LLM Evaluation

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation, human-AI interaction is evolving from static text responses to dynamic, interactive HTML-based applications, which we term MiniApps. These applications require models to not only render visual interfaces but also construct customized interaction logic that adheres to real-world principles. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on algorithmic correctness or static layout reconstruction, failing to capture the capabilities required for this new paradigm. To address this gap, we introduce MiniAppBench, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate principle-driven, interactive application generation. Sourced from a real-world application with 10M+ generations, MiniAppBench distills 500 tasks across six domains (e.g., Games, Science, and Tools). Furthermore, to tackle the challenge of evaluating open-ended interactions where no single ground truth exists, we propose MiniAppEval, an agentic evaluation framework. Leveraging browser automation, it performs human-like exploratory testing to systematically assess applications across three dimensions: Intention, Static, and Dynamic. Our experiments reveal that current LLMs still face significant challenges in generating high-quality MiniApps, while MiniAppEval demonstrates high alignment with human judgment, establishing a reliable standard for future research. Our homepage is available in miniappbench.github.io.

Analyzing Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) from large volumes of data is critical for drafting and publishing comprehensive CTI reports. This process usually follows a three-stage workflow -- triage, deep search and TI drafting. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising route toward automation, existing benchmarks still have limitations. These benchmarks often consist of tasks that do not reflect real-world analyst workflows. For example, human analysts rarely receive tasks in the form of multiple-choice questions. Also, existing benchmarks often rely on model-centric metrics that emphasize lexical overlap rather than actionable, detailed insights essential for security analysts. Moreover, they typically fail to cover the complete three-stage workflow. To address these issues, we introduce CyberThreat-Eval, which is collected from the daily CTI workflow of a world-leading company. This expert-annotated benchmark assesses LLMs on practical tasks across all three stages as mentioned above. It utilizes analyst-centric metrics that measure factual accuracy, content quality, and operational costs. Our evaluation using this benchmark reveals important insights into the limitations of current LLMs. For example, LLMs often lack the nuanced expertise required to handle complex details and struggle to distinguish between correct and incorrect information. To address these challenges, the CTI workflow incorporates both external ground-truth databases and human expert knowledge. TRA allows human experts to iteratively provide feedback for continuous improvement. The code is available at GitHub and HuggingFace.

Leyva-Vázquez and Smarandache (2025) demonstrated that neutrosophic T/I/F evaluation, where Truth, Indeterminacy, and Falsity are independent dimensions not constrained to sum to 1.0, which reveals "hyper-truth"' (T+I+F > 1.0) in 35% of complex epistemic cases evaluated by LLMs. We extend their work in two directions. First, we replicate and extend their experiment across five model families from five vendors (Anthropic, Meta, DeepSeek, Alibaba, Mistral), finding hyper-truth in 84% of unconstrained evaluations, which confirms the phenomenon is cross-vendor under our prompt protocol. Second, and more significantly, we identify a limitation of scalar T/I/F that their framework cannot address: models adopting an `"Absorption" position (T=0, I=1, F=0) produce identical scalar outputs for fundamentally different epistemic situations (paradox, ignorance, contingency), collapsing the very distinctions neutrosophic logic was designed to preserve. We demonstrate that extending the evaluation to include declared losses (structured descriptions of what the model cannot evaluate and why) substantially recovers these distinctions. Models producing identical scalars for paradox and ignorance produce nearly disjoint loss vocabularies (Jaccard similarity < 0.10 on loss description keywords), with domain-specific, severity-rated loss declarations that differentiate the nature of their uncertainty. This suggests that scalar T/I/F is a necessary but insufficient representation of epistemic state, and that tensor-structured output (scalars + losses) provides a more faithful model of LLM epistemic capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly operate as autonomous agents that reason over external APIs to perform complex tasks. However, their reliability and agreement remain poorly characterized. We present a unified benchmarking framework to quantify inter-LLM divergence, defined as the extent to which models differ in API discovery and ranking under identical tasks. Across 15 canonical API domains and 5 major model families, we measure pairwise and group-level agreement using set-, rank-, and consensus-based metrics including Average Overlap, Jaccard similarity, Rank-Biased Overlap, Kendall's tau, Kendall's W, and Cronbach's alpha. Results show moderate overall alignment (AO about 0.50, tau about 0.45) but strong domain dependence: structured tasks (Weather, Speech-to-Text) are stable, while open-ended tasks (Sentiment Analysis) exhibit substantially higher divergence. Volatility and consensus analyses reveal that coherence clusters around data-bound domains and degrades for abstract reasoning tasks. These insights enable reliability-aware orchestration in multi-agent systems, where consensus weighting can improve coordination among heterogeneous LLMs. Beyond performance benchmarking, our results reveal systematic failure modes in multi-agent LLM coordination, where apparent agreement can mask instability in action-relevant rankings. This hidden divergence poses a pre-deployment safety risk and motivates diagnostic benchmarks for early detection.

