LLM Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) benchmarks, yet their reported accuracy may be inflated by contamination from benchmark queries or structurally similar patterns seen during training. We introduce SPENCE (Syntactic Probing and Evaluation of NL2SQL Contamination Effects), a controlled syntactic probing framework for detecting and quantifying such contamination. SPENCE systematically generates syntactic variants of test queries for four widely used NL2SQL datasets-Spider, SParC, CoSQL, and the newer BIRD benchmark. We use SPENCE to evaluate multiple high-capacity LLMs under execution-based scoring. For each model, we measure changes in execution accuracy across increasing levels of syntactic divergence and quantify rank sensitivity using Kendall's tau with bootstrap confidence intervals. By aligning these robustness trends with benchmark release dates, we observe a clear temporal gradient: older benchmarks such as Spider exhibit the strongest negative values and thus the highest likelihood of training leakage, whereas the more recent BIRD dataset shows minimal sensitivity and appears largely uncontaminated. Together, these findings highlight the importance of temporally contextualized, syntactic-probing evaluation for trustworthy NL2SQL benchmarking.

Interpretability tools are increasingly used to analyze failures of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet prior work largely focuses on short prompts or toy settings, leaving their behavior on commonly used benchmarks underexplored. To address this gap, we study contrastive, LRP-based attribution as a practical tool for analyzing LLM failures in realistic settings. We formulate failure analysis as contrastive attribution, attributing the logit difference between an incorrect output token and a correct alternative to input tokens and internal model states, and introduce an efficient extension that enables construction of cross-layer attribution graphs for long-context inputs. Using this framework, we conduct a systematic empirical study across benchmarks, comparing attribution patterns across datasets, model sizes, and training checkpoints. Our results show that this token-level contrastive attribution can yield informative signals in some failure cases, but is not universally applicable, highlighting both its utility and its limitations for realistic LLM failure analysis. Our code is available at: https://aka.ms/Debug-XAI.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as scalable tools for mental health counseling, yet evaluating their safety remains challenging due to the interactional and context-dependent nature of clinical harm. Existing evaluation frameworks predominantly assess isolated responses using coarse-grained taxonomies or static datasets, limiting their ability to diagnose how harms emerge and accumulate over multi-turn counseling interactions. In this work, we introduce R-MHSafe, a role-aware mental health safety taxonomy that characterizes clinically significant harm in terms of the interactional roles an AI counselor adopts, including perpetrator, instigator, facilitator, or enabler, combined with clinically grounded harm categories. Then, we propose MHSafeEval, a closed-loop, agent-based evaluation framework that formulates safety assessment as trajectory-level discovery of harm through adversarial multi-turn interactions, guided by role-aware modeling. Using R-MHSafe and MHSafeEval, we conduct a large-scale evaluation across state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results reveal substantial role-dependent and cumulative safety failures that are systematically missed by existing static benchmarks, and show that our framework significantly improves failure-mode coverage and diagnostic granularity.

Decentralized LLM inference networks need lightweight, reference-free quality evaluation for Proof of Quality (PoQ). We present PoQ-Judge, a framework that trains dedicated judge models to score query-output pairs without ground-truth references. We study three architectures across the quality-cost tradeoff: a TextCNN judge, a MiniLM cross-encoder, and a DeBERTa judge. Using two-stage training on UltraFeedback plus GPT-labeled in-domain data, the best model reaches 0.747 Pearson correlation with the ground-truth proxy on a held-out test set, outperforming reference-based evaluators from prior work. As a reference-free component in composite scoring, it achieves 0.645 Pearson correlation, matching the best single reference-based evaluator while removing the need for reference answers. We also show that online calibration identifies semantic quality as the dominant dimension and that cascade evaluation reduces cost by 72.7 percent with only modest quality loss. Results are much stronger on QA than summarization, pointing to proxy quality as the main remaining limitation.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

LLMs are increasingly deployed in dynamic, real-world settings, where the distribution of user prompts can shift substantially over time as new tasks, prompts, and users are introduced to a deployed model. Such natural prompt distribution shift poses a major challenge to LLM reliability, particularly for specialized models designed for narrow domains or user populations. Despite attention to out-of-distribution robustness, there is very limited exploration of measuring natural prompt distribution shift in prior work, and its impact on deployed LLMs remains poorly understood. We introduce the LLM Evaluation under Natural prompt Shift (LENS) framework: a data-centric approach for quantifying natural prompt distribution shift and evaluating its effect on the performance of deployed LLMs. We perform a large-scale evaluation using 192 real-world post-deployment prompt shift settings over time, user group, and geographic axes, training a total of 81 models on 4.68M training prompts, and evaluating on 57.6k prompts. We find that even moderate shifts in user prompt behavior correspond with large performance drops (73% average loss) in deployed LLMs. This performance degradation is particularly prevalent when users from different latent groups and geographic regions interact with models and is correlated with natural prompt distribution shift over time. We systematically characterize how LLM instruction following ability degrades over time and between user groups. Our findings highlight the critical need for data-driven monitoring to ensure LLM performance remains stable across diverse and evolving user populations.

