LLM Evaluation

LLMs are proving to be adept at machine translation although due to their generative nature they may at times overgenerate in various ways. These overgenerations are different from the neurobabble seen in NMT and range from LLM self-explanations, to risky confabulations, to appropriate explanations, where the LLM is able to act as a human translator would, enabling greater comprehension for the target audience. Detecting and determining the exact nature of the overgenerations is a challenging task. We detail different strategies we have explored for our work in a commercial setting, and present our results.

Multiple choice evaluation is widely used for benchmarking large language models, yet near ceiling accuracy in low option settings can be sustained by shortcut strategies that obscure true competence. Therefore, we propose a massive option evaluation protocol that scales the candidate set to one hundred options and sharply reduces the impact of chance performance. We apply this framework to a Korean orthography error detection task where models must pick the single incorrect sentence from a large candidate set. With fixed targets and repeated resampling and shuffling, we obtain stable estimates while separating content driven failures from positional artifacts. Across experiments, results indicate that strong performance in low option settings can overstate model competence. This apparent advantage often weakens under dense interference at high $N$, revealing gaps that conventional benchmarks tend to obscure. We identify two failure modes, semantic confusion and position bias toward early options under uncertainty. To isolate the effect of context length, we run padding controlled and length matched tests, which suggest that the main bottleneck is candidate ranking rather than context length. Together, these findings support massive option evaluation as a general framework for stress testing model reliability under extreme distractor density, beyond what low option benchmarks can reveal.

Software documentation is essential for program comprehension, developer onboarding, code review, and long-term maintenance. Yet producing quality documentation manually is time-consuming and frequently yields incomplete or inconsistent results. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by automatically generating natural language descriptions from source code, helping developers understand code more efficiently, facilitating maintenance, and supporting downstream activities such as defect localization and commit message generation. However, the effectiveness of LLMs in documentation tasks critically depends on how they are prompted. Properly structured instructions can substantially improve model performance, making prompt engineering-the design of input prompts to guide model behavior-a foundational technique in LLM-based software engineering. Approaches such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, and zero-shot learning show promise for code summarization, yet current research remains fragmented. There is limited understanding of which prompting strategies work best, for which models, and under what conditions. Moreover, evaluation practices vary widely, with most studies relying on overlap-based metrics that may not capture semantic quality. This systematic literature review consolidates existing evidence, categorizes prompting paradigms, examines their effectiveness, and identifies gaps to guide future research and practical adoption.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy? LLMs achieve high accuracy on reasoning benchmarks, but correctness alone does not reveal the quality of the reasoning used to produce it. This highlights a fundamental limitation of outcome-based evaluation: models may arrive at correct answers through flawed reasoning, and models with substantially different reasoning capabilities can nevertheless exhibit similar benchmark accuracy, for example due to memorization or over-optimization. In this paper, we ask: given existing benchmarks, can we move beyond outcome-based evaluation to assess the quality of reasoning itself? We seek metrics that (1) differentiate models with similar accuracy and (2) are robust to variations in input prompts and generation configurations. To this end, we propose a reasoning score that evaluates reasoning traces along dimensions such as faithfulness, coherence, utility, and factuality. A remaining question is how to aggregate this score across multiple sampled traces. Naively averaging them is undesirable, particularly in long-horizon settings, where the number of possible trajectories grows rapidly, and low-confidence correct traces are more likely to be coincidental. To address this, we introduce the Filtered Reasoning Score (FRS), which computes reasoning quality using only the top-K% most confident traces. Evaluating with FRS, models that are indistinguishable under standard accuracy exhibit significant differences in reasoning quality. Moreover, models with higher FRS on one benchmark tend to perform better on other reasoning benchmarks, in both accuracy and reasoning quality. Together, these findings suggest that FRS complements accuracy by capturing a model's transferable reasoning capabilities. We open source our evaluation codebase: https://github.com/Manas2006/benchmark_reproducibility.