Large language models are increasingly used for financial analysis and investment research, yet systematic evaluation of their financial reasoning capabilities remains limited. In this work, we introduce the AI Financial Intelligence Benchmark (AFIB), a multi-dimensional evaluation framework designed to assess financial analysis capabilities across five dimensions: factual accuracy, analytical completeness, data recency, model consistency, and failure patterns. We evaluate five AI systems: GPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and SuperInvesting, using a dataset of 95+ structured financial analysis questions derived from real-world equity research tasks. The results reveal substantial differences in performance across models. Within this benchmark setting, SuperInvesting achieves the highest aggregate performance, with an average factual accuracy score of 8.96/10 and the highest completeness score of 56.65/70, while also demonstrating the lowest hallucination rate among evaluated systems. Retrieval-oriented systems such as Perplexity perform strongly on data recency tasks due to live information access but exhibit weaker analytical synthesis and consistency. Overall, the results highlight that financial intelligence in large language models is inherently multi-dimensional, and systems that combine structured financial data access with analytical reasoning capabilities provide the most reliable performance for complex investment research workflows.

As qualitative researchers show growing interest in using automated tools to support interpretive analysis, a large language model (LLM) is often introduced into an analytic workflow as is, without systematic evaluation of interpretive quality or comparison across models. This practice leaves model selection largely unexamined despite its potential influence on interpretive outcomes. To address this gap, this study examines whether LLM-as-judge evaluations meaningfully align with human judgments of interpretive quality and can inform model-level decision making. Using 712 conversational excerpts from semi-structured interviews with K-12 mathematics teachers, we generated one-sentence interpretive responses using five widely adopted inference models: Command R+ (Cohere), Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google), GPT-5.1 (OpenAI), Llama 4 Scout-17B Instruct (Meta), and Qwen 3-32B Dense (Alibaba). Automated evaluations were conducted using AWS Bedrock's LLM-as-judge framework across five metrics, and a stratified subset of responses was independently rated by trained human evaluators on interpretive accuracy, nuance preservation, and interpretive coherence. Results show that LLM-as-judge scores capture broad directional trends in human evaluations at the model level but diverge substantially in score magnitude. Among automated metrics, Coherence showed the strongest alignment with aggregated human ratings, whereas Faithfulness and Correctness revealed systematic misalignment at the excerpt level, particularly for non-literal and nuanced interpretations. Safety-related metrics were largely irrelevant to interpretive quality. These findings suggest that LLM-as-judge methods are better suited for screening or eliminating underperforming models than for replacing human judgment, offering practical guidance for systematic comparison and selection of LLMs in qualitative research workflows.

