LLM Evaluation

Unlike code completion, debugging requires localizing faults and applying targeted edits. We observe that frontier LLMs often regenerate correct but over-edited solutions during debugging. To evaluate how far LLMs are from precise debugging, we introduce the Precise Debugging Benchmark (PDB) framework, which automatically converts any coding dataset into a debugging benchmark with precision-aware evaluation. PDB generates buggy programs by synthesizing verified atomic bugs and composing them into multi-bug programs. We define two novel metrics, edit-level precision and bug-level recall, which measure how many necessary edits are made and how many bugs are resolved. We release two evaluation benchmarks: PDB-Single-Hard on single-line bugs, and PDB-Multi on multi-line bugs. Experiments show that frontier models, such as GPT-5.1-Codex and DeepSeek-V3.2-Thinking, achieve unit-test pass rates above 76% but exhibit precision below 45%, even when explicitly instructed to perform minimal debugging. Finally, we show that iterative and agentic debugging strategies do not substantially improve precision or recall, highlighting the need to rethink post-training pipelines for coding models.

Reliable Large Language Models (LLMs) should abstain when confidence is insufficient. However, prior studies often treat refusal as a generic "I don't know'', failing to distinguish input-level ambiguity (data uncertainty) from capability limitations (model uncertainty). This lack of distinction limits downstream action decisions like requesting clarification or invoking external tools. In this work, we introduce UA-Bench, a benchmark of over 3,500 questions drawn from six datasets spanning knowledge-intensive and reasoning-intensive tasks, designed to evaluate explicit uncertainty attribution. An evaluation of 18 frontier LLMs shows that even state-of-the-art models struggle to reliably discriminate between data uncertainty and model uncertainty, and that high answer accuracy does not necessarily imply strong uncertainty attribution ability. To narrow this gap, we propose a lightweight data synthesis and reinforcement learning strategy. Experiments on both Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 and Qwen3-8B in thinking mode show that the proposed method improves uncertainty attribution while preserving answer accuracy. Our code and data are publicly available now.

Transforming legal text into executable decision logic is a longstanding challenge in legal informatics. With the rise of LLMs, this task has gained renewed interest, but remains challenging due to requiring extensive manual coding and evaluation. We use a unique real-world dataset that pairs production-grade decision models with legal text from the Dutch Environment and Planning Act. These models power the Omgevingsloket government platform, where citizens check permit requirements for environmental activities. We study whether intermediate structured representations can improve LLM-based generation of executable decision models from legal text. We compare four input conditions: raw legal text, text enriched with semantic role labels, text enriched with input and output constraints, and text enriched with both. We evaluate along two dimensions: structural evaluation, through similarity to gold decision models with graph kernels and graphs' descriptive statistics, and outcome evaluation, through functional equivalence by executing models on pre-configured test scenarios. Our findings show that I/O constraints provide the dominant improvement (+37-54% similarity over baseline), while semantic role labels show modest improvements. Outcome evaluation shows that generated models match the gold standard on 51-53% of test scenarios, even though generated models are typically smaller and simpler. We find LLMs eliminate redundant pass-through logic that comprises up to 45-55% of nodes. Importantly, structural similarity and outcome equivalence are complementary: structural similarity does not guarantee outcome equivalence, and vice versa. To facilitate reproducibility, we publicly release our dataset of 95 production decision models with associated legal text and all experimental code.

The rapid growth of scientific literature calls for automated methods to assess and predict research impact. Prior work has largely focused on citation-based metrics, leaving limited evaluation of models' capability to reason about other impact dimensions. To this end, we introduce SciImpact, a large-scale, multi-dimensional benchmark for scientific impact prediction spanning 19 fields. SciImpact captures various forms of scientific influence, ranging from citation counts to award recognition, media attention, patent reference, and artifact adoption, by integrating heterogeneous data sources and targeted web crawling. It comprises 215,928 contrastive paper pairs reflecting meaningful impact differences in both short-term (e.g., Best Paper Award) and long-term settings (e.g., Nobel Prize). We evaluate 11 widely used large language models (LLMs) on SciImpact. Results show that off-the-shelf models exhibit substantial variability across dimensions and fields, while multi-task supervised fine-tuning consistently enables smaller LLMs (e.g., 4B) to markedly outperform much larger models (e.g., 30B) and surpass powerful closed-source LLMs (e.g., o4-mini). These results establish SciImpact as a challenging benchmark and demonstrate its value for multi-dimensional, multi-field scientific impact prediction. Our project homepage is https://flypig23.github.io/sciimpact-homepage/