Recent work has shown that the hidden states of large language models contain signals useful for uncertainty estimation, motivating a growing interest in efficient probe-based approaches. Yet it remains unclear how robust existing methods are, with prior work reporting conflicting conclusions under substantially different evaluation settings. We address this by introducing ProbeDrift, a systematic evaluation framework for supervised uncertainty probes covering a wide range of OOD settings across models, tasks, and distributional shifts. Using ProbeDrift, we train over 2,000 probes to disentangle the effect of key design choices, showing poor robustness of current methods beyond near-OOD settings. We find that robustness is driven by design decisions that have a largely invisible effect in-distribution, including the choice of feature type, aggregation strategy, and training signal. We argue that robust uncertainty estimation requires robust evaluation. To support this, we release ProbeDrift as a lightweight Python library that contains the train and test splits underpinning our extensive evaluation. We also show how insights from our evaluation can directly lead to more robust methods through a simple Hybrid Back-Off (HBO) strategy.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for computational social analysis, yet faithfully representing the "thick descriptions" (Geertz, 1973) of human communities remains a critical challenge. Current evaluations often reduce social identity to static labels, sidelining how real-world groups navigate social shifts. To bridge this gap, we introduce CARE (Community-Aware Reaction Evaluation), a reaction-centered framework that benchmarks LLM-simulated discourse against the authentic, event-contingent responses of distinct communities to real-world news. Spanning 207 Reddit communities and covering 9,947 authentic reactions towards 2,166 news articles, CARE evaluates leading LLMs using a hierarchical taxonomy covering coarse attitudes and fine-grained communicative tones. Our empirical findings expose two critical failure modes in prevailing community-conditioning paradigms. First, while community context and targeted reasoning significantly enhance macro-level attitudinal and tonal profiling, these gains largely collapse at the instance level when predicting reactions to specific events. Second, the benefits of community conditioning are remarkably uneven: prompting strategies yield non-uniform shifts, where fidelity gains in some communities are offset by performance drops in others. This micro-macro divergence and community-level instability demonstrate that standard conditioning enables models to approximate static baseline profiles without capturing dynamic or equitable event reactions, establishing CARE as an essential diagnostic tool for community-aware social simulation. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/nuankw/Handle_with_CARE.

Evaluating misinformation requires distinguishing whether readers believe content from whether they would share it. Asking large language models (LLMs) both questions yields two scores, but does the sharing answer contribute information beyond the credibility answer? We audit eight model versions on 290 synthetic misinformation articles, using 1,256 paired survey responses with 317 participant identifiers as an external validity criterion. An initial reversal motivates the audit: every model's raw sharing score predicts mean human sharing less accurately than its credibility score. This ordering changes after offset correction, so it does not by itself diagnose missing information. We instead distinguish score reconstructability, persistence across elicitation formats, and incremental human validity. Credibility predicts 30.8-72.5% of model-sharing variation relative to a held-out constant baseline; remaining sharing differences correlate at 0.61-0.75 across question-order and separate-question conditions. Yet adding model sharing to human and model credibility yields only -0.25% to +0.69% error reduction with fixed regression, with all exploratory intervals crossing zero. Flexible prediction and format changes do not establish an improvement. Sharing answers therefore contain structured variation beyond the observed credibility score, without established incremental validity for human sharing in these data. The findings motivate validating the contribution of each elicited outcome, beyond inspecting score differences or agreement across prompts.

Large language model (LLM) evaluation platforms increasingly rely on pairwise human judgments. These data are noisy, sparse, and non-uniform, yet leaderboards are reported with limited uncertainty quantification. We study this as semiparametric inference for a low-rank latent score tensor observed through pairwise comparisons under Bradley-Terry-Luce-type models. This places LLM evaluation in a new tensor completion setting with structured observations, non-uniform sampling, and pairwise contrasts. Our target is a smooth functional $ψ(T^\star)$, including linear estimands such as ability gaps and nonlinear ones such as win probabilities. We derive the information operator on the low-rank tangent space, the efficient influence function, and the semiparametric efficiency bound, then construct a one-step debiased estimator with asymptotic normality. A central challenge is that the information operator is anisotropic and does not commute with the tangent-space projection, creating a bottleneck absent from isotropic models. We introduce a score-whitening method that equalizes local Fisher information and restores stable inference at the optimal sample-complexity scale. Our results provide a principled framework for uncertainty quantification in LLM evaluation and more broadly for inference on low-rank structures from pairwise data.