How much do large language models actually hallucinate when answering questions grounded in provided documents? Despite the critical importance of this question for enterprise AI deployments, reliable measurement has been hampered by benchmarks that rely on static datasets vulnerable to contamination, LLM-based judges with documented biases, or evaluation scales too small for statistical confidence. We address this gap using RIKER, a ground-truth-first evaluation methodology that enables deterministic scoring without human annotation. Across 35 open-weight models, three context lengths (32K, 128K, and 200K tokens), four temperature settings, and three hardware platforms (NVIDIA H200, AMD MI300X, and Intel Gaudi 3), we conducted over 172 billion tokens of evaluation - an order of magnitude beyond prior work. Our findings reveal that: (1) even the best-performing models fabricate answers at a non-trivial rate - 1.19% at best at 32K, with top-tier models at 5 - 7% - and fabrication rises steeply with context length, nearly tripling at 128K and exceeding 10% for all models at 200K; (2) model selection dominates all other factors, with overall accuracy spanning a 72-percentage-point range and model family predicting fabrication resistance better than model size; (3) temperature effects are nuanced - T=0.0 yields the best overall accuracy in roughly 60% of cases, but higher temperatures reduce fabrication for the majority of models and dramatically reduce coherence loss (infinite generation loops), which can reach 48x higher rates at T=0.0 versus T=1.0; (4) grounding ability and fabrication resistance are distinct capabilities - models that excel at finding facts may still fabricate facts that do not exist; and (5) results are consistent across hardware platforms, confirming that deployment decisions need not be hardware-dependent.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into lifelong AI assistants, LLM personalization has become a critical frontier. However, progress is currently bottlenecked by the absence of a gold-standard evaluation benchmark. Existing benchmarks either overlook personalized information management that is critical for personalization or rely heavily on synthetic dialogues, which exhibit an inherent distribution gap from real-world dialogue. To bridge this gap, we introduce AlpsBench, An LLM PerSonalization benchmark derived from real-world human-LLM dialogues. AlpsBench comprises 2,500 long-term interaction sequences curated from WildChat, paired with human-verified structured memories that encapsulate both explicit and implicit personalization signals. We define four pivotal tasks - personalized information extraction, updating, retrieval, and utilization - and establish protocols to evaluate the entire lifecycle of memory management. Our benchmarking of frontier LLMs and memory-centric systems reveals that: (i) models struggle to reliably extract latent user traits; (ii) memory updating faces a performance ceiling even in the strongest models; (iii) retrieval accuracy declines sharply in the presence of large distractor pools; and (iv) while explicit memory mechanisms improve recall, they do not inherently guarantee more preference-aligned or emotionally resonant responses. AlpsBench aims to provide a comprehensive framework.

Enhancing the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex instructions is critical for their deployment in real-world applications. However, existing evaluation methods often oversimplify instruction complexity as a mere additive combination of atomic constraints, failing to adequately capture the high-dimensional complexity arising from the intricate interplay of content and format, logical workflow control, and real-world applications. This leads to a significant gap between current evaluation practices and practical demands. To bridge this gap, we introduce CCR-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' adherence to complex instructions. CCR-Bench is characterized by: (1) deep entanglement of content and formatting requirements in task specifications; (2) instructions that involve intricate task decomposition, conditional reasoning, and procedural planning; and (3) evaluation samples derived entirely from real-world industrial scenarios. Extensive experiments on CCR-Bench demonstrate that even state-of-the-art models exhibit substantial performance deficiencies, clearly quantifying the gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of realworld instruction understanding. We believe that CCR-Bench offers a more rigorous and realistic evaluation framework, advancing the development of LLMs toward the next generation of models capable of understanding and executing complex tasks in industrial applications.

Here we introduce the Olfactory Perception (OP) benchmark, designed to assess the capability of large language models (LLMs) to reason about smell. The benchmark contains 1,010 questions across eight task categories spanning odor classification, odor primary descriptor identification, intensity and pleasantness judgments, multi-descriptor prediction, mixture similarity, olfactory receptor activation, and smell identification from real-world odor sources. Each question is presented in two prompt formats, compound names and isomeric SMILES, to evaluate the effect of molecular representations. Evaluating 21 model configurations across major model families, we find that compound-name prompts consistently outperform isomeric SMILES, with gains ranging from +2.4 to +18.9 percentage points (mean approx +7 points), suggesting current LLMs access olfactory knowledge primarily through lexical associations rather than structural molecular reasoning. The best-performing model reaches 64.4% overall accuracy, which highlights both emerging capabilities and substantial remaining gaps in olfactory reasoning. We further evaluate a subset of the OP across 21 languages and find that aggregating predictions across languages improves olfactory prediction, with AUROC = 0.86 for the best performing language ensemble model. LLMs should be able to handle olfactory and not just visual or aural information.

The digitization of insurance distribution in the Canadian province of Quebec, accelerated by legislative changes such as Bill 141, has created a significant "advice gap", leaving consumers to interpret complex financial contracts without professional guidance. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a scalable solution for automated advisory services, their deployment in high-stakes domains hinges on strict legal accuracy and trustworthiness. In this paper, we address this challenge by introducing AEPC-QA, a private gold-standard benchmark of 807 multiple-choice questions derived from official regulatory certification (paper) handbooks. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 51 LLMs across two paradigms: closed-book generation and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) using a specialized corpus of Quebec insurance documents. Our results reveal three critical insights: 1) the supremacy of inference-time reasoning, where models leveraging chain-of-thought processing (e.g. o3-2025-04-16, o1-2024-12-17) significantly outperform standard instruction-tuned models; 2) RAG acts as a knowledge equalizer, boosting the accuracy of models with weak parametric knowledge by over 35 percentage points, yet paradoxically causing "context distraction" in others, leading to catastrophic performance regressions; and 3) a "specialization paradox", where massive generalist models consistently outperform smaller, domain-specific French fine-tuned ones. These findings suggest that while current architectures approach expert-level proficiency (~79%), the instability introduced by external context retrieval necessitates rigorous robustness calibration before autonomous deployment is viable.

