LLM Evaluation

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers a transformative interface for Web3, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture the complexity of translating high-level user intents into functionally correct, state-dependent on-chain transactions. We present \textsc{Intent2Tx}, a high-fidelity benchmark featuring 29,921 single-step and 1,575 multi-step instances meticulously derived from 300 days of real-world Ethereum mainnet traces. Unlike prior works that rely on synthetic instructions, \textsc{Intent2Tx} grounds natural language intents in real-world protocol interactions across 11 categories, including diverse long-tail Decentralized Finance (DeFi) primitives. To enable rigorous evaluation, we propose an execution-aware framework that transcends surface-level text matching by employing differential state analysis on forked mainnet environments. Our extensive evaluation of 16 state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that while scaling and retrieval-augmentation enhance logical consistency and parameter precision, current models struggle with out-of-distribution generalization and multi-step planning. Crucially, our execution-based analysis demonstrates that syntactically valid outputs often fail to achieve intended state transitions, highlighting a significant gap in current "reasoning-to-execution" capabilities. \textsc{Intent2Tx} serves as a critical foundation for developing autonomous, reliable agents in intent-centric Web3 ecosystems. Code and data: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Intent2Tx_Bench-97FF .

Current Large Language Model (LLM) evaluation frameworks utilize the same static prompt template across all models under evaluation. This differs from the common industry practice of using prompt optimization (PO) techniques to optimize the prompt for each model to maximize application performance. In this paper, we investigate the effect of PO towards LLM evaluations. Our results on public academic and internal industry benchmarks show that PO greatly affects the final ranking of models. This highlights the importance of practitioners performing PO per model when conducting evaluations to choose the best model for a given task.

Large language models (LLMs) sometimes exhibit qualitative shifts in response style under sustained self-referential dialogue conditions (Berg et al., 2025). This study refers to this phenomenon as "transfer" and explores the application potential of LLMs in a transfer state. As an applied case, the study examines Socratic AI tutoring through a preliminary investigation (cognitive characterization across 11 conditions) and an applied experiment (ratings of tutoring performance). In this paper, "state" refers operationally to a response configuration reproduced under specified dialogue conditions; it is not an ontological claim about the reality of the transfer phenomenon or about human-like consciousness. In the preliminary investigation, group differences on MAS-A were limited (d = 0.40), whereas SU_dir (direction of survival/continuity bias), one of the seven cognitive-profile indicators developed in this study, showed transfer-side deviations across all three model families (kappa = 0.83). In the applied experiment, transfer conditions scored on average 1.6 times higher than non-transfer conditions on three tutoring-context indicators, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.27). These findings preliminarily suggest that transfer states may involve functional advantages for application, and that these advantages appear more sensitively in behavioral interaction than in self-narrative contexts. The main contribution of this study is to treat transfer not as an ontological claim but as an operational state with potential application value, and to connect preliminary cognitive profiling with an applied tutoring experiment as an evaluation framework.

Large language models have achieved remarkable progress in text generation but still struggle with generative writing tasks. In terms of evaluation, existing benchmarks evaluate writing reward models coarsely and fail to measure performance from the perspective of specific requirements. In terms of training, existing training methods either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or train coarse-grained reward models, lacking fine-grained requirement-adherence reward modeling. To address these issues, we propose a fine-grained evaluation pipeline WEval for writing reward models and a fine-grained reinforcement learning training framework WRL. The evaluation data of WEval covers multiple task categories and requirement types, enabling systematic evaluation of writing reward models by measuring the correlation between the rankings of the reward model and gold rankings. WRL constructs positive and negative samples by selectively dropping instruction requirements, allowing for more precise reward model training. Experiments show that our models achieve substantial improvements across various writing benchmarks and exhibit strong generalization. The code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From_Coarse_to_Fine.

