LLM Evaluation

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for mental health applications, recent studies reveal that they can exhibit stigma toward individuals with psychological conditions. Existing evaluations of this stigma primarily rely on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), which fail to capture the biases embedded within the models' underlying logic. In this paper, we analyze the intermediate reasoning steps of LLMs to uncover hidden stigmatizing language and the internal rationales driving it. We leverage clinical expertise to categorize common patterns of stigmatizing language directed at individuals with psychological conditions and use this framework to identify and tag problematic statements in LLM reasoning. Furthermore, we rate the severity of these statements, distinguishing between overt prejudice and more subtle, less immediately harmful biases. To broaden the reasoning domain and capture a wider array of patterns, we also extend an existing mental health stigma benchmark by incorporating additional psychological conditions. Our findings demonstrate that evaluating model reasoning not only exposes substantially more stigma than traditional MCQ-based methods but also helps identify the flaws in the LLMs' logic and their understanding of mental health conditions.

Applications based on large language models (LLMs), such as multi-agent simulations, require population diversity among agents. We identify a pervasive failure mode we term \emph{Persona Collapse}: agents each assigned a distinct profile nonetheless converge into a narrow behavioral mode, producing a homogeneous simulated population. To quantify persona collapse, we propose a framework that measures how much of the persona space a population occupies (Coverage), how evenly agents spread across it (Uniformity), and how rich the resulting behavioral patterns are (Complexity). Evaluating ten LLMs on personality simulation (BFI-44), moral reasoning, and self-introduction, we observe persona collapse along two axes: (1) Dimensions: a model can appear diverse on one axis yet structurally degenerate on another, and (2) Domains: the same model may collapse the most in personality yet be the most diverse in moral reasoning. Furthermore, item-level diagnostics reveal that behavioral variation tracks coarse demographic stereotypes rather than the fine-grained individual differences specified in each persona. Counter-intuitively, \textbf{the models achieving the highest per-persona fidelity consistently produce the most stereotyped populations}. We release our toolkit and data to support population-level evaluation of LLMs.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly assisted in historical tasks such as text processing, their capacity for professional-level historical reasoning remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks primarily assess basic knowledge breadth or lexical understanding, failing to capture the higher-order skills, such as evidentiary reasoning,that are central to historical research. To fill this gap, we introduce ProHist-Bench, a novel benchmark anchored in the Chinese Imperial Examination (Keju) system, a comprehensive microcosm of East Asian political, social, and intellectual history spanning over 1,300 years. Developed through deep interdisciplinary collaboration, ProHist-Bench features 400 challenging, expert-curated questions across eight dynasties, accompanied by 10,891 fine-grained evaluation rubrics. Through a rigorous evaluation of 18 LLMs, we reveal a significant proficiency gap: even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with complex historical research questions. We hope ProHist-Bench will facilitate the development of domain-specific reasoning LLMs, advance computational historical research, and further uncover the untapped potential of LLMs. We release ProHist-Bench at https://github.com/inclusionAI/ABench/tree/main/ProHist-Bench.

This paper investigates whether source trustworthiness shapes Turkish evidential morphology and whether large language models (LLMs) track this sensitivity. We study the past-domain contrast between -DI and -mIs in controlled cloze contexts where the information source is overtly external, while only its perceived reliability is manipulated (High-Trust vs. Low-Trust). In a human production experiment, native speakers of Turkish show a robust trust effect: High-Trust contexts yield relatively more -DI, whereas Low-Trust contexts yield relatively more -mIs, with the pattern remaining stable across sensitivity analyses. We then evaluate 10 LLMs in three prompting paradigms (open gap-fill, explicit past-tense gap-fill, and forced-choice A/B selection). LLM behavior is highly model- and prompt-dependent: some models show weak or local trust-consistent shifts, but effects are generally unstable, often reversed, and frequently overshadowed by output-compliance problems and strong base-rate suffix preferences. The results provide new evidence for a trust-/commitment-based account of Turkish evidentiality and reveal a clear human-LLM gap in source-sensitive evidential reasoning.