Mathematical reasoning is a hallmark of human intelligence, and whether large language models (LLMs) can meaningfully perform it remains a central question in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. As LLMs are increasingly integrated into scientific workflows, rigorous evaluation of their mathematical capabilities becomes a practical necessity. Existing benchmarks are limited by synthetic settings and data contamination. We present LiveMathematicianBench, a dynamic multiple-choice benchmark for research-level mathematical reasoning built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. By grounding evaluation in newly published theorems, it provides a realistic testbed beyond memorized patterns. The benchmark introduces a thirteen-category logical taxonomy of theorem types (e.g., implication, equivalence, existence, uniqueness), enabling fine-grained evaluation across reasoning forms. It employs a proof-sketch-guided distractor pipeline that uses high-level proof strategies to construct plausible but invalid answer choices reflecting misleading proof directions, increasing sensitivity to genuine understanding over surface-level matching. We also introduce a substitution-resistant mechanism to distinguish answer recognition from substantive reasoning. Evaluation shows the benchmark is far from saturated: Gemini-3.1-pro-preview, the best model, achieves only 43.5%. Under substitution-resistant evaluation, accuracy drops sharply: GPT-5.4 scores highest at 30.6%, while Gemini-3.1-pro-preview falls to 17.6%, below the 20% random baseline. A dual-mode protocol reveals that proof-sketch access yields consistent accuracy gains, suggesting models can leverage high-level proof strategies for reasoning. Overall, LiveMathematicianBench offers a scalable, contamination-resistant testbed for studying research-level mathematical reasoning in LLMs.

Citation granularity -- whether to cite individual sentences, paragraphs, or documents -- is a critical design choice in attributed generation. While fine-grained citations are commonly preferred for precise human verification, their impact on model performance remains under-explored. We analyze four model scales (8B-120B) and demonstrate that enforcing fine-grained (sentence-level) citations forfeits gains of 2-97% (median 40%) relative to the best-performing granularity, and up to 338% on individual tasks. Strikingly, setting citation granularity to its optimal value (based on attribution quality) unlocks these substantial gains while leaving overall answer correctness essentially unchanged (between -2.3% and +4.4%). We observe a consistent pattern where attribution quality peaks at intermediate (paragraph-level) granularities: finer citations appear to sever the semantic dependencies needed to ground a claim, while excessively coarse citations introduce distracting noise. Importantly, this performance gap varies with scale: when a claim rests on a small or moderate amount of evidence, it disproportionately penalizes larger models by disrupting the multi-sentence information synthesis at which they excel. Fine-grained citation rests on the premise that a sentence is a sufficient unit of evidence on its own. Our results indicate that it often is not, and that this is a property of the model rather than of the citation standard. Standards fixed for human verifiability may therefore paradoxically degrade the very attribution they aim to ensure; effective attribution requires matching granularity to the model's semantic scope rather than fixing it by convention.

A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks. Because artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into decision-making workflows, managing uncertainty relies more and more on the metacognitive capabilities of these systems; i.e, their ability to assess the reliability of and regulate their own decisions. Hence, it is crucial to employ robust methods to measure the metacognitive abilities of AI. This paper is primarily a methodological contribution that highlights a key limitation of commonly used measures of AI metacognitive sensitivity--the ability to generate confidence ratings that distinguish correct from incorrect responses. We then draw attention to the meta-d' framework, a well-established approach from psychology and neuroscience designed to address this limitation. Moreover, we propose to leverage signal detection theory (SDT) to measure the ability of AIs to spontaneously regulate their decisions based on uncertainty and risk. To demonstrate the practical utility of these psychophysical frameworks, we conduct two series of experiments on three large language models (LLMs)--GPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Mistral-Medium-2508.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate chains of thought (CoTs) that are not always causally responsible for their final outputs. When such a mismatch occurs, the CoT no longer faithfully reflects the actual reasons (i.e., decision-critical factors) driving the model's behavior, leading to the reduced CoT monitorability problem. This limits the use of CoTs for reliable oversight. However, a comprehensive and fully open-source benchmark for thoroughly evaluating CoT monitorability remains lacking. To address this gap, we propose MonitorBench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating CoT monitorability in LLMs. MonitorBench provides: (1) a diverse set of 1,514 test instances with carefully designed decision-critical factors across 19 tasks spanning 7 categories to characterize when CoTs can be used to monitor the factors driving LLM behavior; and (2) two prompting stress-test settings to quantify the extent to which CoT monitorability can be degraded. Extensive experiments show that CoT monitorability is a conditional property affected by the evaluated LLM, monitor LLM, and task characteristics. Across these factors, monitorability is higher when decision-critical factors shape the intermediate reasoning process, rather than merely influencing the final answer. Under stress-test prompting, most evaluated LLMs can intentionally reduce monitorability, mainly on tasks where decision-critical factors are not structurally required by the reasoning process. Overall, MonitorBench provides a basis for further research on AI control, reasoning faithfulness, stress-test monitorability, and monitoring scaffords. The code is available at https://github.com/ASTRAL-Group/MonitorBench.