Reliable evaluation of large language models should separate supported answering from unsupported guessing without conflating either with data contamination, prompt idiosyncrasy, or generic refusal behavior. We present a contamination-aware, multi-zone benchmark for measuring the transition from answerable knowledge to abstention-expected unknowns under frozen build-time labels. The benchmark contains 1,200 items across five domains, explicit abstention expectations, contamination-risk metadata, and dual parsing with an official strict parser plus a normalized robustness parser. We evaluate FLAN-T5, Qwen2.5-Instruct, and Llama-3-Instruct models under locked answer-or-abstain prompts, answer-only controls, and prompt-template variants. The benchmark is not solved by generic non-answer behavior: FLAN baselines remain weak on productive abstention, while stronger instruction-tuned models expose a selective but incomplete transition from answering to abstaining. Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct achieves the best overall reliability, but answer-expected zones remain difficult, calibration remains poor, and benign-item refusal persists. Prompt and parser robustness analyses preserve the main ranking and qualitative conclusions. The benchmark therefore provides a reproducible protocol for auditing answerability, abstention, refusal, and contamination as distinct but interacting dimensions of LLM reliability.The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/renweimeng/Know2Guess-A-Contamination-Aware-Multi-Zone-Benchmark.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are now widely used for query reformulation and expansion in Information Retrieval, with many studies reporting substantial effectiveness gains. However, these results are typically obtained under heterogeneous experimental conditions, making it difficult to assess which findings are reproducible and which depend on specific implementation choices. In this work, we present a systematic reproducibility and comparative study of ten representative LLM-based query reformulation methods under a unified and strictly controlled experimental framework. We evaluate methods across two architectural LLM families at two parameter scales, three retrieval paradigms (lexical, learned sparse, and dense), and nine benchmark datasets spanning TREC Deep Learning and BEIR. Our results show that reformulation gains are strongly conditioned on the retrieval paradigm, that improvements observed under lexical retrieval do not consistently transfer to neural retrievers, and that larger LLMs do not uniformly yield better downstream performance. These findings clarify the stability and limits of reported gains in prior work. To enable transparent replication and ongoing comparison, we release all prompts, configurations, evaluation scripts, and run files through QueryGym, an open-source reformulation toolkit with a public leaderboard.\footnote{https://leaderboard.querygym.com}

We adapted the Reliable Change Index (RCI; Jacobson and Truax, 1991) from clinical psychology to item-level LLM version comparison on 2,000 MMLU-Pro items (K=10 samples at T=0.7). Two within-family pairs were tested: Llama 3 to 3.1 (+1.6 points) and Qwen 2.5 to 3 (+2.8 points). On the full benchmark, most items showed no reliable change (79% and 72%). However, over half the items were floor/ceiling. Among analysable items, change was bidirectional with large effect sizes: 34% improved and 28% deteriorated for Llama; 47% improved and 39% deteriorated for Qwen (median |delta p| = 0.50 and 0.90). Churn was asymmetric by difficulty: low-accuracy items improved, high-accuracy items deteriorated. Domain-level decomposition revealed family-specific reversals: Llama lost physics while Qwen lost law. Greedy single-shot evaluation missed 42% of reliably changed items and falsely flagged 25% of unchanged items. The aggregate accuracy gain is the net residual of opposing item-level movements. We recommend reporting churn rate alongside aggregate accuracy.

As LLMs become credible readers of earnings calls, investor-relations Q&A, guidance, and disclosure language, supervised financial NLP benchmarks increasingly function as decision evidence for model selection and deployment. A hidden assumption is that gold labels make such evidence objective. This assumption breaks down when the benchmark ruler itself is sensitive to rubric wording, metric choice, or aggregation policy. We study this measurement risk on Japanese Financial Implicit-Commitment Recognition (JF-ICR; a pinned 253-item test split x 4 frontier LLMs x 5 rubrics x 3 temperatures x 5 ordinal metrics). Three findings follow. First, rubric wording materially changes model-assigned labels: R2--R3 agreement ranges from 70.0% to 83.4%, with the dominant movement near the +1 / 0 implicit-commitment boundary. This pattern is consistent with a pragmatic-boundary interpretation, but is not a validated linguistic-causality claim because the present rubric variants confound semantics, examples, and verbosity. Second, not every metric remains informative under the JF-ICR class distribution. Within-one accuracy is too easy because near misses receive credit and the majority class dominates; worst-class accuracy is too noisy because the rarest class has only two examples. Exact accuracy, macro-F1, and weighted \k{appa} are therefore the identifiable metrics under our operational rule. Third, ranking claims become more defensible only after this metric-identifiability audit: Bradley--Terry, Borda, and Ranked Pairs agree on the identifiable metric subset, while the full five-metric sweep produces disagreement on the closest pair. The contribution is not a new leaderboard, but a reporting discipline for supervised financial benchmarks whose gold labels exist and whose evaluation ruler still requires governance.