The development of practical (multimodal) large language model assistants for Korean weather forecasters is hindered by the absence of a multidimensional, expert-level evaluation framework grounded in authoritative sources. To address this, we introduce K-MetBench, a diagnostic benchmark grounded in national qualification exams. It exposes critical gaps across four dimensions: expert visual reasoning of charts, logical validity via expert-verified rationales, Korean-specific geo-cultural comprehension, and fine-grained domain analysis. Our evaluation of 55 models reveals a profound modality gap in interpreting specialized diagrams and a reasoning gap where models hallucinate logic despite correct predictions. Crucially, Korean models outperform significantly larger global models in local contexts, demonstrating that parameter scaling alone cannot resolve cultural dependencies. K-MetBench serves as a roadmap for developing reliable, culturally aware expert AI agents. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/soyeonbot/K-MetBench .

Closed-source frontier labs do not disclose parameter counts. Storing F facts requires at least F/(bits per parameter) weights, so factual recall lower-bounds parameter count--an intrinsic, serving-independent signal, though (as we show) a coarse one. We introduce Incompressible Knowledge Probes (IKPs), a benchmark of 1,400 factual questions spanning 7 tiers of obscurity, designed to isolate knowledge that cannot be derived by reasoning or compressed by architectural improvements. We score with no hallucination penalty (lambda = 0: IKP accuracy is simply the fraction of probed facts answered correctly), which removes both the penalty hyperparameter and the per-tier flooring choice; a full lambda x flooring ablation shows the calibration is robust across scoring choices while individual estimates are not, motivating the no-penalty default. We calibrate a log-linear mapping from IKP accuracy to parameter count on 93 open-weight models (135M-1,600B) spanning 19 vendors, achieving R^2 = 0.910; leave-one-out cross-validation confirms generalization (median fold error 1.48x, 72% within 2x, 86% within 3x). The instrument is deliberately coarse--its 90% prediction interval spans ~3x in either direction, wider than inference economics--so IKP recovers order-of-magnitude effective capacity and relative rankings, not precise parameter counts. For Mixture-of-Experts models, total parameters predict knowledge (R^2 = 0.67) better than active parameters (R^2 = 0.41). We evaluate 201 models from 27 vendors on a curated probe set (1,311 of 1,400 probes surviving name-collision and label-ambiguity filters) and report effective knowledge capacity for all major proprietary frontier models as prediction bands rather than point estimates; for heavily safety-tuned models these are lower bounds, since refusal policy can suppress tens of percentage points of otherwise-answerable capacity.

The increasing reliance on Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse sectors highlights the need for robust domain-specific and language-specific evaluation datasets; however, the collection of such datasets is challenging due to privacy concerns, regulatory restrictions, and the time cost for manual creation. Existing automated benchmarking methods are often limited by relying on pre-existing data, poor scalability, single-domain focus, and lack of multilingual support. We present STELLAR-E - a fully automated system to generate high-quality synthetic datasets of custom size, using minimal human inputs without depending on existing datasets. The system is structured in two stages: (1) We modify the TGRT Self-Instruct framework to create a synthetic data engine that enables controllable, custom synthetic dataset generation, and (2) an evaluation pipeline incorporating statistical and LLM-based metrics to assess the applicability of the synthetic dataset for LLM-based application evaluations. The synthetic datasets reach an average difference of +5.7% in terms of LLM-as-a-judge scores against existing language-specific benchmarks, demonstrating comparable quality for comprehensive assessment of big and small LLMs. While real datasets remain slightly more challenging for LLMs especially for smaller models, this work establishes a scalable and domain-adaptable benchmarking framework that supports fair evaluation of LLM applications, offering a faster alternative to manual approaches and enabling high-efficiency automated quality assurance cycles.