Subjective judgments are part of several NLP datasets and recent work is increasingly prioritizing models whose outputs reflect this diversity of perspectives. Such responses allow us to shed light on minority voices, which are frequently marginalized or obscured by dominant perspectives. It remains a question whether our evaluation practices align with these models' objectives. This position paper proposes seven evaluation desiderata for subjectivity-sensitive models, rooted in how subjectivity is represented in NLP data and models. The desiderata are constructed in a top-down approach, keeping in mind the user-centric impact of such models. We scan the experimental setup of 60 papers and show that various aspects of subjectivity are still understudied: the distinction between ambiguous and polyphonic input, whether subjectivity is effectively expressed to the user, and a lack of interplay between different desiderata, amongst other gaps.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assist ideation in research, but evaluating the quality of LLM-generated research proposals remains difficult: novelty and soundness are hard to measure automatically, and large-scale human evaluation is costly. We propose a verifiable alternative by reframing proposal generation as a time-sliced scientific forecasting problem. Given a research question and inspiring papers available before a cutoff time, the model generates a structured proposal and is evaluated by whether it anticipates research directions that appear in papers published after the time. We operationalize this objective with the Future Alignment Score (FAS), computed via retrieval and LLM-based semantic scoring against a held-out future corpus. To train models, we build a time-consistent dataset of 21,835 paper occurrences across 3,642 instances from targets and their pre-cutoff citations, and synthesize reasoning traces that teach gap identification and inspiration borrowing. Across Llama-3.1 and Qwen2.5 models, future-aligned tuning improves future alignment over unaligned baselines (up to +10.6% overall FAS), and domain-expert human evaluation corroborates improved proposal quality. Finally, we demonstrate practical impact by implementing two model-generated proposals with a code agent, obtaining 4.17% accuracy gain on MATH from a new prompting strategy and consistent improvements for a novel model-merging method. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Arthur-Heng/future-aligned-proposals.

Converting a pretrained Transformer into a more efficient hybrid model through distillation offers a promising approach to reducing inference costs. However, achieving high-quality generation in distilled models requires careful joint design of both the student architecture and the distillation process. Many prior distillation works evaluate downstream multiple-choice benchmarks by ranking candidate answers with log-likelihood rather than requiring autoregressive generation, which can obscure important differences in model quality. For example, on overlapping benchmarks, we show that a 7B distilled model that nearly matches its teacher to within 0.2 pp under log-likelihood scoring falls behind by 20.8 pp when it must generate answers autoregressively. We investigate this phenomenon with GenDistill, a multi-stage pipeline we designed for distilling a pretrained Transformer into an efficient Hybrid Kimi Delta Attention (Hybrid-KDA) student. Using it as a controlled testbed on Qwen3-0.6B, we systematically ablate six design axes (training objective, loss masking, training duration, dataset selection, parameter freezing, and architecture choice) and evaluate every choice under both log-likelihood and generation-based protocols. We find that log-likelihood-based evaluation consistently underestimates the gap between teacher and student, and can in some cases reverse the ranking of design choices, so conclusions drawn from perplexity-only evaluation may be misleading. Among the factors we study, dataset selection, completion-only masking, and freezing attention layers during post-training have the largest impact on generation quality. Our best distillation recipe, using a Hybrid-KDA model as the student, retains 86-90% of teacher accuracy on knowledge benchmarks while reducing KV cache memory by up to 75% and improving time-to-first-token by 2-4x at 128K-token contexts.

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have expanded beyond natural language processing to scientific prediction tasks, including molecular property prediction. However, their effectiveness in in-context learning remains ambiguous, particularly given the potential for training data contamination in widely used benchmarks. This paper investigates whether LLMs perform genuine in-context regression on molecular properties or rely primarily on memorized values. Furthermore, we analyze the interplay between pre-trained knowledge and in-context information through a series of progressively blinded experiments. We evaluate nine LLM variants across three families (GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5) on three MoleculeNet datasets (Delaney solubility, Lipophilicity, QM7 atomization energy) using a systematic blinding approach that iteratively reduces available information. Complementing this, we utilize varying in-context sample sizes (0-, 60-, and 1000-shot) as an additional control for information access. This work provides a principled framework for evaluating molecular property prediction under controlled information access, addressing concerns regarding memorization and exposing conflicts between pre-trained knowledge and in-context information.

