LLM Evaluation

Much research on LLMs has focused on increasing benchmark performance. However, the evaluation of such models in real-world collaborative human-AI workflows has stayed behind. This work evaluates a chatbot-style assistant based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in a realistic multi-turn information-seeking scenario inspired by workplace settings where compliance with local legislation and secure handling of sensitive data are often key. Specifically, we examine the performance of humans (N=112) assisted by RAG-assistants compared to LLM-only or LLM+RAG baselines. In this setting, we investigate how underlying model size (3B, 8B, and 70B) shapes the human-AI collaborative dynamic and how it influences perceived usability and satisfaction. Results show that the performance gain of human-AI collaboration over the model-only baselines is significant, irrespective of model size, suggesting that hybrid systems are beneficial in information-seeking scenarios. Interestingly, however, perceived usability and satisfaction among participants showed little difference across model sizes. This demonstrates a nuanced trade-off between model size, performance, and user perception. Our work highlights the added value of evaluating AI applications in actual multi-turn interactions with human users, looking at usability and satisfaction besides accuracy, rather than focusing on benchmark performance only.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly capable mathematical collaborators, but static benchmarks are no longer sufficient for evaluating progress: they are often narrow in scope, quickly saturated, and rarely updated. This makes it hard to compare models reliably and track progress over time. Instead, we need evaluation platforms: continuously maintained systems that run, aggregate, and analyze evaluations across many benchmarks to give a comprehensive picture of model performance within a broad domain. In this work, we build on the original MathArena benchmark by substantially broadening its scope from final-answer olympiad problems to a continuously maintained evaluation platform for mathematical reasoning with LLMs. MathArena now covers a much wider range of tasks, including proof-based competitions, research-level arXiv problems, and formal proof generation in Lean. Additionally, we maintain a clear evaluation protocol for all models and regularly design new benchmarks as model capabilities improve to ensure that MathArena remains challenging. Notably, the strongest model, GPT-5.5, now reaches 98% on the 2026 USA Math Olympiad and 74% on research-level questions, showing that frontier models can now comfortably solve extremely challenging mathematical problems. This highlights the importance of continuously maintained evaluation platforms like MathArena to track the rapid progress of LLMs in mathematical reasoning.

Public inference benchmarks compare AI systems at the model and provider level, but the unit at which deployment decisions are actually made is the endpoint: the (provider, model, stock-keeping-unit) tuple at which a specific quantization, decoding strategy, region, and serving stack is exposed. We introduce TokenArena, a continuous benchmark that measures inference at endpoint granularity along five core axes (output speed, time to first token, workload-blended price, effective context, and quality on the live endpoint) and synthesizes them, together with a modeled energy estimate, into three headline composites: joules per correct answer, dollars per correct answer, and endpoint fidelity (output-distribution similarity to a first-party reference). The framework's novelty is empirical and methodological. Across 78 endpoints serving 12 model families, the same model on different endpoints differs in mean accuracy by up to 12.5 points on math and code, in fingerprint similarity to first party by up to 12 points, in tail latency by an order of magnitude, and in modeled joules per correct answer by a factor of 6.2. We further show that workload-aware blended pricing reorders the leaderboard substantially: 7 of 10 top-ranked endpoints under the chat preset (3:1 input:output) fall out of the top 10 under the retrieval-augmented preset (20:1), and the reasoning preset (1:5) elevates frontier closed models that the chat preset penalizes on price. We release the framework, schema, probe and eval harness, and a v1.0 leaderboard snapshot under CC BY 4.0. TokenArena is a methodology, not a single ranking; we publish full provenance and limitations and welcome external replication.

Automated short answer grading (ASAG) with large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated with aggregate metrics such as macro-F1 and Cohen's kappa. However, these metrics provide limited insight into how grading performance varies across student responses of differing grading difficulty. We introduce an evaluation framework for LLM-based ASAG based on item response theory (IRT), which models grading correctness as a function of latent grader ability and response grading difficulty. This formulation enables response-level analysis of where LLM graders succeed or fail and reveals robustness differences that are not visible from aggregate scores alone. We apply the framework to 17 open-weight LLMs on the SciEntsBank and Beetle benchmarks. The results show that even models with similar overall performance differ substantially in how sharply their grading accuracy declines as response difficulty increases. In addition, confusion patterns show that errors on difficult responses concentrate disproportionately on the partially\_correct\_incomplete label, indicating a tendency toward intermediate-label collapse under ambiguity. To characterize difficult responses, we further analyze semantic and linguistic correlates of estimated difficulty. Across both datasets, higher difficulty is associated with weaker semantic alignment to the reference answer, stronger contradiction signals, and greater semantic isolation in embedding space. Overall, these results show that item response theory offers a useful framework for evaluating LLM-based ASAG beyond aggregate performance measures.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly influenced many aspects of society, particularly education, due to their demonstrated ability to complete assignments and examinations across a wide range of subjects. Although prior studies have examined the educational impact of LLMs, much of the existing work relies on public or open problem datasets and lacks topic-specific analysis. In engineering education, especially within mechanical engineering, systematic investigations of LLM performance on specific problem types remain limited. Instead of using traditional methods that directly ask textbook questions to an LLM tool, our study adopts a model distillation process to evaluate LLM capabilities in solving statics problems. By distilling ChatGPT, we extracted 25 text-only statics questions and further constructed two additional datasets by adding diagrams and modifying their numerical values. Experimental results show that while LLMs perform well on text-only statics problems, their accuracy decreases when diagrams are introduced and the problems require multi-step reasoning. Further analysis suggests that this performance drop is not primarily caused by limitations in image recognition, but rather by difficulties in multi-step reasoning and in consistently applying extracted visual information across successive solution stages.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced Table Question Answering, where most queries can be answered by extracting information or simple aggregation. However, a common class of real-world queries is implicitly predictive, requiring the inference of unobserved answers from historical patterns rather than mere retrieval. These queries introduce two challenges: recognizing latent intent and reliable predictive reasoning over massive tables. To assess LLMs in such Tabular questiOn answering with implicit Prediction tasks, we introduce TopBench, a benchmark consisting of 779 samples across four sub-tasks, ranging from single-point prediction to decision making, treatment effect analysis, and complex filtering, requiring models to generate outputs spanning reasoning text and structured tables. We evaluate diverse models under both text-based and agentic workflows. Experiments reveal that current models often struggle with intent recognition, defaulting to just lookups. Deeper analysis identifies that accurate intent disambiguation serves as the prerequisite for leading these predictive behaviors. Furthermore, elevating the upper bound of prediction precision requires the integration of more sophisticated modeling or reasoning capabilities.