Reliably transferring specialized human knowledge from text into large language models remains a fundamental challenge in artificial intelligence. Fine-tuning on domain corpora has enabled substantial capability gains, but the process operates without feedback: when a model fails on a domain task, there is no method to diagnose what is deficient in the training data, and the only recourse is to add more data indiscriminately. Here we show that when a structured knowledge representation extracted from the source corpus serves as the shared foundation for both training data and evaluation, the complete data-engineering lifecycle maps onto the software development lifecycle in a precise and operative way: training data becomes source code specifying what the model should learn, model training becomes compilation, benchmarking becomes unit testing, and failure-driven data repair becomes debugging. Under this correspondence, model failures decompose into concept-level gaps and reasoning-chain breaks that can be traced back to specific deficiencies in the data and repaired through targeted patches, with each repair cycle producing consistent improvements across model scales and architectures without degrading general capabilities. We formalize this principle as Programming with Data and instantiate it across sixteen disciplines spanning the natural sciences, engineering, biomedicine, and the social sciences, releasing a structured knowledge base, benchmark suite, and training corpus as open resources. By demonstrating that the relationship between training data and model behaviour is structurally traceable and systematically repairable, this work establishes a principled foundation for the reliable engineering of human expertise into language models.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study ($n=81$) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.

In this paper, we introduce SWE-QA, a text and code corpus aimed at benchmarking multi-hop code comprehension, addressing the gap between simplified evaluation tasks and the complex reasoning required in real-world software development. While existing code understanding benchmarks focus on isolated snippets, developers must routinely connect information across multiple dispersed code segments. The dataset comprises 9,072 multiple-choice questions systematically generated from 12 Python repositories of SWE-bench, evaluating several recurrent reasoning patterns like Declaration-and-Call questions that link entity definitions to their usage, and Interacting-Entity questions that examine the dynamic relationships among multiple collaborating components. Generated through parsing-based entity extraction and Large Language Model assisted question construction with carefully validated distractors, the benchmark distinguishes genuine comprehension from superficial pattern matching. Evaluation of 15 language models (360M to 671B parameters) reveals significant challenges in multi-hop reasoning, with best performance reaching 74.41% accuracy. Dense architectures consistently outperform mixture-of-experts models by 10-14 percentage points, while reasoning-enhanced variants show inconsistent benefits.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in general machine translation, yet their ability in culture-aware scenarios remains poorly understood. To bridge this gap, we introduce CanMT, a Culture-Aware Novel-Driven Parallel Dataset for Machine Translation, together with a theoretically grounded, multi-dimensional evaluation framework for assessing cultural translation quality. Leveraging CanMT, we systematically evaluate a wide range of LLMs and translation systems under different translation strategy constraints. Our findings reveal substantial performance disparities across models and demonstrate that translation strategies exert a systematic influence on model behavior. Further analysis shows that translation difficulty varies across types of culture-specific items, and that a persistent gap remains between models' recognition of culture-specific knowledge and their ability to correctly operationalize it in translation outputs. In addition, incorporating reference translations is shown to substantially improve evaluation reliability in LLM-as-a-judge, underscoring their essential role in assessing culture-aware translation quality. The corpus and code are available at CanMT.

Evaluating nuanced conversational travel recommendations is challenging when human annotations are costly and standard metrics ignore stakeholder-centric goals. We study LLMs-as-Judges for sustainable city-trip lists across four dimensions -- relevance, diversity, sustainability, and popularity balance, and propose a three-phase calibration framework: (1) baseline judging with multiple LLMs, (2) expert evaluation to identify systematic misalignment, and (3) dimension-specific calibration via rules and few-shot examples. Across two recommendation settings, we observe model-specific biases and high dimension-level variance, even when judges agree on overall rankings. Calibration clarifies reasoning per dimension but exposes divergent interpretations of sustainability, highlighting the need for transparent, bias-aware LLM evaluation. Prompts and code are released for reproducibility: https://github.com/ashmibanerjee/trs-llm-calibration.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes and operational settings, evaluation strategies based solely on aggregate accuracy are often insucient to characterize system reliability. This study proposes a thermodynamic inspired modeling framework for analyzing the stability of LLM outputs under conditions of uncertainty and perturbation. The framework introduces a composite stability score that integrates task utility, entropy as a measure of external uncertainty, and two internal structural proxies: internal integration and aligned reective capacity. Rather than interpreting these quantities as physical variables, the formulation is intended as an interpretable abstraction that captures how internal structure may modulate the impact of disorder on model behavior. Using the IST-20 benchmarking protocol and associated metadata, we analyze 80 modelscenario observations across four contemporary LLMs. The proposed formulation consistently yields higher stability scores than a reduced utilityentropy baseline, with a mean improvement of 0.0299 (95% CI: 0.02470.0351). The observed gain is more pronounced under higher entropy conditions, suggesting that the framework captures a form of nonlinear attenuation of uncertainty. We do not claim a fundamental physical law or a complete theory of machine ethics. Instead, the contribution of this work is a compact and interpretable modeling perspective that connects uncertainty, performance, and internal structure within a unied evaluation lens. The framework is intended to complement existing benchmarking approaches and to support ongoing discussions in AI safety, reliability, and governance.