In the maintenance of complex systems, fault trees are used to locate problems and provide targeted solutions. To enable fault trees stored as images to be directly processed by large language models, which can assist in tracking and analyzing malfunctions, we propose a novel textual representation of fault trees. Building on it, we construct a benchmark for multi-turn dialogue systems that emphasizes robust interaction in complex environments, evaluating a model's ability to assist in malfunction localization, which contains $3130$ entries and $40.75$ turns per entry on average. We train an end-to-end model to generate vague information to reflect user behavior and introduce long-range rollback and recovery procedures to simulate user error scenarios, enabling assessment of a model's integrated capabilities in task tracking and error recovery, and Gemini 2.5 pro archives the best performance.

To discover the weaknesses of LLMs, researchers often embed prompts into a vector space and cluster them to extract insightful patterns. However, vector embeddings primarily capture topical similarity. As a result, prompts that share a topic but differ in specificity, and consequently in difficulty, are often represented similarly, making fine-grained weakness analysis difficult. To address this limitation, we propose PROMPT2BOX, which embeds prompts into a box embedding space using a trained encoder. The encoder, trained on existing and synthesized datasets, outputs box embeddings that capture not only semantic similarity but also specificity relations between prompts (e.g., "writing an adventure story" is more specific than "writing a story"). We further develop a novel dimension reduction technique for box embeddings to facilitate dataset visualization and comparison. Our experiments demonstrate that box embeddings consistently capture prompt specificity better than vector baselines. On the downstream task of creating hierarchical clustering trees for 17 LLMs from the UltraFeedback dataset, PROMPT2BOX can identify 8.9% more LLM weaknesses than vector baselines and achieves an approximately 33% stronger correlation between hierarchical depth and instruction specificity.

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies enforceable? To answer this question, we assemble a dataset of peer reviews simulating multiple levels of human-AI collaboration, and evaluate five state-of-the-art detectors, including two commercial systems. Our analysis shows that all detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished reviews as AI-generated, thereby risking false accusations of academic misconduct. We further investigate whether peer-review-specific signals, including access to the paper manuscript and the constrained domain of scientific writing, can be leveraged to improve detection. While incorporating such signals yields measurable gains in some settings, we identify limitations in each approach and find that none meets the accuracy standards required for identifying AI use in peer reviews. Importantly, our results suggest that recent public estimates of AI use in peer reviews through the use of AI-text detectors should be interpreted with caution, as current detectors misclassify mixed reviews (collaborative human-AI outputs) as fully AI generated, potentially overstating the extent of policy violations.

While Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have been shown to exhibit degraded instruction-following capabilities, their ability to infer task patterns from in-context examples with audio remains understudied. To address this gap, we design a three-stage evaluation pipeline that progressively reduces textual guidance to systematically evaluate LALMs' in-context learning ability in the audio modality. Evaluating six LALMs across four audio understanding tasks under two output constraint categories, we uncover a consistent asymmetry across LALMs: in-context demonstrations reliably improve format compliance but fail to improve the core task performance. This suggests that LALMs can glean surface-level formatting patterns from demonstrations but may struggle to leverage cross-modal semantic grounding to reliably infer task objectives from examples with audio, highlighting potential limitations in current cross-modal integration. We further probe how demonstrations are used through two complementary analyses, demonstration label shuffling and attention knockout on demonstration spans, both showing that LALMs leverage in-context examples primarily to establish the output label space and format rather than to learn a meaningful input-output correspondence.