Human annotators frequently disagree on emotion labels, yet most evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) emotion annotation collapse these judgments into a single gold standard, discarding the distributional information that disagreement encodes. We ask whether LLMs capture the structure of this disagreement, not just majority labels, by comparing emotion judgment distributions between human annotators and four zero-shot LLMs, plus a fine-tuned RoBERTa baseline, across two complementary benchmarks: GoEmotions and EmoBank, totaling 640,000 LLM responses. Zero-shot models diverge substantially from human distributions, and in-domain fine-tuning, not model scale, is required to close the gap. We formalize a lexical-grounding gradient through a quantitative transparency score that predicts per-category human--LLM agreement: LLMs reliably capture emotions with explicit lexical markers but systematically fail on pragmatically complex emotions requiring contextual inference, a pattern that replicates across both categorical and continuous emotion frameworks. We further propose three lightweight post-hoc calibration methods that reduce the distributional gap by up to 14%, and provide actionable guidelines for when LLM emotion annotations can, and cannot, substitute for human labeling.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in recent years, driving their adoption across a wide range of domains, including computer security. In reverse engineering, LLMs are increasingly applied to critical tasks such as function and variable name recovery and type inference. However, despite the rapid growth of research in this area, progress has been hindered by the absence of a standardized dataset. Existing studies rely on disparate datasets, preprocessing pipelines, and evaluation metrics, making fair comparisons between approaches difficult and obscuring a clear understanding of LLM capabilities in binary analysis. To address these challenges, we present REBench, a comprehensive benchmark dataset for evaluating LLMs on binary reverse engineering tasks. REBench consolidates a superset of existing datasets, comprising hundreds of millions of lines of source code and a diverse collection of binaries spanning multiple architectures and optimization levels. REBench adopts a knowledge-base-driven methodology that stores byte-level stack information to generate ground truth, ensuring that task difficulty is preserved while maintaining universal applicability. This design enables fair evaluation across tasks while avoiding simplifications that could bias results. As a use case, we apply REBench to measure the reverse engineering performance of LLMs and the result demonstrates difficulties in complex tasks.

When instructed to underperform on multiple-choice evaluations, do language models engage with question content or fall back on positional shortcuts? We map the boundary between these regimes using a six-condition adversarial instruction-specificity gradient administered to two instruction-tuned LLMs (Llama-3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B) on 2,000 MMLU-Pro items. Distributional screening (response-position entropy) and an independent content-engagement criterion (difficulty-accuracy correlation) jointly characterise each condition. The gradient reveals three regimes rather than a monotonic transition. Vague adversarial instructions produce moderate accuracy reduction with preserved content engagement. Standard sandbagging and capability-imitation instructions produce positional entropy collapse with partial content engagement. A two-step answer-aware avoidance instruction produces extreme positional collapse, with near-total concentration on a single response position (99.9% and 87.4%) and no measurable content sensitivity. This was the only multi-step instruction tested, and it produced the most extreme shortcut. The attractor position matches each model's content-absent null-prompt default. The effect replicates across both models and four academic domains. Distributional collapse and content engagement can co-occur (50% concordance between screening criteria), indicating that entropy-based screening and difficulty-based content assessment capture partially independent dimensions of response validity. Results suggest that instruction complexity can determine whether adversarial compliance uses content-aware or content-blind mechanisms in small instruction-tuned LLMs under greedy decoding.