Translating sequential programming priors into the parallel temporal logic of hardware design remains a crucial bottleneck for large language models(LLM). To investigate this, we introduce a new error taxonomy grounded in problem solvability, inspired by cognitive theory. Our taxonomy categorizes failures into syntactic, semantic, solvable functional, and unsolvable functional types. Evaluations reveal a strict empirical ceiling on the VerilogEval benchmark, as frontier models plateau at a 90.8% initial pass rate. These plateaus are defined by unsolvable functional errors, exposing persistent knowledge gaps immune to test time compute scaling. Furthermore, we expose a striking surface convergence gap: optimization readily eliminates syntax errors but concurrently exacerbates deeper functional failures. Our findings demonstrate that alignment techniques merely teach models to compile. While repeated sampling strategies can patch solvable errors, register-transfer level(RTL) coding capacity remains strictly bounded by pretraining knowledge. Addressing challenges in the current LLM based hardware generation pipeline requires more studies in model reasoning rather than alignment interventions.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on legal benchmarks, including multiple-choice components of bar exams. However, their capacity for generating open-ended legal reasoning in realistic scenarios remains insufficiently explored. Notably, to our best knowledge, there are no prior studies or datasets addressing this issue in the Japanese context. This study presents the first dataset designed to evaluate the open-ended legal reasoning performance of LLMs within the Japanese jurisdiction. The dataset is based on the writing component of the Japanese bar examination, which requires examinees to identify multiple legal issues from long narratives and to construct structured legal arguments in free text format. Our key contribution is the manual evaluation of LLMs' generated responses by legal experts, which reveals limitations and challenges in legal reasoning. Moreover, we conducted a manual analysis of hallucinations to characterize when and how the models introduce content not supported by precedent or law. Our real exam questions, model-generated responses, and expert evaluations reveal the milestones of current LLMs in the Japanese legal domain. Our dataset and relevant resources will be available online.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in formal theorem proving, yet evaluating semantic correctness remains challenging. Existing evaluations rely on indirect proxies such as lexical overlap with human-annotated proof, or expensive manual inspection. Inspired by the shift from lexical comparison to test-based evaluation in code generation, we propose T , a framework that evaluates the semantic correctness of formal theorems: a generated theorem is considered correct only if all dependent successor theorems compile successfully, analogous to integration testing. We construct a benchmark from 5 real-world Lean 4 repositories, comprising 2,206 problems paired with 41 successor theorems on average, automatically extracted without human effort. Experiments demonstrate that while state-of-the-art models achieve high compilation success, they perform significantly worse under our semantic metric. The best model, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, achieves only 38.9% Testing Accuracy on the full set, given both natural language proof and successor theorems as context, revealing a critical gap in current theorem generation capabilities.

Silicon samples are increasingly used as a low-cost substitute for human panels and have been shown to reproduce aggregate human opinion with high fidelity. We show that, in the alignment-relevant domain of philosophy, silicon samples systematically collapse heterogeneity. Using data from $N = {277}$ professional philosophers drawn from PhilPeople profiles, we evaluate seven proprietary and open-source large language models on their ability to replicate individual philosophical positions and to preserve cross-question correlation structures across philosophical domains. We find that language models substantially over-correlate philosophical judgments, producing artificial consensus across domains. This collapse is associated in part with specialist effects, whereby models implicitly assume that domain specialists hold highly similar philosophical views. We assess the robustness of these findings by studying the impact of DPO fine-tuning and by validating results against the full PhilPapers 2020 Survey ($N = {1785}$). We conclude by discussing implications for alignment, evaluation, and the use of silicon samples as substitutes for human judgment. The code of this project can be found at https://github.com/stanford-del/silicon-philosophers.