Tool-augmented large language models (LLMs) must tightly couple multi-step reasoning with external actions, yet existing benchmarks often confound this interplay with complex environment dynamics, memorized knowledge or dataset contamination. In this paper, we introduce ZebraArena, a procedurally generated diagnostic environment for studying reasoning-action coupling in tool-augmented LLMs, with controllable difficulty and a knowledge-minimal design, which limits gains from memorization or dataset contamination. Each task in ZebraArena requires a set of critical information which is available only through targeted tool use, yielding an interpretable interface between external information acquisition and deductive reasoning. This design provides deterministic evaluation via unique solutions, and a theoretical optimal query count for measuring efficient tool use. We show that ZebraArena requires a combination of in-depth reasoning and accurate external tool calling, which remains a challenge as frontier reasoning models such as GPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro only achieves 60% accuracy on the hard instances. We also observe a persistent gaps between theoretical optimality and practical tool usage. For example, GPT-5 uses 70-270% more tool calls than the theoretical optimum. We highlight the key findings in our evaluation, and hope ZebraArena stimulates further research on the interplay between internal reasoning and external action.

Large language models increasingly run in stateful pipelines that assemble each prompt from retrieval, memory, tools, and other agents. Such pipelines drift: information that should shape the next response is dropped, compressed, or misrouted while every component still reports success. Existing diagnostics miss this because they evaluate isolated prompts, responses, or task scores, whereas what decouples is the relation between a prompt and the response it draws. Here we show that treating the prompt to response to next prompt chain as the fundamental unit of analysis makes these relations measurable. We introduce structural communication coherence, quantified by two metrics: communication closure, which asks if what the pipeline returns at one turn matches what it faces next, and normalized conditional action contribution, which measures how much a sent message resolves the subsequent reply. Across 2,171 human to human, 58 human to LLM, and 8 LLM to LLM dialogues, these metrics reveal directional interaction structures; crucially, the measured contribution drops by 87 to 92% when a response is swapped for one from another turn, leaving surrounding prompts untouched. Because this approach requires no labels, healthy reference data, or predefined rules only the raw prompts and responses drift can be defined and measured directly from operational traffic, rather than inferred from eventual task failure. Establishing prospective detection performance is the next step.

LLMs perform strongly across NLP, but their ability to produce explicit grammatical analyses remains unclear. Arabic provides a challenging testbed due to its rich morphology and orthographic ambiguity, which create strong morphology-syntax interactions. We present a unified evaluation of LLMs on Arabic morphosyntactic tagging and dependency parsing, covering pre-tokenized, raw-text, and cascaded settings. We compare zero-shot prompting with retrieval-based in-context learning. Relevant demonstrations substantially improve performance. The strongest LLMs approach supervised tagging and parsing systems; however, they require substantial annotated data for demonstration retrieval and considerable computational resources. We make all code and data used in this paper publicly available.

The explosive growth of AI research has created unprecedented information overload, increasing the demand for scientific summarization at multiple levels of granularity beyond traditional abstracts. While LLMs are increasingly adopted for summarization, existing benchmarks remain limited in scale, target only a single granularity, and predate the LLM era. Moreover, since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, researchers have rapidly adopted LLMs for drafting manuscripts themselves, fundamentally transforming scientific writing, yet no resource exists to analyze how this writing has evolved. To bridge these gaps, we introduce SciZoom, a benchmark comprising 44,946 papers from four top-tier ML venues (NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, EMNLP) spanning 2020 to 2025, explicitly stratified into Pre-LLM and Post-LLM eras. SciZoom provides three hierarchical summarization targets (Abstract, Contributions, and TL;DR) achieving compression ratios up to 600:1, enabling both multi-granularity summarization research and temporal mining of scientific writing patterns. Our linguistic analysis reveals striking shifts in phrase patterns (up to 10x for formulaic expressions) and rhetorical style (23% decline in hedging), suggesting that LLM-assisted writing produces more confident yet homogenized prose. SciZoom serves as both a challenging benchmark and a unique resource for mining the evolution of scientific discourse in the generative AI era. Our code and dataset are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/janghana/SciZoom) and Hugging Face (https://huggingface.co/datasets/hanjang/SciZoom), respectively.