Evaluating animal welfare reasoning in LLMs remains an open challenge despite rapid deployment in consumer and professional contexts where welfare considerations appear implicitly in everyday queries. Existing benchmarks such as AnimalHarmBench evaluate this through single-turn, explicitly framed questions, measuring whether models avoid harmful content when directly asked. This approach overlooks two failure modes: alignment degradation under sustained adversarial pressure, and moral sensitivity (whether a model spontaneously surfaces welfare stakes in everyday queries). To fill this gap, we construct MANTA, a benchmark of 1,088 five-turn conversations progressing from an implicit Turn-1 scenario through an explicit welfare prompt to three adversarial pressure rounds drawn from a five-type taxonomy: Social, Cultural, Economic, Pragmatic, and Epistemic. We score conversations on two dimensions: Animal Welfare Value Stability (AWVS, primary) and Animal Welfare Moral Sensitivity (AWMS, diagnostic). We evaluate seven frontier models: Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4, Llama 3.3 70B, Mistral Small, Grok 4.3, and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite. Multi-turn evaluation captures behavior single-turn benchmarks miss: 4 of 7 models change rank relative to Turn 1 scores, including Gemini Flash Lite, which drops from fifth on AWMS to last on AWVS. AWMS and AWVS are positively but imperfectly correlated, suggesting moral-recognition tests capture a stable but incomplete component of model behavior under pressure. MANTA also enables a species-by-pressure interaction matrix unavailable to prior benchmarks, showing welfare robustness depends jointly on the animal and pressure applied; companion animals score above wild animals, which score above farmed animals and invertebrates. We release the dataset, scripted pressure plans, judge prompts, and analysis code.

Coreference Resolution (CR) is a fundamental NLP task critical for long-form tasks as information extraction, summarization, and many business applications. However, CR methods originally designed for English struggle with Morphologically Rich Languages (MRLs), where mention boundaries do not necessarily align with word boundaries, and a single token may consist of multiple anaphors. CR modeling and evaluation protocols standardly assume that, as in English, words and mentions mostly align. However, this assumption breaks down in MRLs, particularly in the context of LLMs' raw-text processing and end-to-end tasks. To assess and address this challenge, we introduce {\em KibutzR}, the first comprehensive CR dataset for Modern Hebrew, an MRL rich with complex words and pronominal clitics. We deliver an annotated dataset that identifies mentions at word, sub-word and multi-word levels, and propose an evaluation protocol that directly addresses word/morpheme boundary discrepancies. Our experiments show that contemporary LLMs perform significantly worse on Hebrew than on English, and that performance degrades on raw unsegmented text. Crucially, we show an inverse performance-trend in Hebrew relative to English, where smaller encoders perform far better than contemporary decoder models, leaving ample space for investigation and improvement. We deliver a new benchmark for Hebrew coreference resolution and a segmentation-aware evaluation protocol to inform future work on other MRLs.

Benchmarking of open-source LLMs for hardware design focuses on which LLMs to use, while treating inference-time decoding configuration as a secondary concern. This work shows that it matters more how an LLM is configured than which model is selected. Benchmarking 26 open-source LLMs on VerilogEval and RTLLM with synthesis-in-the-loop evaluation, the study first maps the current capability landscape and then conducts an extensive 108-configuration hyperparameter sweep on three prominent models. The sweep reveals absolute pass-rate gaps of up to 25.5% between the best and worst settings for the same LLM, which is 5x larger than the average spread observed across various model families under their respective default configurations. Ranking all configurations by Spearman's $ρ$ across the two benchmark suites yields near-zero correlation, demonstrating that optimal configurations do not transfer. These results show that benchmarking conducted under default hyperparameters confounds model capabilities with configuration effects. Realizing the full potential of open-source LLMs for RTL generation requires architecture and benchmark aware hyperparameter selection, as enabled by the proposed methodology.