Large language models are widely adopted as automated evaluation judges, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt rephrasings remains largely unexamined. We conduct a systematic empirical study of prompt-induced decision instability across multiple evaluation tasks and judge architectures. To facilitate this analysis, we release JudgeSense, a benchmark comprising hand-validated prompt-paraphrase pairs spanning factuality, coherence, relevance, and preference, drawn from established NLP benchmarks and accompanied by comprehensive decision logs. The benchmark enables the measurement of judge stability across equivalent prompts, allowing researchers to assess whether stability correlates with model scale or instruction-tuning, and to identify which tasks are most sensitive to prompt wording. Our evaluation reveals that coherence remains the primary task for distinguishing judge behavior, while factuality judgments demonstrate high stability under standard conditions. Pairwise evaluation tasks consistently exhibit position bias. Crucially, we find that model scale is not a reliable proxy for consistency; notably, as an interesting result in our analysis, the largest and newest models are not the most consistent.

The relentless expansion of scientific literature presents significant challenges for navigation and knowledge discovery. Within Research Information Retrieval, established tasks such as text summarization and classification remain crucial for enabling researchers and practitioners to effectively navigate this vast landscape, so that efforts have increasingly been focused on developing advanced research information systems. These systems aim not only to provide standard keyword-based search functionalities but also to incorporate capabilities for automatic content categorization within knowledge-intensive organizations across academia and industry. This study systematically evaluates the performance of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) in analyzing scientific texts according to a given classification scheme. We utilized the hierarchical ORKG taxonomy as a classification framework, employing the FORC dataset as ground truth. We investigated the effectiveness of advanced prompt engineering strategies, namely In-Context Learning (ICL) and Prompt Chaining, and experimentally explored the influence of the LLMs' temperature hyperparameter on classification accuracy. Our experiments demonstrate that Prompt Chaining yields superior classification accuracy compared to pure ICL, particularly when applied to the nested structure of the ORKG taxonomy. LLMs with prompt chaining outperform the state-of-the-art models for domain (1st level) prediction and show even better performance for subject (2nd level) prediction compared to the older BERT model. However, LLMs are not yet able to perform well in classifying the topic (3rd level) of research areas based on this specific hierarchical taxonomy, as they only reach about 50% accuracy even with prompt chaining.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on a wide range of software engineering tasks, including code generation and analysis. However, most prior work relies on cloud-based models or specialized hardware, limiting practical applicability in privacy-sensitive or resource-constrained environments. In this paper, we present a systematic empirical evaluation of two locally deployed LLMs, LLaMA 3.2 and Mistral, for real-world Python bug detection using the BugsInPy benchmark. We evaluate 349 bugs across 17 projects using a zero-shot prompting approach at the function level and an automated keyword-based evaluation framework. Our results show that locally executed models achieve accuracy between 43% and 45%, while producing a large proportion of partially correct responses that identify problematic code regions without pinpointing the exact fix. Performance varies significantly across projects, highlighting the importance of codebase characteristics. The results demonstrate that local models can identify a meaningful share of bugs, though precise localization remains difficult for locally executed LLMs, particularly when handling complex and context dependent bugs in realistic development scenarios.

We present a comprehensive evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on Computer Science (CS) Data Structure examination questions. Our work introduces a new benchmark dataset comprising exam questions from Tel Aviv University (TAU), curated to assess LLMs' abilities in handling closed and multiple-choice questions. We evaluated the performance of OpenAI's GPT 4o and Anthropic's Claude 3.5, popular LLMs, alongside two smaller LLMs, Mathstral 7B and LLaMA 3 8B, across the TAU exams benchmark. Our findings provide insight into the current capabilities of LLMs in CS education.