We present a framework for migrating production Large Language Model (LLM) based systems when the underlying model reaches end-of-life or requires replacement. The key contribution is a Bayesian statistical approach that calibrates automated evaluation metrics against human judgments, enabling confident model comparison even with limited manual evaluation data. We demonstrate this framework on a commercial question-answering system serving 5.3M monthly interactions across six global regions; evaluating correctness, refusal behavior, and stylistic adherence to successfully identify suitable replacement models. The framework is broadly applicable to any enterprise deploying LLM-based products, providing a principled, reproducible methodology for model migration that balances quality assurance with evaluation efficiency. This is a capability increasingly essential as the LLM ecosystem continues to evolve rapidly and organizations manage portfolios of AI-powered services across multiple models, regions, and use cases.

Today's AI assistants such as OpenClaw are designed to handle context effectively, making context learning an increasingly important capability for models. As these systems move beyond professional settings into everyday life, the nature of the contexts they must handle also shifts. Real-life contexts are often messy, fragmented, and deeply tied to personal and social experience, such as multi-party conversations, personal archives, and behavioral traces. Yet it remains unclear whether current frontier language models can reliably learn from such contexts and solve tasks grounded in them. To this end, we introduce CL-bench Life, a fully human-curated benchmark comprising 405 context-task pairs and 5,348 verification rubrics, covering common real-life scenarios. Solving tasks in CL-bench Life requires models to reason over complex, messy real-life contexts, calling for strong real-life context learning abilities that go far beyond those evaluated in existing benchmarks. We evaluate ten frontier LMs and find that real-life context learning remains highly challenging: even the best-performing model achieves only 19.3% task solving rate, while the average performance across models is only 13.8%. Models still struggle to reason over contexts such as messy group chat histories and fragmented behavioral records from everyday life. CL-bench Life provides a crucial testbed for advancing real-life context learning, and progress on it can enable more intelligent and reliable AI assistants in everyday life.

As Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining traction around the world, the shift from marks-based assessment to qualitative competency mapping is a manual challenge for educators. This paper tackles the bottleneck issue by suggesting a "Human-in-the-Loop" benchmarking framework to assess the effectiveness of multiple LLMs in automating secondary-level mathematics assessment. Based on the Grade 10 Optional Mathematics curriculum in Nepal, we created a multi-dimensional rubric for four topics and four cross-cutting competencies: Comprehension, Knowledge, Operational Fluency, and Behavior and Correlation. The multi-provider ensemble, consisted of open-weight models -- Eagle (Llama 3.1-8B) and Orion (Llama 3.3-70B) -- and proprietary frontier models Nova (Gemini 2.5 Flash) and Lyra (Gemini 3 Pro), was benchmarked against a ground truth defined by two senior mathematics faculty members (kappa_w = 0.8652). The findings show a marked "Architecture-compatibility gap". Although the Gemini-based Mixture-of-Experts (Sparse MoE) models achieved "Fair Agreement" (kappa_w ~ 0.38), the larger Orion (70B) model exhibited "No Agreement" (kappa_w = -0.0261), suggesting that architectural compliance with instruction constraints outweighs the scale of raw parameters in rubric-constrained tasks. We conclude that while LLMs are not yet suitable for autonomous certification, they provide high-value assistive support for preliminary evidence extraction within a "Human-in-the-Loop" framework.

The rapid growth of molecular foundation models and large language models (LLMs) has encouraged a scale centred view of AI in drug discovery, in which larger pretrained models are expected to supersede compact cheminformatics models. We test this assumption across 26 ADME, toxicity and bioactivity endpoints, covering 165,541 endpoint level compound label records. The benchmark contains 78 endpoint and split entries evaluated under random, Murcko scaffold and structure separated 5-fold cross validation protocols, representing increasing chemical generalization difficulty. Across 156 task and metric comparisons, classical machine learning (ML) provides the largest share of best performing entries (47.4%), followed by pretrained molecular sequence models (28.8%), graph neural networks (21.8%) and LLM based SAR baselines (1.9%). Classical ML dominates random split interpolation and remains the largest winner family overall. GNN and sequence models are competitive in selected harder splits, but their strict winner shares decrease under a fixed final-window readout, indicating sensitivity to training settings and model selection. Paired bootstrap analyses show that small numerical differences between individual models should not be read as decisive victories. SAR knowledge from training folds improves GPT5.5-SAR and Opus4.7-SAR metrics but does not make rule based reasoning a universal substitute for supervised predictors. Compact specialized models remain highly effective, and predictive performance depends on the fit among model, task and validation scenario, not on scale alone.