We qualitatively compared literature reviews produced with varying degrees of AI assistance. The same LLM, given the same corpus of 280 papers but different selections, produced dramatically different reviews, from mainstream and politically neutral to critical and post-colonial, though neither orientation was intended. LLM outputs always appear at first glance to be well written, well informed and thought out, but closer reading reveals gaps, biases and lack of depth. Our comparison of six versions shows a series of pitfalls and suggests precautions necessary when using AI assistance to make a literature review. Main issues are: (1) The bias of ignorance (you do not know what you do not get) in the selection of relevant papers. (2) Alignment and digital sycophancy: commercial AI models slavishly take you further in the direction they understand you give them, reinforcing biases. (3) Mainstreaming: because of their statistical nature, LLM productions tend to favor mainstream perspectives and content; in our case there was only 20% overlap between paper selections by humans and the LLM. (4) Limited capacity for creative restructuring, with vague and ambiguous statements. (5) Lack of critical perspective, coming from distant reading and political correctness. Most pitfalls can be addressed by prompting, but only if the user knows the domain well enough to detect them. There is a paradox: producing a good AI-assisted review requires expertise that comes from reading the literature, which is precisely what AI was meant to reduce. Overall, AI can improve the span and quality of the review, but the gain of time is not as massive as one would expect, and a press-button strategy leaving AI to do the work is a recipe for disaster. We conclude with recommendations for those who write, or assess, such LLM-augmented reviews.

This work investigated the capabilities of different models, including the Llama-3 series of models and CHATGPT, with different forms of expression in solving discrete optimization problems by testing natural language datasets. In contrast to formal datasets with a limited scope of parameters, our dataset included a variety of problem types in discrete optimization problems and featured a wide range of parameter magnitudes, including instances with large parameter sets, integrated with augmented data. It aimed to (1) provide an overview of LLMs' ability in large-scale problems, (2) offer suggestions to those who want to solve discrete optimization problems automatically, and (3) regard the performance as a benchmark for future research. These datasets included original, expanded and augmented datasets. Among these three datasets, the original and augmented ones aimed for evaluation while the expanded one may help finetune a new model. In the experiment, comparisons were made between strong and week models, CoT methods and No-CoT methods on various datasets. The result showed that stronger model performed better reasonably. Contrary to general agreement, it also showed that CoT technique was not always effective regarding the capability of models and disordered datasets improved performance of models on easy to-understand problems, even though they were sometimes with high variance, a manifestation of instability. Therefore, for those who seek to enhance the automatic resolution of discrete optimization problems, it is recommended to consult the results, including the line charts presented in the Appendix, as well as the conclusions drawn in this study for relevant suggestions.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human responses in behavioral research, yet it remains unclear when LLM-generated data support the same experimental inferences as human data. We evaluate this by directly comparing off-the-shelf LLM-generated responses with human responses from a canonical survey experiment on accuracy perception. Each human observation is converted into a structured prompt, and models generate a single 0--10 outcome variable without task-specific training; identical statistical analyses are applied to human and synthetic responses. We find that LLMs reproduce several directional effects observed in humans, but effect magnitudes and moderation patterns vary across models. Off-the-shelf LLMs therefore capture aggregate belief-updating patterns under controlled conditions but do not consistently match human-scale effects, clarifying when LLM-generated data can function as behavioral surrogates.