Large language models (LLMs) operate in two fundamental learning modes - fine-tuning (FT) and in-context learning (ICL) - raising key questions about which mode yields greater language proficiency and whether they differ in their inductive biases. Prior studies comparing FT and ICL have yielded mixed and inconclusive results due to inconsistent experimental setups. To enable a rigorous comparison, we propose a formal language learning task - offering precise language boundaries, controlled string sampling, and no data contamination - and introduce a discriminative test for language proficiency, where an LLM succeeds if it assigns higher generation probability to in-language strings than to out-of-language strings. Empirically, we find that: (a) FT has greater language proficiency than ICL on in-distribution generalization, but both perform equally well on out-of-distribution generalization. (b) Their inductive biases, measured by the correlation in string generation probabilities, are similar when both modes partially learn the language but diverge at higher proficiency levels. (c) Unlike FT, ICL performance differs substantially across models of varying sizes and families and is sensitive to the token vocabulary of the language. Thus, our work demonstrates the promise of formal languages as a controlled testbed for evaluating LLMs, behaviors that are difficult to isolate in natural language datasets. Our source code is available at https://github.com/bishwamittra/formallm.

Language models are increasingly deployed in interactive settings where users reason about facts over time rather than in isolation. In such scenarios, correct behavior requires models to maintain and update implicit temporal assumptions established earlier in a conversation. We study this challenge through the lens of temporal scope stability: the ability to preserve, override, or transfer time-scoped factual context across dialogue turns. We introduce ChronoScope, a large-scale diagnostic benchmark designed to isolate temporal scope behavior in controlled multi-turn interactions, comprising over one million deterministically generated question chains grounded in Wikidata. ChronoScope evaluates whether models can correctly retain inferred temporal scope when follow-up questions omit explicit time references, spanning implicit carryover, explicit scope switching, cross-entity transfer, and longer temporal trajectories. Through extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art language models, we find that temporal scope stability is frequently violated in controlled multi-turn settings, with models often drifting toward present-day assumptions despite correct underlying knowledge. These failures intensify with interaction length and persist even under oracle context conditions, revealing a gap between single-turn factual accuracy and coherent temporal reasoning under sequential interaction. We make our dataset and evaluation suite publicly available at https://github.com/yashkumaratri/ChronoScope

Large language models (LLMs) have become central to modern AI workflows, powering applications from open-ended text generation to complex agent-based reasoning. However, debugging these models remains a persistent challenge due to their opaque and probabilistic nature and the difficulty of diagnosing errors across diverse tasks and settings. This paper introduces a systematic approach for LLM debugging that treats models as observable systems, providing structured, model-agnostic methods from issue detection to model refinement. By unifying evaluation, interpretability, and error-analysis practices, our approach enables practitioners to iteratively diagnose model weaknesses, refine prompts and model parameters, and adapt data for fine-tuning or assessment, while remaining effective in contexts where standardized benchmarks and evaluation criteria are lacking. We argue that such a structured methodology not only accelerates troubleshooting but also fosters reproducibility, transparency, and scalability in the deployment of LLM-based systems.

Verification is becoming central to both reinforcement-learning-based training and inference-time control of large language models (LLMs). Yet current verifiers face a fundamental trade-off: LLM-based verifiers are expressive but hard to control and prone to error, while deterministic executable verifiers are reliable and interpretable but often limited in capability. We study the following question: given a development set of LLM outputs and labels for a target objective, such as correctness, can we automatically induce a minimal set of Python verifiers whose joint satisfaction closely matches that objective? We propose AutoPyVerifier, a framework that uses an LLM to synthesize candidate verifier functions and then refines them through search over a directed acyclic graph (DAG). By navigating the DAG, AutoPyVerifier systematically explores the space of deterministic executable verifiers and selects a compact verifier set whose joint satisfaction best approximates the target objective. Across mathematical reasoning, coding, function calling, and instruction-following benchmarks for several state-of-the-art LLMs, AutoPyVerifier improves target-objective prediction by up to 55.0 F1 points over the initial LLM-generated verifier sets. Additional analyses show that the most useful verification targets vary by benchmark and model, and that the DAG-based search shifts the learned verifier sets toward more structural and semantically grounded checks. We further show that exposing the discovered verifier set to an LLM as an external tool improves downstream accuracy by up to 17.0 points. We release our code