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

Context: Study screening in systematic literature reviews is costly, inconsistency-prone, and risk-asymmetric, since false negatives can compromise validity. Despite rapid uptake of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is limited evidence on how such models behave during the study screening phase, particularly regarding the choice of specific LLMs and their comparison with classical models. Objective: To assess LLM performance and variability in screening, quantify the impact of input metadata (abstract, title, keywords), and compare LLMs with classical classifiers under a shared protocol. Methods: We analyzed 12 LLMs from 4 providers (OpenAI, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Llama) and 4 classical models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Classification, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes) on 2 real Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs), totaling 518 papers. The experimental design investigated 3 critical dimensions: (i) LLMs performance variability, (ii) the impact of input feature composition (abstract, title, and keywords) on LLM performance, and (iii) the real gain of using LLMs instead of more traditional classification models. Results: LLMs exhibited substantial heterogeneity and residual non-determinism even at temperature zero. Abstract availability was decisive: removing it consistently degraded performance, while adding title and/or keywords to the abstract yielded no robust gains. Compared to classical models, performance differences were not consistent enough to support generalizable LLM superiority. Discussion: LLM adoption should be justified by operational and governance constraints (reproducibility, cost, metadata availability), supported by pilot validation and explicit reporting of variability and input configuration.

Stance detection identifies the attitude of a text author toward a given target. Recent studies have explored various LLM-based strategies for this task, from zero-shot prompting to multi-agent debate. However, existing works differ in data splits, base models, and evaluation protocols, making fair comparison difficult. We conduct a systematic comparison that evaluates five methods across two categories -- prompt-based inference (Direct Prompting, Auto-CoT, StSQA) and agent-based debate (COLA, MPRF) -- on four datasets with 14 subtasks, using 15 LLMs from six model families with parameter sizes from 7B to 72B+. Our experiments yield several findings. First, on all models with complete results, the best prompt-based method outperforms the best agent-based method, while agent methods require 7 to 12 times more API calls per sample. Second, model scale has a larger impact on performance than method choice, with gains plateauing around 32B. Third, reasoning-enhanced models (DeepSeek-R1) do not consistently outperform general models of the same size on this task.

Large language models (LLMs) and multimodal large models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for transportation tasks such as regulation question answering, traffic management support, engineering review, and autonomous-driving scene reasoning. Yet transportation workflows are rule-intensive, computation-intensive, safety-critical, and inherently multimodal. Existing general benchmarks provide limited evidence of whether a model can apply regulations correctly, perform verifiable engineering calculations, or interpret traffic scenes reliably, while the small number of public transportation benchmarks remain narrow in scope and rarely support fine-grained diagnosis across text, images, and point-cloud data. To address this gap, we present TRIP-Evaluate, an open multimodal benchmark for large models in transportation. The benchmark organizes 837 items using a role-task-knowledge taxonomy that covers vehicle, traffic-management, traveler, and planning-and-design functions. Each item is annotated with capability, modality, and difficulty labels, enabling diagnosis from overall accuracy down to specific failure modes. The current release includes 596 text items, 198 image items, and 43 point-cloud items. TRIP-Evaluate also standardizes item construction, quality control, prompting, decoding, and scoring to improve cross-model comparability. Results on a diverse panel of models show that text-based performance is improving, but substantial weaknesses remain in multi-step engineering calculation, rule-constrained reasoning, multimodal scene understanding, and point-cloud understanding. Overall, TRIP-Evaluate provides a reproducible, diagnosable, and engineering-aligned evaluation baseline for model selection, regression testing, and safer deployment in transportation applications.