Islamic inheritance law is challenging for large language models because solving inheritance cases requires complex, structured, multi-step reasoning and the correct application of juristic rules to compute heirs' shares. We introduce MAWARITH, a large-scale annotated dataset of 12,500 Arabic inheritance cases for training and evaluating models on the full reasoning chain: (i) identifying eligible heirs, (ii) applying blocking (\d{h}ajb) and allocation rules, and (iii) computing exact inheritance shares. To the best of our knowledge, MAWARITH is the first Arabic corpus and benchmark designed for end-to-end Islamic inheritance reasoning. Unlike prior datasets that restrict inheritance case solving to multiple-choice questions, MAWARITH supports the full reasoning chain and provides step-by-step solutions with justifications grounded in classical juristic sources and established inheritance rules, as well as exact share calculations. This enables models to learn how to generate detailed, step-by-step responses to user queries that reflect real-world Islamic inheritance cases. To evaluate models beyond final-answer accuracy, we propose MIR-E (Mawarith Inheritance Reasoning Evaluation), a weighted multi-stage metric that scores key reasoning stages and captures error propagation across the pipeline. We evaluate six large language models in a zero-shot setting. A commercial model achieves about 90%, whereas all evaluated open-source models remain below 50%. Our error analysis identifies recurring failure patterns, including scenario misinterpretation, errors in heir identification, errors in share allocation, and missing or incorrect application of key inheritance rules such as \textquotesingle awl and radd. The MAWARITH dataset is publicly available at https://gitlab.com/nlpresearcher/mawarith.

LLMs operating in dynamic real-world contexts often encounter knowledge that evolves continuously or emerges incrementally. To remain accurate and effective, models must adapt to newly arriving information on the fly. We introduce Online Adaptation to Continual Knowledge Streams(OAKS) to evaluate this capability, establishing a benchmark for online adaptation over streaming, continually updating knowledge. Specifically, the benchmark is structured as a sequence of fine-grained context chunks where facts change dynamically across time intervals. OAKS comprises two datasets: OAKS-BABI and OAKS-Novel, where individual facts evolve multiple times across context chunks. These datasets include dense annotations to measure whether models track changes accurately. Evaluating 14 models with varied inference approaches, we observe significant limitations in current methodologies. Both state-of-the-art models and agentic memory systems fail to adapt robustly on OAKS, demonstrating delays in state-tracking and susceptibility to distraction within streaming environments.

Political polarization emerges from a complex interplay of beliefs about policies, figures, and issues. However, most computational analyses reduce discourse to coarse partisan labels, overlooking how these beliefs interact. This is especially evident in online political conversations, which are often nuanced and cover a wide range of subjects, making it difficult to automatically identify the target of discussion and the opinion expressed toward them. In this study, we investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can address this challenge through Target-Stance Extraction (TSE), a recent natural language processing task that combines target identification and stance detection, enabling more granular analysis of political opinions. For this, we construct a dataset of 1,084 Reddit posts from r/NeutralPolitics, covering 138 distinct political targets and evaluate a range of proprietary and open-source LLMs using zero-shot, few-shot, and context-augmented prompting strategies. Our results show that the best models perform comparably to highly trained human annotators and remain robust on challenging posts with low inter-annotator agreement. These findings demonstrate that LLMs can extract complex political opinions with minimal supervision, offering a scalable tool for computational social science and political text analysis.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can accelerate text-heavy tasks in alternative investment due diligence, a gap remains in their ability to accurately extract and reason over structured tabular data from complex financial spreadsheets. Progress is held back by the lack of real industry fund portfolio datasets for benchmarking, as private equity data rooms are confidential. To address this, we introduce FinSheet-Bench, a benchmark of synthetic financial portfolio data modeled on real private equity fund structures, designed to evaluate LLM performance on text-serialized spreadsheet question answering and numeric reasoning tasks. Our evaluation of ten model configurations from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic on financial spreadsheets, including complex layouts, fund dividers, and multi-line column names, reveals that no standalone model achieves error rates low enough for unsupervised use in professional finance applications. The best-performing model, Gemini 3.1 Pro, achieves 82.4% accuracy across twenty-four evaluation files of varying complexity and structural layout (approximately 1 error per 6 questions), followed by GPT-5.2 with reasoning at 80.4%, Claude Opus 4.6 with thinking at 80.2%, and Gemini 3 Pro at 80.2%. Performance degrades substantially on larger, more complex spreadsheets: the largest spreadsheet (152 companies, 8 funds) yields an average accuracy of just 48.6% across all models, compared to 86.2% on the easiest evaluation file. These difficulty patterns are consistent across all ten models, indicating that they reflect LLM limitations rather than idiosyncratic model weaknesses. Reliable financial spreadsheet extraction will likely require architectural approaches that separate document understanding from deterministic computation.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated strong performance by producing extended Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces before answering. However, this paradigm often induces over-reasoning: redundant calculations and circular self-verification that increase computational cost without improving outcomes. Existing evaluations largely emphasize final accuracy or coarse token counts, and lack automated tools to separate essential logic from structural redundancy. We introduce CoTJudger, a graph-driven framework that quantifies reasoning efficiency by converting free-form CoTs into directed dependency graphs and extracting the Shortest Effective Path (SEP) needed to reach a correct solution. This yields an interpretable efficiency signal -- how much of a CoT is necessary versus structurally redundant -- that is comparable across models and tasks. Evaluating 21 LRMs, CoTJudger reveals pervasive redundancy and surfaces recurring failure modes, including verification obsession and compensatory redundancy. These results provide a practical metric for disentangling reasoning ability from computational waste, enabling more targeted evaluation and diagnosis of LRM efficiency.

