comparisons on the RPi5 and a laptop GPU. Results reveal pronounced trade-offs: throughput and energy efficiency vary by over an order of magnitude across models, MMLU accuracy ranges from near-random to 57.2%, and teaching effectiveness does not correlate monotonically with either metric. Among the evaluated models, Granite4 Tiny Hybrid (7B) achieves a strong overall balance, reaching 2.5 tokens per second, 0.90 tokens per joule, and 54.6% MMLU accuracy; high MMLU accuracy does not appear necessary for strong teaching scores. Human validation on four representative models preserved the automated rank ordering (Pearson r = 0.967, n = 4). Based on these findings, we propose a three-tier local inference architecture for the RSC that balances responsiveness and accuracy on resource-constrained hardware.

Dorian Lamouille, Matevž B. Zorec, Farnaz Baksh +1

University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia · Institute of Computer Science University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia · Institute of Technology University of Tartu Tartu, Estonia

LLM Evaluation On-Device Language Model Inference AI in Education Small Language Models Robotics Social Robotics

May 4, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions

Millions of users turn to AI models for their information needs. It is conceivable that a large number of user queries contain assumptions that may be factually inaccurate. Prior work notes that large language models (LLMs) often fail to challenge such erroneous assumptions, and can reinforce users' misinformed opinions. However, given the recent advances, especially in model's reasoning capabilities, we revisit whether large reasoning models (LRMs) can reason about the underlying assumptions and respond to user queries appropriately. We construct queries with varying degrees of presuppositions spanning health, science, and general knowledge, and use it to evaluate several widely-deployed models When compared to non-reasoning models, we find that reasoning models achieve a slightly higher accuracy (2-11%), but they still fail to challenge a large fraction (26-42%) of false presuppositions. Further, reasoning models remain susceptible to how strongly the presupposition is expressed.

Rose Sathyanathan, Kinshuk Vasisht, Danish Pruthi

Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru, KA, India

LLM Evaluation Language Model Robustness Large Reasoning Models

May 4, 2026cs.CL

SemEval-2026 Task 7: Everyday Knowledge Across Diverse Languages and Cultures

We present our shared task on evaluating the adaptability of LLMs and NLP systems across multiple languages and cultures. The task data consist of an extended version of our manually constructed BLEnD benchmark (Myung et al. 2024), covering more than 30 language-culture pairs, predominantly representing low-resource languages spoken across multiple continents. As the task is designed strictly for evaluation, participants were not permitted to use the data for training, fine-tuning, few-shot learning, or any other form of model modification. Our task includes two tracks: (a) Short-Answer Questions (SAQ) and (b) Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ). Participants were required to predict labels and were allowed to submit any NLP system and adopt diverse modelling strategies, provided that the benchmark was used solely for evaluation. The task attracted more than 140 registered participants, and we received final submissions from 62 teams, along with 19 system description papers. We report the results and present an analysis of the best-performing systems and the most commonly adopted approaches. Furthermore, we discuss shared insights into open questions and challenges related to evaluation, misalignment, and methodological perspectives on model behaviour in low-resource languages and for under-represented cultures.

Nedjma Ousidhoum, Junho Myung, Carla Perez-Almendros +27

Cardiff University · KAIST · MBZUAI +13

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Cross-Cultural Language Model Evaluation Cultural Knowledge in Language Models Low-Resource Language Processing

May 4, 2026cs.CL

HalluScan: A Systematic Benchmark for Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in Instruction-Following LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse natural language processing tasks, yet they remain susceptible to hallucinations -- generating content that is factually incorrect, unfaithful to provided context, or misaligned with user instructions. We present HalluScan, a comprehensive benchmark framework that systematically evaluates hallucination detection and mitigation across 72 configurations spanning 6 detection methods, 4 open-weight model families, and 3 diverse domains. We introduce three key contributions: (1) HalluScore, a novel composite metric that achieves a Pearson correlation of r = 0.41 with human expert judgments; (2) Adaptive Detection Routing (ADR), an intelligent routing algorithm achieving 2.0x cost reduction with only 0.1% AUROC degradation; and (3) systematic error cascade decomposition revealing substantial variation in hallucination error types across domains. Our experiments reveal that NLI Verification achieves the highest overall AUROC of 0.88, while RAV achieves the second-highest AUROC of 0.66.