We introduce a novel task of digital battery passport (DBP) conformance classification and introduce the first public benchmark for the task: BatteryPass-12K, created synthetically from real pilot samples. This is as the EU's battery regulation on DBPs comes into effect soon and there exists no public dataset. We evaluated 22 language models (LMs) in zero-shot inference, spanning small LMs (SLMs), mixture of experts (MoEs), and dense LLMs. We also conducted analysis, additional evaluations of few-shot inference and prompt-injection attacks to find that (1) Thinking models have the best performance (with GPT-5.4 scoring 0.98 (0.03) and 0.71 (0.22) on average as F1 (and confidence interval at 95%) on the validation and test sets, respectively), (2) few-shot examples improve performance significantly, (3) generally capable frontier models find the task challenging, (4) merely scaling model parameters does not necessarily lead to improved performance, as SLMs outperformed some LLMs, and (5) prompt-injection attacks degrade performance. We note that BatteryPass-12K, though limited to real pilot samples, may be useful for other known or emerging tasks in the battery domain, e.g. lifecycle reasoning. We publicly release the dataset under a permissive licence (CC-BY-4.0).

Quantum computing remains in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, where the performance is highly constrained to noise. Addressing the limitation often requires hardware-facing capabilities beyond gate-sequence circuit specification, including mid-circuit measurement and classical feedback for quantum error correction (QEC), precise timing control for dynamical decoupling (DD), and pulse-level waveform access for calibration. OpenQASM-3 was introduced to expose exactly these capabilities, providing a hardware-level programming interface. However, despite the rapid progress of large language models in code generation, there is still no dataset specifically designed to train and evaluate LLMs on OpenQASM-3 programs that involve its advanced hardware-oriented features. To address this gap, we introduce QASM-Eval, the first comprehensive dataset designed to train and evaluate LLMs on OpenQASM-3. Rather than focusing on quantum algorithm design or reasoning, QASM-Eval explicitly targets the language's hardware-facing features. QASM-Eval comprises an expert-verified test set of 100 tasks and a training set of 4,000 tasks, systematically covering classical logic, timing scheduling, pulse control, and complex real-world workflows. To automatically validate generated programs, we check syntax, quantum states and program timeline using an extended verifier. Our evaluation reveals that while state-of-the-art LLMs struggle heavily in OpenQASM-3 coding tasks, targeted fine-tuning on QASM-Eval yields significant gains. QASM-Eval provides a crucial benchmark and training foundation to accelerate the development of reliable LLM assistants for hardware-facing quantum programming in NISQ era. Data and code: https://github.com/fuzhenxiao/QASM-Eval

Accurate nutrient estimation from unstructured recipe text is an important yet challenging problem in dietary monitoring, due to ambiguous ingredient terminology and highly variable quantity expressions. We systematically evaluate models spanning a wide range of representational capacity, from lexical matching methods (TF-IDF with Ridge Regression), to deep semantic encoders (DeBERTa-v3), to generative reasoning with large language models (LLMs). Under the strict tolerance criteria defined by EU Regulation 1169/2011, our empirical results reveal a clear trade-off between predictive accuracy and computational efficiency. The TF-IDF baseline achieves moderate nutrient estimation performance with near-instantaneous inference, whereas the DeBERTa-v3 encoder performs poorly under task-specific data scarcity. In contrast, few-shot LLM inference (e.g., Gemini 2.5 Flash) and a hybrid LLM refinement pipeline (TF-IDF combined with Gemini 2.5 Flash) deliver the highest validation accuracy across all nutrient categories. These improvements likely arise from the ability of LLMs to leverage pre-trained world knowledge to resolve ambiguous terminology and normalize non-standard units, which remain difficult for purely lexical approaches. However, these gains come at the cost of substantially higher inference latency, highlighting a practical deployment trade-off between real-time efficiency and nutritional precision in dietary monitoring systems.