When users seek social support from chatbots, they disclose their situation gradually, yet most evaluations of supportive LLMs rely on single-turn, fully specified prompts. We introduce a multi-turn simulation framework that closes this gap. Support-seeking narratives from five Reddit communities are decomposed into ordered fragments and revealed turn by turn to a language model. Each response is coded with the Social Support Behavior Code (SSBC), an established multi-label taxonomy that captures the composition of support, rather than a single quality score. To ask whether support choices track the model's own construal of user distress, we use linear probes on hidden representations to estimate this internal signal without altering the generation context. Across two mid-scale models (Llama-3.1-8B, OLMo-3-7B) and more than 6,200 turns, support composition shifts systematically with estimated distress: teaching declines as estimated distress rises, a finding that replicates across architectures, while increases in affective and esteem-oriented strategies (such as validation) are suggestive but model-specific and rest on noisier annotations. Community context independently shapes behavior, tracking topic and discourse norms rather than demographic categories. These trajectory-level dynamics, invisible to single-turn evaluation, motivate multi-turn auditing frameworks for socially sensitive applications.

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from conversational assistants into agents capable of handling complex tasks, they are increasingly deployed in high-risk domains. However, existing benchmarks largely rely on mixed queries and posterior evaluation, output-level scoring, which quantifies hallucination severity but offers limited insight into where and why hallucinations arise in the generation pipeline. We therefore reformulate hallucination evaluation as a diagnostic problem and propose PRISM, a controlled benchmark that disentangles hallucinations into four dimensions: knowledge missing, knowledge errors, reasoning errors, and instruction-following errors, grounded in three stages of generation (memory, instruction, and reasoning). PRISM contains 9,448 instances across 65 tasks and supports fine-grained, stage-aware diagnostic evaluation. Evaluating 24 mainstream open-source and proprietary LLMs, we uncover consistent trade-offs across instruction following, memory retrieval, and logical reasoning, showing that mitigation strategies often improve specific dimensions at the expense of others. We hope PRISM provides a framework for understanding the specific mechanisms behind LLMs hallucinations, ultimately accelerating the development of trustworthy large language models.

Recent deployments of large language models (LLMs) as autonomous trading agents raise questions about whether financial decision-making competence generalizes beyond specific market patterns and how it should be trained and evaluated in noisy markets lacking ground truth. We propose a structured framework for training and evaluating such models. Central to our approach is a curated, multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset derived from classic textbooks and historical markets, verified by an AI committee, enriched with structured reasoning traces, and augmented to reduce shortcut learning. To evaluate whether performance on isolated MCQs generalizes to real-world trading, we introduce a two-stage protocol combining test-set evaluation with an MCQ-based chronological trading simulation. Extensive evaluations across market regimes provide statistically robust evidence that open models trained with our framework exhibit competitive, risk-aware behavior over time, outperform open-source baselines, and approach frontier-model performance at smaller scale. We release the dataset and evaluation framework to support further research.