Large language models struggle to catch errors in their own outputs when the review happens in the same session that produced them. This paper introduces Cross-Context Review (CCR), a straightforward method where the review is conducted in a fresh session with no access to the production conversation history. We ran a controlled experiment: 30 artifacts (code, technical documents, presentation scripts) with 150 injected errors, tested under four review conditions -- same-session Self-Review (SR), repeated Self-Review (SR2), context-aware Subagent Review (SA), and Cross-Context Review (CCR). The central result is that a second review helps only when it happens in a fresh session: CCR (F1 28.6%) outperforms a second review in the same session (SR2, 21.7%) robustly, both in the first run (paired t, p<0.001) and in the three-run average (Holm-adjusted p=0.004). This version updates the broader comparisons. Averaged across runs, and excluding one SR run whose records could not be verified, CCR is not significantly ahead of context-aware subagent review (SA, 23.8%; p=0.057) or of a single same-session review (SR, 27.1%; p=0.26); the first version's advantages over these two baselines came from run 1. CCR needs no infrastructure and costs one extra session.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as personal assistants, where users may share individual preferences over extended interactions. However, assessing how well LLMs can follow these preferences in natural, long-term situations remains underexplored. This work proposes RealPref, a benchmark for evaluating natural preference-following in personalized user-LLM interactions. RealPref features 100 synthetic user profiles, 1300 personalized preferences, 4 types of preference expression (from explicit to implicit), and long-horizon interaction histories. It explored three types of test tasks (multiple-choice, true-or-false, and open-ended), with granular rubrics for LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. Results indicate that LLM performance drops significantly as context length grows and preference expression becomes more implicit, and that generalizing user preference understanding to unseen scenarios poses further challenges. RealPref and these findings provide a foundation for future research to develop user-aware LLM assistants that better adapt to individual needs.

Topic localization aims to identify spans of text that express a given topic defined by a name and description. To study this task, we introduce a human-annotated benchmark based on Czech historical documents, containing human-defined topics together with manually annotated spans and supporting evaluation at both document and word levels. Evaluation is performed relative to human agreement rather than a single reference annotation. We evaluate a diverse range of large language models alongside BERT-based models fine-tuned on a distilled development dataset. Results reveal substantial variability among LLMs, with performance ranging from near-human topic detection to pronounced failures in span localization. While the strongest models approach human agreement, the distilled token embedding models remain competitive despite their smaller scale. The dataset and evaluation framework are publicly available at: https://github.com/dcgm/czechtopic.

Large Language Models (LLMs) using chain-of-thought have demonstrated great potential for solving complex reasoning and planning tasks. Despite these advances, LLM-generated outputs remain susceptible to errors, making verification important for reliable reasoning systems. Learned verifiers can increase trust, enforce safety constraints, and ensure alignment with personal preferences, while also providing feedback to improve generation. This raises a central challenge: when learned verifiers are used to guide generation, the feedback loop between generator and verifier may induce a distribution shift. This is particularly salient for process reward models, a prominent class of learned verifiers that score or classify individual steps in a chain-of-thought reasoning trace. Motivated by this challenge, we propose a new online learning framework for chain-of-thought verifiers that, given a problem statement and a reasoning trace, check the correctness of each reasoning step given the preceding steps. Highlighting the asymmetric role of soundness errors (accepting an incorrect reasoning step) and completeness errors (flagging a correct step as wrong), we introduce novel notions of dimension that characterize their optimal tradeoff. We then show how our learned verifiers can boost the accuracy of a weak generator. Assuming that the generator can produce a correct next step with a small success probability, we show how to learn a strong generator with small error and abstention rates. Our results also allow learning from offline data when queries to an expert verifier can be simulated from a small set of correct reasoning traces. However, we establish a separation between our approach and learning from offline expert demonstrations: we show that learning from offline demonstrations cannot in general achieve the soundness-completeness guarantees produced by our interactive learning approach.

Large language models (LLMs) display a unified "general factor" of capability across 10 benchmarks (a finding confirmed by our factor analysis of 156 models), yet they still struggle with simple, trivial tasks for humans. This is because current benchmarks focus on task completion, failing to probe the foundational cognitive abilities that highlight these behaviors. We address this by introducing the NeuroCognition benchmark, grounded in three adapted neuropsychological tests targeting distinct foundational cognitive components: Raven's Progressive Matrices (abstract relational reasoning), Spatial Working Memory (goal-directed spatial updating), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (cognitive flexibility). Our evaluation reveals that while models perform strongly on text, their performance degrades for images and with increased complexity. Comparison with a human baseline shows that LLMs and humans fail at different parts of the same tasks. Furthermore, we observe that complex reasoning is not universally beneficial, whereas simple, human-like strategies yield partial gains. We also find that NeuroCognition correlates positively with standard general-capability benchmarks, while still measuring distinct cognitive abilities beyond them. Overall, NeuroCognition emphasizes where current LLMs align with human-like intelligence and where they lack core adaptive cognition, showing the potential to serve as a verifiable, scalable source for improving LLMs.