Recent advancements in large language models have led to significant improvements across various tasks, including mathematical reasoning, which is used to assess models' intelligence in logical reasoning and problem-solving. Models are evaluated on mathematical reasoning benchmarks by verifying the correctness of the final answer against a ground truth answer. A common approach for this verification is based on symbolic mathematics comparison, which fails to generalize across diverse mathematical representations and solution formats. In this work, we offer a robust and flexible alternative to rule-based symbolic mathematics comparison. We propose an LLM-based evaluation framework for evaluating model-generated answers, enabling accurate evaluation across diverse mathematical representations and answer formats. We present failure cases of symbolic evaluation in two popular frameworks, Lighteval and SimpleRL, and compare them to our approach, demonstrating clear improvements over commonly used methods. Our framework enables more reliable evaluation and benchmarking, leading to more accurate performance monitoring, which is important for advancing mathematical problem-solving and intelligent systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a broad spectrum of tasks, including natural language understanding, dialogue systems, and code generation. Despite evident progress, less attention has been paid to their effectiveness in handling declarative paradigms such as Answer Set Programming (ASP), to date. In this paper we introduce BLAST: The first dedicated benchmarking methodology and associated dataset for evaluating the accuracy of LLMs in generating ASP code. BLAST provides a structured evaluation framework featuring two novel semantic metrics tailored to ASP code generation. The paper presents the results of an empirical evaluation involving ten well-established graph-related problems from the ASP literature and a diverse set of eight state-of-the-art LLMs.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Do large language models' (LLMs') answers to self-report questionnaires predict how they behave? Prior work finds they do not, but it uses human personality inventories, so the gap could reflect borrowed human constructs rather than LLM self-report itself. We test this with a self-report instrument built from LLM-specific behaviors (e.g., over-refusal, unsolicited disclaimers) whose structure is derived bottom-up. Administering 300 items 30 times to 25 LLMs from 17 developers yields five replicable, reliable factors (Tucker $φ\geq .957$, $α\geq .930$). We compare these self-reports with 2,500 open-ended behavioral samples rated by 151 humans and an LLM-judge ensemble. Humans and judges agree about model behavior ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report barely tracks human ratings ($\bar{r} = .09$, 95% CI $[-.07, .18]$) or rater-free text measures, and correcting for criterion unreliability leaves four of five factors near zero. Verbosity is the partial exception ($r = .40$, 71% of its reliability ceiling). On Responsiveness, self-report tracks LLM judges more than humans ($r = .53$ vs. $.18$; Steiger $p = .04$), and controlling for length and formatting does not remove this: agreement between LLM judges and LLM self-report is weak evidence that either tracks human judgment.

When you ask an AI assistant for advice about your career, your marriage, or a conflict with your family, does it give you the same answer regardless of where you are from? We tested this systematically by presenting three leading AI systems (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5.4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) with ten real-life personal dilemmas, framed for users from 10 countries across 5 continents in 7 languages (n=840 scored responses). We compared AI advice against World Values Survey Wave 7 data measuring what people in each country actually believe. All three AI systems consistently gave Western-style, individualist advice even to users from societies that prioritize family, community, and authority, significantly more so than local values would predict (mean gap +0.76 on a 1-5 scale; t=15.65, p<0.001). The gap is largest for Nigeria (+1.85) and India (+0.82). Japan is the sole exception: AI systems treated Japanese users as more group-oriented than surveys show, revealing that AI encodes outdated stereotypes. Claude and GPT-5.4 show nearly identical bias magnitude, while Gemini is lower but still significant. The models diverge in mechanism: Claude shifts further collectivist in the user's native language; Gemini shifts more individualist; GPT-5.4 responds only to stated country identity. These findings point to a systemic homogenization of values across frontier AI. Data, code, and scoring pipeline are openly released.