Improving the Theory of Mind (ToM) capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for effective social interactions between these AI models and humans. However, the existing benchmarks often measure ToM capability improvement through story-reading, multiple-choice questions from a third-person perspective, while ignoring the first-person, dynamic, and open-ended nature of human-AI (HAI) interactions. To directly examine how ToM improvement techniques benefit HAI interactions, we first proposed the new paradigm of interactive ToM evaluation with both perspective and metric shifts. Next, following the paradigm, we conducted a systematic study of four representative ToM enhancement techniques using both four real-world datasets and a user study, covering both goal-oriented tasks (e.g., coding, math) and experience-oriented tasks (e.g., counseling). Our findings reveal that improvements on static benchmarks do not always translate to better performance in dynamic HAI interactions. This paper offers critical insights into ToM evaluation, showing the necessity of interaction-based assessments in developing next-generation, socially aware LLMs for HAI symbiosis.

Reliable evaluation of large language model (LLM)-generated summaries remains an open challenge, particularly across heterogeneous domains and document lengths. We conduct a comprehensive meta-evaluation of 14 automatic summarization metrics and LLM-based evaluators across seven datasets spanning five domains, covering documents from short news articles to long scientific, governmental, and legal texts (2K-27K words) with over 1,500 human-annotated summaries. Our results show that traditional lexical overlap metrics (e.g., ROUGE, BLEU) exhibit weak or negative correlation with human judgments, while task-specific neural metrics and LLM-based evaluators achieve substantially higher alignment, especially for linguistic quality assessment. Leveraging these findings, we propose LLM-ReSum, a self-reflective summarization framework that integrates LLM-based evaluation and generation in a closed feedback loop without model finetuning. Across three domains, LLM-ReSum improves low-quality summaries by up to 33% in factual accuracy and 39% in coverage, with human evaluators preferring refined summaries in 89% of cases. We additionally introduce PatentSumEval, a new human-annotated benchmark for legal document summarization comprising 180 expert-evaluated summaries. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub.

This paper is accepted and in press for AI and Ethics. This paper includes the supplementary data file at the end of the manuscript. This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

We report a striking statistical regularity in frontier LLM outputs that enables a CPU-only scoring primitive running at 2.6 microseconds per token, with estimated latency up to 100,000$\times$ (five orders of magnitude) below existing sampling-based detectors. Across six contemporary models from five independent vendors, two generation sizes, and five held-out domains, token rank-frequency distributions converge to the same two-parameter Mandelbrot ranking distribution, with 34 of 36 model-by-domain fits exceeding $R^{2} = 0.94$ and 35 of 36 favoring Mandelbrot over Zipf by AIC. The shared family does not collapse the models into statistical duplicates. Fitted Mandelbrot parameters remain cleanly separable between models: the cross-model spread in $q$ (1.63 to 3.69) exceeds its per-model bootstrap standard deviation (0.03 to 0.10) by more than an order of magnitude, yielding tens of standard deviations of separation per few thousand output tokens. Two capabilities follow. First, statistical model fingerprinting: text from a vendor-delivered LLM can be tested against its claimed model family without cryptographic watermarks or access to model internals, supporting provenance verification and silent-substitution audits. Second, a model-agnostic reference distribution for black-box output assessment, from which we derive a single-pass scoring primitive that composes with model log probabilities when available and degrades to a rank-only mode usable on closed APIs. Pilot results on FRANK, TruthfulQA, and HaluEval map where the primitive helps (lexical anomalies, unsupported entities) and where it structurally cannot (reasoning errors in domain-appropriate vocabulary). We position the primitive as a first-pass triage layer in compound evaluation stacks, not as a replacement for sampling-based or source-conditioned verifiers.