Prompt compression is often evaluated by input-token reduction, but its real deployment impact depends on how compression changes output length and total inference cost. We present a controlled replication and extension study of benchmark-dependent output dynamics under aggressive compression, covering 5,400 API calls across three benchmarks and multiple providers. To explain conflicting prior observations, we formalize instruction survival probability (Psi), a structural metric that captures whether task-critical prompt segments remain after truncation. Results show a strong benchmark effect: under r=0.3, DeepSeek exhibits severe output expansion on MBPP (56x, Psi approx 0.15) but substantially lower expansion on HumanEval (5x, Psi approx 0.72), while GPT-4o-mini is comparatively stable across benchmarks. This reconciles the apparent discrepancy between previously reported extreme explosion and lower replication effects by identifying prompt structure, not provider identity alone, as the primary moderator. We introduce the Compression Robustness Index (CRI) for cross-benchmark evaluation and show that single-benchmark assessments can produce misleading conclusions about compression safety and efficiency. To contextualize energy claims, we incorporate companion direct NVML measurements from rented RunPod GPUs and show that token savings can overstate joule savings. These findings motivate benchmark-diverse testing and structure-aware compression policies for reliable, energy-conscious LLM deployment.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended questions is difficult because response quality depends on the question's context. Binary scores and static rubrics fail to capture these context-dependent requirements. Existing methods define criteria at the dataset level or generate them in a single pass, which limits their ability to explore the evaluation space implied by each question. We introduce One-Question-One-World (Qworld), a method that generates question-specific evaluation criteria using a recursive expansion tree. Given a question, Qworld decomposes it into scenarios, perspectives, and fine-grained binary criteria through hierarchical and horizontal expansion. The resulting criteria specify what a high-quality answer must address for that question. On HealthBench, Qworld covers 89% of expert-authored criteria and generates 79% novel criteria validated by human experts. Experts rate Qworld criteria higher in insight and granularity than those produced by prior methods. When applied to 11 frontier LLMs on HealthBench and Humanity's Last Exam, Qworld reveals capability differences in dimensions such as long-term impact, equity, error handling, and interdisciplinary reasoning that coarse rubrics do not capture. By generating evaluation criteria for each question, Qworld enables assessment of LLM responses that is tailored to the question rather than based on fixed task-level criteria.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever. In practice, Generators must integrate evidence from long contexts, perform multi-step reasoning, interpret tables, and abstain when evidence is missing. However, existing benchmarks for Generators provide limited coverage, with none enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple capabilities under unified conditions. To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic, Table, and Abstention, each further divided into practical evaluation aspects. LIT-RAGBench systematically covers patterns combining multiple aspects across categories. By using fictional entities and scenarios, LIT-RAGBench evaluates answers grounded in the provided external documents. The dataset consists of 114 human-constructed Japanese questions and an English version generated by machine translation with human curation. We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy. Across API-based and open-weight models, no model exceeds 90% overall accuracy. By making strengths and weaknesses measurable within each category, LIT-RAGBench serves as a valuable metric for model selection in practical RAG deployments and for building RAG-specialized models. We release LIT-RAGBench, including the dataset and evaluation code, at https://github.com/Koki-Itai/LIT-RAGBench.