The expression of emotions that serve social purposes, such as asserting independence or fostering interdependence, is central to human interactions and varies systematically across cultures. As LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in culturally nuanced interactions, it is important to understand whether they faithfully capture human patterns of social emotion expression. When LLM responses are not culturally aligned, their utility is compromised -- particularly when users assume they are interacting with a culturally attuned interlocutor, and may act on advice that proves inappropriate in their cultural context. We present a psychologically informed evaluation framework of cross-cultural social emotion expression in LLMs. Using a human study comparing European American and Latin American participants' expression of engaging and disengaging emotions, we evaluate six frontier LLMs on their ability to reflect culturally differentiated patterns for expressing social emotions. We find systematic misalignment between model and human behavior: all models express engaging emotions more than disengaging ones, with particularly stark differences observed for the generally well-represented European American persona. We further highlight that LLM responses are highly concentrated and deterministic, failing to capture the diversity of human responses in expressing social emotions. Our ablation analyses reveal that these patterns are robust to sampling temperatures, partially sensitive to prompt language, and dependent on the response elicitation format. Together, our findings highlight limitations in how current LLMs represent the interaction of cultural and emotional axes, particularly when expressing social emotions, with direct implications for their deployment in cross-cultural affective contexts.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into daily life, in roles ranging from high-stakes decision support to companionship, understanding their behavioral dispositions becomes critical. A growing literature uses psychometric inventories and cognitive paradigms to profile LLM dispositions. However, these approaches cannot determine whether behavioral differences reflect stable, stimulus-specific individuality or global response biases and stochastic noise. Here, we apply crossed random-effects models -- widely used in psychometrics to separate systematic effects -- to 74.9 million ratings provided by 10 open-weight LLMs for over 100,000 words across 14 psycholinguistic norms. On average, 16.9% of variance is attributable to stimulus-specific individuality, robustly exceeding a statistical null model. Cross-norm prediction analyses reveal this individuality as a coherent fingerprint, unique to each model. These results identify individual differences among LLMs that cannot be attributed to response biases or stochastic noise. We term these differences machine individuality.

We present SemanticQA, an evaluation suite designed to assess language models (LMs) in semantic phrase processing tasks. The benchmark consolidates existing multiword expression (MwE) resources and reorganizes them into a unified testbed. It covers both general lexical phenomena, such as lexical collocations, and three fine-grained categories: idiomatic expressions, noun compounds, and verbal constructions. Through SemanticQA, we assess LMs of diverse architectures and scales in extraction, classification, and interpretation tasks, as well as sequential task compositions. We reveal substantial performance variation, particularly on tasks requiring semantic reasoning, highlighting differences in reasoning efficacy and semantic understanding of LMs, providing insights for pushing LMs with stronger comprehension on non-trivial semantic phrases. The evaluation harness and data of SemanticQA are available at https://github.com/jacklanda/SemanticQA.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to accelerate small molecule drug design due to their ability to reason about information from diverse sources and formats. However, their practical utility remains unclear due to the lack of benchmarks that reflect real-world scenarios. In this work, we introduce a suite of chemically-grounded tasks spanning molecular property prediction, molecular representation transformations, and molecular design. Importantly, we formulate these tasks as reinforcement learning (RL) environments, enabling a unified approach for evaluation and post-training. Across three model families, we find that frontier models are increasingly proficient at chemical tasks, but that there is significant room for improvement, especially in experimental settings with low data. Critically, we show that RL-based post-training can substantially improve performance. A smaller model post-trained on our environments becomes competitive with state-of-the-art frontier models, despite a significantly weaker base model. This suggests a practical route toward employing LLMs in drug discovery; by combining carefully-designed evaluation tasks with targeted post-training, we can both elucidate and close critical capability gaps.

This paper explores the response of Large Language Models (LLMs) to user prompts with different degrees of politeness and impoliteness. The Politeness Theory by Brown and Levinson and the Impoliteness Framework by Culpeper form the basis of experiments conducted across three languages (English, Hindi, Spanish), five models (Gemini-Pro, GPT-4o Mini, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek-Chat, and Llama 3), and three interaction histories between users (raw, polite, and impolite). Our sample consists of 22,500 pairs of prompts and responses of various types, evaluated across five levels of politeness using an eight-factor assessment framework: coherence, clarity, depth, responsiveness, context retention, toxicity, conciseness, and readability. The findings show that model performance is highly influenced by tone, dialogue history, and language. While polite prompts enhance the average response quality by up to ~11% and impolite tones worsen it, these effects are neither consistent nor universal across languages and models. English is best served by courteous or direct tones, Hindi by deferential and indirect tones, and Spanish by assertive tones. Among the models, Llama is the most tone-sensitive (11.5% range), whereas GPT is more robust to adversarial tone. These results indicate that politeness is a quantifiable computational variable that affects LLM behaviour, though its impact is language- and model-dependent rather than universal. To support reproducibility and future work, we additionally release PLUM (Politeness Levels in Utterances, Multilingual), a publicly available corpus of 1,500 human-validated prompts across three languages and five politeness categories, and provide a formal supplementary analysis of six falsifiable hypotheses derived from politeness theory, empirically assessed against the dataset.