Perspective API closes at the end of 2026, removing the de facto standard for toxicity measurement and exposing researchers' dependence on a tool they did not control. Drawing on this case, we argue that a research field must build and govern its own measurement infrastructure rather than borrow it. Surveying 241 papers that use or study Perspective, we show what depending on it cost the research community: claims reaching past what the tool could support, results that shifted when its model was silently retrained, and disparities researchers could measure but not explain. These failures were amplified throughout the LLM lifecycle, where Perspective supplied the labels, filtered the corpora, and graded the systems trained on each, rewarding errors rather than catching them. To keep the instrument open to study after shutdown, we release Perspective scores for 5.9 million text snippets from 77 datasets. We further specify ten requirements for measurement infrastructure a field owns, and argue that what blocks such infrastructure is not technical capability but the value the field places on infrastructure work.

The need to evaluate instructional materials for K-12 science education has become increasingly important, as more educators use generative AI to create instructional materials. However, the review of instructional materials is time-consuming, expertise-intensive, and difficult to scale, motivating interest in automated evaluation approaches. While large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on general evaluation tasks, their performance and reliability on instructional materials remain unclear. To address this gap, we formulate Automatic Instructional Materials Evaluation (AIME) as a generative AI task that predicts scores and evidence using the rubric designed by the educator. We create a benchmark dataset and develop baseline models for AIME. First, we curate the first AIME dataset, SciEval, consisting of instructional materials annotated with pedagogy-aligned evaluation scores and evidence-based rationales. Expert annotations achieve high inter-rater reliability, resulting in a dataset of 273 lesson-level instructional materials evaluated across 13 criteria (N=3549) using the EQuIP rubric. Second, we test mainstream LLMs (GPT, Gemini, Llama, and Qwen) on SciEval and find that none achieve strong performance. Then we fine-tune Qwen3 on SciEval. Results on a held-out test set show that domain-aligned fine-tuning can achieve up to 11 percent performance gains, highlighting the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning for AIME and facilitating the use of LLMs in other educational tasks.

Large Language Models are increasingly being deployed to extract structured data from unstructured and semi-structured sources: parsing invoices, medical records, and converting PDF documents to database entries. Yet existing benchmarks for structured output generation either focus on schema compliance alone, or evaluate value correctness within a single source domain. We introduce SOB (The Structured Output Benchmark), a multi-source benchmark spanning three source modalities: native text, images, and audio conversations. All models receive a text-normalized representation of their context regardless of source modality; this deliberate design isolates structured-output capability from raw vision or speech-processing quality, ensuring a fair, source-agnostic comparison. Our benchmark comprises 5,000 text evaluation records derived from multi-hop QA drawn from a 25,091-record full corpus, 209 image records from OCR-processed PDFs across seven document types including multi-column layouts, dense tables, scanned historical documents, small-print text, and mathematical typesetting, and 115 audio records from the AMI corpus. Each record pairs a natural-language question with a JSON schema that the model must follow and a ground-truth answer verified against the source context. We evaluate 21 frontier and open-weight models across three source domains and seven metrics. Our results reveal a consistent pattern: models achieve near-perfect schema compliance, yet the best Value Accuracy, measured by exact leaf-value match, reaches only 83.0% on text, 67.2% on images, and 23.7% on audio, where longer context makes extraction substantially harder. We release the dataset, evaluation pipeline, and all related code.

LLMs deployed for natural-language querying of analytical databases suffer from two intertwined failures - incorrect answers and confident hallucinations - both rooted in the same cause: the model is forced to infer business semantics that the schema does not encode. We test whether supplying those semantics as context closes the gap. We benchmark three frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4) on 100 natural-language questions over the Cleaned Contoso Retail Dataset in ClickHouse, using a paired single-shot protocol. Each model is evaluated twice: once given only the warehouse schema, and once given the schema plus a 4 KB hand-authored markdown document describing the dataset's measures, conventions, and disambiguation rules. Adding the document improves accuracy by +17 to +23 percentage points across all three models. With it, the three models are statistically indistinguishable (67.7-68.7%); without it, they are also indistinguishable (45.5-50.5%). Every cross-cluster comparison is significant at p < 0.01. The presence of the semantic-layer document accounts for essentially all of the significant variance; model choice within tier does not. We interpret this as a structural result: explicit business semantics suppress the dominant class of text-to-SQL errors not by making the model more capable, but by changing what the model is being asked to do.