We introduce CRIMSON, a clinically grounded evaluation framework for chest X-ray report generation that assesses reports based on diagnostic correctness, contextual relevance, and patient safety. Unlike prior metrics, CRIMSON incorporates full clinical context, including patient age, indication, and guideline-based decision rules, and prevents normal or clinically insignificant findings from exerting disproportionate influence on the overall score. The framework categorizes errors into a comprehensive taxonomy covering false findings, missing findings, and eight attribute-level errors (e.g., location, severity, measurement, and diagnostic overinterpretation). Each finding is assigned a clinical significance level (urgent, actionable non-urgent, non-actionable, or expected/benign), based on a guideline developed in collaboration with attending cardiothoracic radiologists, enabling severity-aware weighting that prioritizes clinically consequential mistakes over benign discrepancies. CRIMSON is validated through strong alignment with clinically significant error counts annotated by six board-certified radiologists in ReXVal (Kendalls tau = 0.61-0.71; Pearsons r = 0.71-0.84), and through two additional benchmarks that we introduce. In RadJudge, a targeted suite of clinically challenging pass-fail scenarios, CRIMSON shows consistent agreement with expert judgment. In RadPref, a larger radiologist preference benchmark of over 100 pairwise cases with structured error categorization, severity modeling, and 1-5 overall quality ratings from three cardiothoracic radiologists, CRIMSON achieves the strongest alignment with radiologist preferences. We release the metric, the evaluation benchmarks, RadJudge and RadPref, and a fine-tuned MedGemma model to enable reproducible evaluation of report generation, all available at https://github.com/rajpurkarlab/CRIMSON.

Automated Essay Scoring (AES) has been explored for decades with the goal to support teachers by reducing grading workload and mitigating subjective biases. While early systems relied on handcrafted features and statistical models, recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it possible to evaluate student writing with unprecedented flexibility. This paper investigates the application of state-of-the-art open-weight LLMs for the grading of Austrian A-level German texts, with a particular focus on rubric-based evaluation. A dataset of 101 anonymised student exams across three text types was processed and evaluated. Four LLMs, DeepSeek-R1 32b, Qwen3 30b, Mixtral 8x7b and LLama3.3 70b, were evaluated with different contexts and prompting strategies. The LLMs were able to reach a maximum of 40.6% agreement with the human rater in the rubric-provided sub-dimensions, and only 32.8% of final grades matched the ones given by a human expert. The results indicate that even though smaller models are able to use standardised rubrics for German essay grading, they are not accurate enough to be used in a real-world grading environment.

What happens when a storyteller forgets its own story? Large Language Models (LLMs) can now generate narratives spanning tens of thousands of words, but they often fail to maintain consistency throughout. When generating long-form narratives, these models can contradict their own established facts, character traits, and world rules. Existing story generation benchmarks focus mainly on plot quality and fluency, leaving consistency errors largely unexplored. To address this gap, we present ConStory-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate narrative consistency in long-form story generation. It contains 2,000 prompts across four task scenarios and defines a taxonomy of five error categories with 19 fine-grained subtypes. We also develop ConStory-Checker, an automated pipeline that detects contradictions and grounds each judgment in explicit textual evidence. Evaluating a range of LLMs through five research questions, we find that consistency errors show clear tendencies: they are most common in factual and temporal dimensions, tend to appear around the middle of narratives, occur in text segments with higher token-level entropy, and certain error types tend to co-occur. These findings can inform future efforts to improve consistency in long-form narrative generation. Our project page is available at https://picrew.github.io/constory-bench.github.io/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming Conversational Visual Analytics (CVA) by enabling data analysis through natural language. However, evaluating LLMs for CVA remains a challenge: requiring programming expertise, overlooking real-world complexity, and lacking interpretable metrics for multi-format (visualizations and text) outputs. Through interviews with 22 CVA developers and 16 end-users, we identified use cases, evaluation criteria and workflows. We present Lexara, a user-centered evaluation toolkit for CVA that operationalizes these insights into: (i) test cases spanning real-world scenarios; (ii) interpretable metrics covering visualization quality (data fidelity, semantic alignment, functional correctness, design clarity) and language quality (factual grounding, analytical reasoning, conversational coherence) using rule-based and LLM-as-a-Judge methods; and (iii) an interactive toolkit enabling experimental setup and multi-format and multi-level exploration of results without programming expertise. We conducted a two-week diary study with six CVA developers, drawn from our initial cohort of 22. Their feedback demonstrated Lexara's effectiveness for guiding appropriate model and prompt selection.