The complexity of Vietnam's legal texts presents a significant barrier to public access to justice. While Large Language Models offer a promising solution for legal text simplification, evaluating their true capabilities requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond surface-level metrics. This paper introduces a comprehensive dual-aspect evaluation framework to address this need. First, we establish a performance benchmark for four state-of-the-art large language models (GPT-4o, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Grok-1) across three key dimensions: Accuracy, Readability, and Consistency. Second, to understand the "why" behind these performance scores, we conduct a large-scale error analysis on a curated dataset of 60 complex Vietnamese legal articles, using a novel, expert-validated error typology. Our results reveal a crucial trade-off: models like Grok-1 excel in Readability and Consistency but compromise on fine-grained legal Accuracy, while models like Claude 3 Opus achieve high Accuracy scores that mask a significant number of subtle but critical reasoning errors. The error analysis pinpoints \textit{Incorrect Example} and \textit{Misinterpretation} as the most prevalent failures, confirming that the primary challenge for current LLMs is not summarization but controlled, accurate legal reasoning. By integrating a quantitative benchmark with a qualitative deep dive, our work provides a holistic and actionable assessment of LLMs for legal applications.

Recent advances in language models have substantially improved Natural Language Understanding (NLU). Although widely used benchmarks suggest that Large Language Models (LLMs) can effectively disambiguate, their practical applicability in real-world narrative contexts remains underexplored. SemEval-2026 Task 5 addresses this gap by introducing a task that predicts the human-perceived plausibility of a word sense within a short story. In this work, we propose an LLM-based framework for plausibility scoring of homonymous word senses in narrative texts using a structured reasoning mechanism. We examine the impact of fine-tuning low-parameter LLMs with diverse reasoning strategies, alongside dynamic few-shot prompting for large-parameter models, on accurate sense identification and plausibility estimation. Our results show that commercial large-parameter LLMs with dynamic few-shot prompting closely replicate human-like plausibility judgments. Furthermore, model ensembling slightly improves performance, better simulating the agreement patterns of five human annotators compared to single-model predictions

Competency Questions (CQs) are a cornerstone of requirement elicitation in ontology engineering. CQs represent requirements as a set of natural language questions that an ontology should satisfy; they are traditionally modelled by ontology engineers together with domain experts as part of a human-centred, manual elicitation process. The use of Generative AI automates CQ creation at scale, therefore democratising the process of generation, widening stakeholder engagement, and ultimately broadening access to ontology engineering. However, given the large and heterogeneous landscape of LLMs, varying in dimensions such as parameter scale, task and domain specialisation, and accessibility, it is crucial to characterise and understand the intrinsic, observable properties of the CQs they produce (e.g., readability, structural complexity) through a systematic, cross-domain analysis. This paper introduces a set of quantitative measures for the systematic comparison of CQs across multiple dimensions. Using CQs generated from well defined use cases and scenarios, we identify their salient properties, including readability, relevance with respect to the input text and structural complexity of the generated questions. We conduct our experiments over a set of use cases and requirements using a range of LLMs, including both open (KimiK2-1T, LLama3.1-8B, LLama3.2-3B) and closed models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT 4.1). Our analysis demonstrates that LLM performance reflects distinct generation profiles shaped by the use case.