Ahmed Cherif

1Sofrecom Tunisia, Orange Innovation, Tunis, 1053, Tunisia.

LLM Evaluation LLM Hallucination Mitigation Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection

May 4, 2026cs.CL

When Correct Isn't Usable: Improving Structured Output Reliability in Small Language Models

Deployed language models must produce outputs that are both correct and format-compliant. We study this structured-output reliability gap using two mathematical benchmarks -- GSM8K and MATH -- as a controlled testbed: ground truth is unambiguous and the output contract is strict (JSON with required fields). We evaluate three 7-9B models under five prompting strategies and report output accuracy -- the joint event of mathematical correctness and valid JSON structure -- as the primary metric. A systematic format failure emerges: NAIVE prompting (no system prompt) achieves up to 85% task accuracy on GSM8K but 0% output accuracy across all models and datasets. REFERENCE prompting (a minimal hand-written JSON format prompt) fares little better, yielding 0% output accuracy for two of four models tested. Constrained decoding enforces syntactic validity but incurs 3.6x-8.2x latency overhead and in several settings degrades task performance substantially. To overcome this limitation, we developed AloLab, an iterative system-prompt optimizer (meta-agent: Claude Sonnet 4.5) requiring only black-box API access to the target model; it reaches 84-87% output accuracy on GSM8K and 34-40% on MATH across five independent runs per model, with 29/30 paired McNemar comparisons against the best static prompt significant at p < 0.05, at near-NAIVE inference latency and without model fine-tuning. The same format failure extends to GPT-4o (OpenAI, 2024), a proprietary closed-source model: REFERENCE achieves 0% output accuracy due to systematic markdown-fence wrapping, while AloLab reaches 95.2% [94.8, 95.6]. An ablation replacing the Sonnet 4.5 meta-agent with Claude 3 Haiku reduces mean output accuracy to 61.0% and increases run-to-run standard deviation from <1 pp to 21.8 pp, confirming that meta-agent capability is a primary driver of optimization quality.

Cosimo Galeone, Minsu Park, Giuseppe Ettorre +1

Alomana, Grottaglie, Italy

LLM Evaluation LLM Prompting Small Language Models Structured Output Generation

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Complexity Horizons of Compressed Models in Analog Circuit Analysis

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) for specialized engineering domains, such as circuit analysis, often faces a trade-off between reasoning accuracy and computational efficiency. Traditional evaluation methods treat model performance as a flat metric, failing to account for the hierarchical nature of engineering knowledge. We propose a performance-aware model compression strategy that utilizes prerequisite graphs to optimize model selection for circuit analysis tasks. By structuring electronics design concepts as Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), we can identify the specific complexity horizons of an LLM's compressed variants' tiers. Our framework introduces an agentic pipeline for generating prerequisite-based datasets and a strategic evaluation engine that dynamically cascades queries across a spectrum of compressed variants of an LLM. This approach allows to select the smallest compressed model, given its conceptual knowledge boundaries in circuit analysis. Experimental results on analog electronics datasets demonstrate that prerequisite graphs provide a granular map of model compression with respect to the performance given circuit analysis complexity. (Source Code: https://github.com/pacomesimon/LLM_prereq_graphs_circuit_analysis, Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/pacomesimon/LLM_prereq_graphs_circuit_analysis)

Pacome Simon Mbonimpa

Carnegie Mellon University-Africa

LLM Evaluation LLM Compression LLM Routing

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Submodular Benchmark Selection

Evaluating large language models across many benchmarks is expensive, yet many benchmarks are highly correlated. We formalize the selection of a small, informative subset as submodular maximization under a multivariate Gaussian model. Entropy (log-determinant covariance) and mutual information between selected and remaining benchmarks arise as natural objectives. Both are submodular; entropy selection coincides with pivoted Cholesky and has spectral residual bounds, while mutual information is non-monotone in general but empirically monotone for small subsets, so we optimize it greedily. Experiments on three matrices from ten public leaderboards show that mutual information selection outperforms entropy for imputation at small subsets.