Traditional survey-based political issue polling is becoming less tractable due to increasing costs and risk of bias associated with growing non-response rates and declining coverage of key demographic groups. With researchers and pollsters seeking alternatives, Large Language Models have drawn attention for their potential to augment human population studies in polling contexts. We propose and implement a new framework for anticipating human responses on multiple-choice political issue polling questions by directly prompting an LLM to predict a distribution of responses. By comparison to a large and high quality issue poll of the US population, the Cooperative Election Study, we evaluate how the accuracy of this framework varies across a range of demographics and questions on a variety of topics, as well as how this framework compares to previously proposed frameworks where LLMs are repeatedly queried to simulate individual respondents. We find the proposed framework consistently exhibits more accurate predictions than individual querying at significantly lower cost. In addition, we find the performance of the proposed framework varies much more systematically and predictably across demographics and questions, making it possible for those performing AI polling to better anticipate model performance using only information available before a query is issued.

Large Language Models appear competent when answering general questions but often fail when pushed into domain-specific details. No existing methodology provides an out-of-the-box solution for measuring how deeply LLMs can sustain accurate responses under adaptive follow-up questioning across arbitrary domains. We present DepthCharge, a domain-agnostic framework that measures knowledge depth through three innovations: adaptive probing that generates follow-up questions based on concepts the model actually mentions, on-demand fact verification from authoritative sources, and survival statistics with constant sample sizes at every depth level. The framework can be deployed on any knowledge domain with publicly verifiable facts, without requiring pre-constructed test sets or domain-specific expertise. DepthCharge results are relative to the evaluator model used for answer checking, making the framework a tool for comparative evaluation rather than absolute accuracy certification. Empirical validation across four diverse domains (Medicine, Constitutional Law, Ancient Rome, and Quantum Computing) with five frontier models demonstrates that DepthCharge reveals depth-dependent performance variation hidden by standard benchmarks. Expected Valid Depth (EVD) ranges from 3.45 to 7.55 across model-domain combinations, and model rankings vary substantially by domain, with no single model dominating all areas. Cost-performance analysis further reveals that expensive models do not always achieve deeper knowledge, suggesting that domain-specific evaluation is more informative than aggregate benchmarks for model selection in professional applications.

We present the Judge Reliability Harness, an open source library for constructing validation suites that test the reliability of LLM judges. As LLM based scoring is widely deployed in AI benchmarks, more tooling is needed to efficiently assess the reliability of these methods. Given a benchmark dataset and an LLM judge configuration, the harness generates reliability tests that evaluate both binary judgment accuracy and ordinal grading performance for free-response and agentic task formats. We evaluate four state-of-the-art judges across four benchmarks spanning safety, persuasion, misuse, and agentic behavior, and find meaningful variation in performance across models and perturbation types, highlighting opportunities to improve the robustness of LLM judges. No judge that we evaluated is uniformly reliable across benchmarks using our harness. For example, our preliminary experiments on judges revealed consistency issues as measured by accuracy in judging another LLM's ability to complete a task due to simple text formatting changes, paraphrasing, changes in verbosity, and flipping the ground truth label in LLM-produced responses. The code for this tool is available at: https://github.com/RANDCorporation/judge-reliability-harness

Qualitative analysis of open-ended interviews plays a central role in ethnographic and economic research by uncovering individuals' values, motivations, and culturally embedded financial behaviors. While large language models (LLMs) offer promising support for automating and enriching such interpretive work, their ability to produce nuanced, reliable interpretations under inherent task ambiguity remains unclear. In our work we evaluate LLMs on the task of identifying the top three human values expressed in long-form interviews based on the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values framework. We compare their outputs to expert annotations, analyzing both performance and uncertainty patterns relative to the experts. Results show that LLMs approach the human ceiling on set-based metrics (F1, Jaccard) but struggle to recover exact value rankings, as reflected in lower RBO scores. While the average Schwartz value distributions of most models closely match those of human analysts, their uncertainty structures across the Schwartz values diverge from expert uncertainty patterns. Among the evaluated models, Qwen performs closest to expert-level agreement and exhibits the strongest alignment with expert Schwartz value distributions. LLM ensemble methods yield consistent gains across metrics, with Majority Vote and Borda Count performing best. Notably, systematic overemphasis on certain Schwartz values, like Security, suggests both the potential of LLMs to provide complementary perspectives and the need to further investigate model-induced value biases. Overall, our findings highlight both the promise and the limitations of LLMs as collaborators in inherently ambiguous qualitative value analysis.