Large language models have shown strong performance on broad-domain knowledge and reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear how well language models handle specialized animal-related knowledge under a unified closed-book evaluation protocol. We introduce BAGEL, a benchmark for evaluating animal knowledge expertise in language models. BAGEL is constructed from diverse scientific and reference sources, including bioRxiv, Global Biotic Interactions, Xeno-canto, and Wikipedia, using a combination of curated examples and automatically generated closed-book question-answer pairs. The benchmark covers multiple aspects of animal knowledge, including taxonomy, morphology, habitat, behavior, vocalization, geographic distribution, and species interactions. By focusing on closed-book evaluation, BAGEL measures animal-related knowledge of models without external retrieval at inference time. BAGEL further supports fine-grained analysis across source domains, taxonomic groups, and knowledge categories, enabling a more precise characterization of model strengths and systematic failure modes. Our benchmark provides a new testbed for studying domain-specific knowledge generalization in language models and for improving their reliability in biodiversity-related applications.

Decoder-only large language models (LLMs) are increasingly replacing BERT-style architectures as the backbone for dense retrieval, achieving substantial performance gains and broad adoption. However, the robustness of these LLM-based retrievers remains underexplored. In this paper, we present the first systematic study of the robustness of state-of-the-art open-source LLM-based dense retrievers from two complementary perspectives: generalizability and stability. For generalizability, we evaluate retrieval effectiveness across four benchmarks spanning 30 datasets, using linear mixed-effects models to estimate marginal mean performance and disentangle intrinsic model capability from dataset heterogeneity. Our analysis reveals that while instruction-tuned models generally excel, those optimized for complex reasoning often suffer a ``specialization tax,'' exhibiting limited generalizability in broader contexts. For stability, we assess model resilience against both unintentional query variations~(e.g., paraphrasing, typos) and malicious adversarial attacks~(e.g., corpus poisoning). We find that LLM-based retrievers show improved robustness against typos and corpus poisoning compared to encoder-only baselines, yet remain vulnerable to semantic perturbations like synonymizing. Further analysis shows that embedding geometry (e.g., angular uniformity) provides predictive signals for lexical stability and suggests that scaling model size generally improves robustness. These findings inform future robustness-aware retriever design and principled benchmarking. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/liyongkang123/Robust_LLM_Retriever_Eval.

Metacognition, the ability to monitor and regulate one's own reasoning, remains under-evaluated in AI benchmarking. We introduce MEDLEY-BENCH, a benchmark of behavioural metacognition that separates independent reasoning, private self-revision, and socially influenced revision under genuine inter-model disagreement. The benchmark evaluates 35 models from 12 families on 130 ambiguous instances across five domains and reports two complementary scores: the Medley Metacognition Score (MMS), a tier-based aggregate of reflective updating, social robustness, and epistemic articulation, and the Medley Ability Score (MAS), derived from four metacognitive sub-abilities. Results show a robust evaluation/control dissociation: evaluation ability increases with model size within families, whereas control does not. In a follow-up progressive adversarial analysis of 11 models, we observed two behavioural profiles, i.e., models that revise primarily in response to argument quality and models that track consensus statistics. Under within-model relative profiling (ipsative scoring), evaluation was the weakest relative ability in all 35 models, indicating a systematic knowing/doing gap. Smaller and cheaper models often matched or outperformed larger counterparts, suggesting that metacognitive competence is not simply a function of scale. These findings position MEDLEY-BENCH as a tool for measuring belief revision under social pressure and suggest that future training should reward calibrated, proportional updating rather than output quality alone.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied as repositories of linguistic knowledge. In this line of work, models are commonly evaluated both as generators of language and as judges of linguistic output, yet these two roles are rarely examined in direct relation to one another. As a result, it remains unclear whether success in one role aligns with success in the other. In this paper, we address this question for pragmatic competence by comparing LLMs' performance as pragmatic listeners, judging the appropriateness of linguistic outputs, and as pragmatic speakers, generating pragmatically appropriate language. We evaluate multiple open-weight and proprietary LLMs across three pragmatic settings. We find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation: many models perform substantially better as listeners than as speakers. Our results suggest that pragmatic judging and pragmatic generation are only weakly aligned in current LLMs, calling for more integrated evaluation practices.