Many real-world questions appear deceptively simple yet implicitly demand two capabilities: (i) systematic coverage of a bounded knowledge universe and (ii) compositional set-based reasoning over that universe, a phenomenon we term "the tip of the iceberg." We formalize this challenge through two orthogonal dimensions: knowledge width, the cardinality of the required universe, and reasoning depth, the number of compositional set operations. We introduce KnowledgeBerg, a benchmark of 4,800 multiple-choice questions derived from 1,183 enumeration seeds spanning 10 domains and 17 languages, with universes grounded in authoritative sources to ensure reproducibility. Representative open-source LLMs demonstrate severe limitations, achieving only 5.26-36.88 F1 on universe enumeration and 16.00-44.19 accuracy on knowledge-grounded reasoning. Diagnostic analyses reveal three stages of failure: completeness, or missing knowledge; awareness, or failure to identify requirements; and application, or incorrect reasoning execution. This pattern persists across languages and model scales. Although test-time compute and retrieval augmentation yield measurable gains -- up to 4.35 and 3.78 points, respectively -- substantial gaps remain, exposing limitations in how current LLMs organize structured knowledge and execute compositional reasoning over bounded domains. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/2npc/KnowledgeBerg

We argue that current evaluation frameworks for large language models (LLMs) suffer from four systematic failures that make them structurally inadequate for deployed, agentic systems: distributional, temporal, scope, and process invalidity. These failures compound in RLHF, making reward hacking a predictable consequence of evaluation design rather than an unpredictable training pathology, and RLHF's dual-model architecture imposes a hardware barrier limiting evaluation reproducibility. We propose the Grounded Continuous Evaluation (GCE) framework and present ISOPro as a reference implementation. ISOPro replaces the learned reward model with a deterministic verifier, eliminating reward hacking by construction in verifiable-reward domains, and updates LoRA adapters on CPU, reducing the hardware barrier by an order of magnitude. We validate ISOPro across three architectures (Qwen 2.5 3B, Llama 3.2 3B, Gemma 2 2B) and two domains (scheduling, MBPP), with a head-to-head matched-compute comparison against GRPO-LoRA. Across twelve cells, ISOPro produces the largest absolute capability gains (+25.6, +22.2, +16.0pp) at mean delta +9.0pp and worst-case regression -5.6pp; GRPO-LoRA at consumer-budget hyperparameters reaches a smaller peak gain (+8.5pp), deeper worst-case regression (-10pp), and mean delta -1.5pp. Held-out compositional generalization on MBPP reaches 40% for ISOPro on two of three architectures (including a 0% to 40% bootstrap on Qwen 2.5 3B), against 20% for GRPO-LoRA on one of three. We characterize a buffer-skew failure mode in which the implicit curriculum can erode pre-existing tier capability under three preconditions, with three corresponding mitigations. The work is situated alongside DeepSeek-R1's GRPO, which arrived at the same architectural conclusion at scale: for verifiable-reward domains, the verifier is the reward signal.

This study investigates the phenomenon of hallucinations in domain-adapted Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on the fine-tuning of the Llama-2 model with the Lamini dataset. Hallucinations, or the generation of nonsensical or unfaithful content by LLMs, pose a significant challenge, especially when these models are fine-tuned with domain-specific data. Our methodology involves a series of experiments testing memorization, recall, and reasoning capabilities of the fine-tuned LLM, comparing its performance on novel question-answer pairs and domain-specific information. We found that while the model shows proficiency in tasks similar to its training data, its capability to accurately reason about and recall new domain-specific information remains limited, leading to instances of hallucination. The model demonstrates a tendency to provide correct answers with extra information, suggesting an inclination toward over-generation. These results suggest important limitations of fine-tuning-only approaches for mitigating hallucinations when adapting LLMs to specialized domains and underscore the need for more robust methods in adapting LLMs to specialized domains. The study also provides insights into the varying performance of LLMs on different types of information, revealing a comparative weakness in handling domain-specific queries.

Argumentation skills are an essential toolkit for large language models (LLMs). These skills are crucial in various use cases, including self-reflection, debating collaboratively for diverse answers, and countering hate speech. In this paper, we create the first benchmark for a standardized evaluation of LLM-based approaches to computational argumentation, encompassing 33 datasets from previous work in unified form. Using the benchmark, we evaluate the generalizability of five LLM families across 46 computational argumentation tasks that cover mining arguments, assessing perspectives, assessing argument quality, reasoning about arguments, and generating arguments. On the benchmark, we conduct an extensive systematic analysis of the contribution of few-shot examples, reasoning steps, model size, and training skills to the performance of LLMs on the computational argumentation tasks in the benchmark.

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 Incorrect Example and 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.