Alexander Smola

Boson AI 4677 Old Ironsides Dr Santa Clara CA 95054

Submodular Optimization LLM Evaluation

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Retrieval and Multi-Hop Reasoning in 1M-Token Context Windows: Evaluating LLMs on Classical Chinese Text

We evaluate the long-context retrieval and reasoning capabilities of five frontier large language models with advertised 1M-token context windows on a classical Chinese corpus. Two complementary studies are reported. Test 1 measures single-needle retrieval at 1M tokens of input, with three biographical needles planted at three depths and pairs of real (training-prior-consistent) and altered (training-prior-contradicting) variants to separate genuine in-context retrieval from reliance on memorised training data. Test 2, a follow-up designed to probe whether long-context capability degrades when retrieval requires intermediate reasoning, measures three-hop chain traversal across three context tiers (256K, 512K, and 1M tokens). We find that single-needle retrieval at 1M is essentially solved for the strongest models - Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, and GPT-5.5 each achieve 100% - but that multi-hop performance reveals three distinct decay signatures: a stable regime (Gemini Pro, Claude) maintaining greater than 80% accuracy through 512K with modest degradation at 1M; a late-cliff regime (GPT-5.5, Qwen3.6-plus) collapsing sharply between 512K and 1M; and a smooth-decline regime (DeepSeek V4 Pro) decaying gradually across the entire range. The findings suggest that nominal context-window length is a poor proxy for usable long-context multi-hop capability, and that the sharpest discriminator between current 1M-context flagships is the 512K-to-1M transition.

Eric H. C. Chow

School of Humanities, The University of Hong Kong

Long-Context Retrieval In-Context Retrieval LLM Evaluation Long-Context Language Model Evaluation Long-Context Inference

May 4, 2026cs.CL

CLaC at SemEval-2026 Task 6: Response Clarity Detection in Political Discourse

In this paper, we present our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6 (CLARITY) on response clarity and evasion detection in question-answer pairs from U.S. presidential interviews, comparing fine-tuned encoders with prompt-based LLMs. Our LLM ensemble achieves 80 macro-F1 on the 3-class Task 1 (9th/41) and 59 on the 9-class Task 2 (3rd/33). Across 8 transformer encoders optimized through a four-stage pipeline, partial encoder layer unfreezing outperforms full fine-tuning by a wide margin. Combining English and multilingual encoders further improves ensemble performance over either family alone, despite multilingual models being individually weaker. Prompt-based LLMs, without any task-specific parameter updates, outperform fine-tuned encoders, particularly on minority classes; among open-weight LLMs, parameter count does not predict performance. Enriched input, concatenating the full interviewer turn, improves LLM performance but not that of encoders, an effect that persists with Longformer's extended context window, suggesting the divergence is not attributable to sequence-length capacity alone in our settings. The Clear Reply/Ambivalent boundary remains the dominant failure mode, mirroring the disagreement among human annotators. Our code, prompts, model configurations, and results are publicly available.

Nawar Turk, Lucas Miquet-Westphal, Leila Kosseim

Computational Linguistics at Concordia (CLaC) Lab · Dept. of Computer Science and Software Engineering · Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

LLM Evaluation Language Model Ensembles

May 4, 2026cs.CY

So Many Opinions, So Many LLMs: Comparing Large Language Models to Traditional Machine Learning for Open- Ended Survey Analysis

Open-ended surveys offer valuable insights, but they are notoriously difficult to analyze at scale. Building on previous work that employed traditional machine learning to classify text ("So Many Responses, So Little Time: A Machine-Learning Approach to Analyzing Open-Ended Survey Data") [1], this study investigates how different large language models (LLMs) understand and analyze NSSE open-ended survey responses. We focus on several cutting-edge LLMSs-OpenAI's GPT series, Twitter-roBERTa-base model, and Meta's LLaMA-and compare their performance to the previous machine learning models in tasks like sentiment analysis and thematic classification. Our research analysis assesses model agreement, classification accuracy, and interpretability of reasoning. The findings reveal that current LLMs routinely beat classic machine learning models in classification accuracy, particularly in understanding complex mood and theme patterns in student replies. While LLMs have superior accuracy, they differ greatly in how explicitly and consistently they justify their predictions and apply category boundaries. These distinctions highlight crucial trade-offs when using LLMs for qualitative analysis: increased predictive strength comes with issues in consistency and explainability. Our findings illustrate the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing various LLMs for large-scale qualitative research, and we provide practical advice for researchers looking to balance automation and interpretive rigor.

Abdullah Akinde, Mariam Akinde, Rasheedat Emiola +1

Austin Peay State University, United States

LLM Evaluation LLM Interpretability Sentiment Analysis Text Classification