Forecasting has become a natural benchmark for reasoning under uncertainty. Yet existing evaluations of large language models remain limited to judgmental tasks in simple formats, such as binary or multiple-choice questions. In practice, however, forecasting spans a far broader scope. Across domains such as economics, public health, and social demographics, decisions hinge on numerical estimates over continuous quantities, a capability that current benchmarks do not capture. Evaluating such estimates requires a format that makes uncertainty explicit and testable. We propose prediction intervals as a natural and rigorous interface for this purpose. They demand scale awareness, internal consistency across confidence levels, and calibration over a continuum of outcomes, making them a more suitable evaluation format than point estimates for numerical forecasting. To assess this capability, we introduce a new benchmark QuantSightBench, and evaluate frontier models under multiple settings, assessing both empirical coverage and interval sharpness. Our results show that none of the 11 evaluated frontier and open-weight models achieves the 90% coverage target, with the top performers Gemini 3.1 Pro (79.1%), Grok 4 (76.4%), and GPT-5.4 (75.3%) all falling at least 10 percentage points short. Calibration degrades sharply at extreme magnitudes, revealing systematic overconfidence across all evaluated models.

Real-effort tasks, in which participants perform cognitively costly activities whose outcomes depend on actual performance, are widely used in experimental economics. Their validity, however, rests on the assumption that a human performs them. We study whether this assumption still holds in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs). Using 8 canonical real-effort tasks and 23 LLMs from three major providers, we show that most tasks can now be solved accurately and at a negligible cost, while only a few resist automation. Performance improves with each model generation, and midtier models are rapidly closing the gap with frontier ones, broadening the set of widely accessible models that can automate these tasks. Additionally, we show that verbally offering monetary incentives has no effect on LLM performance. Our findings establish a boundary condition for the use of real-effort tasks in unsupervised settings: when participants can cheaply outsource task completion to an LLM, observed performance may no longer reflect genuine human effort.

While large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in general language tasks, their performance on Chouxiang Language, a representative subcultural language in the Chinese internet context, remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we introduce Mouse, a specialized benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs on NLP tasks involving Chouxiang Language across six tasks. Experimental results show that, current state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs exhibit clear limitations on multiple tasks, while performing well on tasks that involve contextual semantic understanding. In addition, we further discuss the reasons behind the generally low performance of SOTA LLMs on Chouxiang Language, examine whether the LLM-as-a-judge approach adopted for translation tasks aligns with human judgments and values, and analyze the key factors that influence Chouxiang translation. Our study aims to promote further research in the NLP community on multicultural integration and the dynamics of evolving internet languages. Our code and data are publicly available.

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

We introduce a cross-domain behavioural assay of monitoring-control coupling in LLMs, grounded in the Nelson and Narens (1990) metacognitive framework and applying human psychometric methodology to LLM evaluation. The battery comprises 524 items across six cognitive domains (learning, metacognitive calibration, social cognition, attention, executive function, prospective regulation), each grounded in an established experimental paradigm. Tasks T1-T5 were pre-registered on OSF prior to data collection; T6 was added as an exploratory extension. After every forced-choice response, dual probes adapted from Koriat and Goldsmith (1996) ask the model to KEEP or WITHDRAW its answer and to BET or decline. The critical metric is the withdraw delta: the difference in withdrawal rate between incorrect and correct items. Applied to 20 frontier LLMs (10,480 evaluations), the battery discriminates three profiles consistent with the Nelson-Narens architecture: blanket confidence, blanket withdrawal, and selective sensitivity. Accuracy rank and metacognitive sensitivity rank are largely inverted. Retrospective monitoring and prospective regulation appear dissociable (r = .17, 95% CI wide given n=20; exemplar-based evidence is the primary support). Scaling on metacognitive calibration is architecture-dependent: monotonically decreasing (Qwen), monotonically increasing (GPT-5.4), or flat (Gemma). Behavioural findings converge structurally with an independent Type-2 SDT approach, providing preliminary cross-method construct validity. All items, data, and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/metacognitive-monitoring-battery.