When researchers iteratively refine ideas with large language models, do the models preserve fidelity to the original objective? We introduce DriftBench, a benchmark for evaluating constraint adherence in multi-turn LLM-assisted scientific ideation. Across 2,146 scored benchmark runs spanning seven models from five providers (including two open-weight), four interaction conditions, and 38 research briefs from 24 scientific domains, we find that iterative pressure reliably increases structural complexity and often reduces adherence to original constraints. A restatement probe reveals a dissociation between declarative recall and behavioral adherence, as models accurately restate constraints they simultaneously violate. The knows-but-violates (KBV) rate, measuring constraint non-compliance despite preserved recall, ranges from 8% to 99% across models. Structured checkpointing partially reduces KBV rates but does not close the dissociation, and complexity inflation persists. Human validation against blind raters confirms that the LLM judge under-detects constraint violations, making reported constraint adherence scores conservative. Sensitivity analyses confirm the findings are robust to temperature (0.7 vs.\ 1.0) and pressure type (novelty vs.\ rigor). We release all briefs, prompts, rubrics, transcripts, and scores as an open benchmark.

We introduce a framework called LAPITHS (Language model Analysis through Paradigm grounded Interpretations of Theses about Human likenesS) and use it to show that several major claims advanced by models such as CENTAUR, proposed as an artificial Unified Model of Cognition, are not theoretically or empirically justified. LAPITHS provides a principled reference point for counteracting the current behaviouristic tendency in AI research to interpret the human level performances of transformer based language models as evidence of human like underlying computation and, by extension, as signs of cognitive abilities. The novelty of LAPITHS lies in making explicit the arguments grounded in two quantitative assessments: (i) the Minimal Cognitive Grid, a theoretically motivated method for estimating the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, and (ii) a behavioural comparison showing that results similar to those reported for CENTAUR like models can be reproduced by other systems that do not satisfy the structural constraints typically associated with cognitive plausibility, and whose outputs do not provide independent explanatory insight into human cognition.

Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals, meta-review and revision aligned to reviews; and (iii) evaluation methods spanning human-centered, reference-based, LLM-based and aspect-oriented. We catalog datasets, compare modeling choices, and discuss limitations, ethical concerns, and future directions. The survey aims to provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and integrating LLM systems across the full peer review workflow.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as core dependencies in software systems. However, the hosted LLM services evolve continuously through provider-side updates without explicit version changes. These silent updates can introduce behavioral drift, causing regressions in functionality, formatting, safety constraints, or other application-specific requirements. Existing approaches focus primarily on regression testing or versioning but do not provide deployer-side mechanisms for governing compatibility during opaque model evolution. This paper proposes a deployment-side governance framework based on three components: clearly defined rules for how the model is allowed to behave (production contracts), focused testing organized by deployment risk categories (risk-category-based testing suite), and release checkpoints that block updates unless they meet defined safety and performance standards (compatibility gates). Through exploratory validation across multiple LLM versions, we provide evidence that targeted testing in specific risk areas can uncover performance regressions that overall metrics miss. We also identify several open research challenges, including how to systematically build effective test suites, how to set reliable performance thresholds in non-deterministic systems, and how to detect and explain model drift when providers offer limited transparency. Overall, we frame LLM update management as a software supply chain governance problem and outline a research agenda for putting deployer-side compatibility controls into practice.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly improved in performance across code-related tasks, making their integration into Register Transfer Level (RTL) development increasingly attractive. Mimicking the behavior of inline code assistants, many benchmarks evaluate LLMs' capabilities in code completion, either assessing the generation of entire hardware modules or the completion of a single line within a module. However both of these approaches lack the ability to control the granularity of the code-completion sample size and the syntactic range of completions. To overcome these limitations, we present a framework for language-agnostic rule completion (RuC), a grammar-driven, rule-selectable benchmark generator that automatically produces RTL code-completion tasks from a set of input hardware description sources. RuC uses the target Hardware Description Language (HDL) grammar to mask syntactically defined code regions and prompts a model to regenerate them using the surrounding unmasked code as context, enabling a controlled and scalable evaluation of the domain-specific model's code-understanding capabilities, ranging from assignments to the reconstruction of entire logic blocks. We use RuC to generate two SystemVerilog rule-completion benchmarks from the Tiny Tapeout shuttle TT07 and the CVE2 RISC-V core to demonstrate RuC's applicability to a broad range of designs, and conduct a comparative study of the code completion capabilities of modern open-source LLMs across diverse settings. Results indicate that completion performance strongly depends on the model type, the grammatical structure of the masked region, and the prompting strategy. Specifically, the highest scores are obtained with Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM) prompting. These findings highlight the value of grammar-driven, arbitrarily granular benchmarks for meaningful evaluation of LLM capabilities in RTL development workflows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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