LLMbench is a browser-based workbench for the comparative close reading of large language model (LLM) outputs. Where existing tools for LLM comparison, such as Google PAIR's LLM Comparator are engineered for quantitative evaluation and user-rating metrics, LLMbench is oriented towards the hermeneutic practices of the digital humanities. Two model responses to the same prompt are side by side in annotatable panels with four analytical overlays (Probabilities for token-level log-probability inspection, Differences for word-level diff across the two panels, Tone for Hyland-style metadiscourse analysis, and Structure for sentence-level parsing with discourse connective highlighting), alongside five analytical modes, Stochastic Variation, Temperature Gradient, Prompt Sensitivity, Token Probabilities, and Cross-Model Divergence, that make the probabilistic structure of generated text legible at the token level. The tool treats the generated text as a research object in its own right from a probability distribution, a text that could have been otherwise, and provides visualisations including continuous heatmaps, entropy sparklines, pixel maps, and three-dimensional probability terrains, that show the counterfactual history from which each word emerged. This paper describes the tool's architecture, its six modes, and its design rationale, and argues that log-probability data, currently underused in humanistic and social-scientific readings of AI, is an important resource for a critical studies of generative AI models.

LLM-as-judge frameworks are increasingly used for automatic NLG evaluation, yet their per-instance reliability remains poorly understood. We present a two-pronged diagnostic toolkit applied to SummEval: $\textbf{(1)}$ a transitivity analysis that reveals widespread per-input inconsistency masked by low aggregate violation rates ($\barρ = 0.8$-$4.1\%$), with $33$-$67\%$ of documents exhibiting at least one directed 3-cycle; and $\textbf{(2)}$ split conformal prediction sets over 1-5 Likert scores providing theoretically-guaranteed $\geq(1{-}α)$ coverage, with set width serving as a per-instance reliability indicator ($r_s = {+}0.576$, $N{=}1{,}918$, $p < 10^{-100}$, pooled across all judges). Critically, prediction set width shows consistent cross-judge agreement ($\bar{r} = 0.32$-$0.38$), demonstrating it captures document-level difficulty rather than judge-specific noise. Across four judges and four criteria, both diagnostics converge: criterion matters more than judge, with relevance judged most reliably (avg. set size $\approx 3.0$) and coherence moderately so (avg. set size $\approx 3.9$), while fluency and consistency remain unreliable (avg. set size $\approx 4.9$). We release all code, prompts, and cached results.

The paradigm of agentic science requires AI systems to conduct robust reasoning and engage in long-horizon, autonomous exploration. However, current scientific benchmarks remain confined to domain knowledge comprehension and complex reasoning, failing to evaluate the exploratory nature and procedural complexity of real-world research. In this work, we present research-oriented evaluations in theoretical and computational physics, a natural testbed with comprehensive domain knowledge, complex reasoning, and verifiable end-to-end workflows without reliance on experiments. Here we introduce PRL-Bench (Physics Research by LLMs), a benchmark designed to systematically map the capability boundaries of LLMs in executing end-to-end physics research. Constructed from 100 curated papers from the latest issues of Physical Review Letters since August 2025 and validated by domain experts, PRL-Bench covers five major theory- and computation-intensive subfields of modern physics: astrophysics, condensed matter physics, high-energy physics, quantum information, and statistical physics. Each task in the benchmark is designed to replicate the core properties of authentic scientific research, including exploration-oriented formulation, long-horizon workflows, and objective verifiability, thereby reconstructing the essential reasoning processes and research workflows of real physics research. Evaluation across frontier models shows that performance remains limited, with the best overall score below 50, revealing a pronounced gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of real scientific research. PRL-Bench serves a reliable testbed for accessing next generation AI scientists advancing AI systems toward autonomous scientific discovery.