LLM Evaluation

We present a systematic review of 337 articles evaluating the syntactic abilities of Transformer-based language models (TLMs), reporting on over 3,000 datapoints spanning a wide range of syntactic phenomena, languages, models, and methods. We take the data to collectively show that TLMs encode a non-trivial amount of syntactic knowledge. Behavioral evidence shows strong performance on formal syntactic phenomena, but weaker and more variable performance on phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface. Performance is also consistently lower for languages with less digital support. Probing and mechanistic studies further support the presence of syntactic knowledge in TLMs. Yet, because most work remains observational and methodologically heterogeneous, insight into the detailed computational mechanisms underlying syntactic processing remains limited. At the same time, the literature remains heavily concentrated on English and BERT-like models. We discuss the implications of our results and provide recommendations for future research.

Benchmarking the capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores. In contrast, in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers, the expert performance drops substantially resulting in almost no difference between a random labeller and an expert. This characteristic also manifests when comparing models, where uncertainty obfuscates differences between poor and high performing models. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Given ground truth answer variability and commonly used F1 and accuracy metrics, we bring forth a simple and explainable probabilistic coin toss model to estimate expected accuracyand expected F1 and compare the estimated scores with those that experts (human or model) achieve across multiple domains -- including radiology and models such as GPT-5 and Gemini-3. The results lead to the recommendation that stratification by the probability of the ground truth answer becomes critical when expert performance is relatively low. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor --- uncertainty.

Although negation is known to challenge large language models (LLMs), benchmarks for evaluating negation understanding-especially in Korean-are scarce. We conduct a corpus-based analysis of Korean negation and show that LLM performance degrades under negation. We then introduce Thunder-KoNUBench, a sentence-level negation understanding benchmark that reflects the empirical distribution of Korean negation phenomena. Evaluating 47 LLMs on Thunder-KoNUBench, we analyze the effects of model size and instruction tuning, and perform error analysis to better understand model behavior. We further show that fine-tuning on Thunder-KoNUBench improves negation understanding and broader contextual comprehension in Korean.

Large language models (LLMs) now support contexts of up to 1M tokens, but their strengths and weaknesses on complex long-context tasks remain unclear. To study this, we focus on multi-document legal case summarization, where a single case often spans many documents exceeding 100K tokens. We systematically evaluate 12 frontier LLMs with Gavel, which consists of Gavel-Ref, a reference-based evaluation framework with checklist, residual-fact, and writing-style evaluations, and Gavel-Agent, a reference-free agent for evaluating factual coverage directly from source documents. Our results show that current models are more prone to omitting key information than hallucinating. They all perform well on simple checklist items, such as filing date, but struggle with rare and complex items, such as settlements. Performance also declines as case length increases. To meta-evaluate Gavel, we collect 160 hours of human annotations. Gavel-Agent reduces token usage by at least 36% compared to end-to-end and chunk-by-chunk methods while achieving competitive performance. Gavel-Agent also generalizes to the medical domain, performing the best with at least 77% fewer tokens.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate decision-making tasks involving personal data sharing, where privacy concerns and prosocial motivations can push choices in opposite directions. Existing evaluations often measure privacy-related attitudes or sharing intentions in isolation, which makes it difficult to determine whether a model's expressed values jointly predict its downstream data-sharing actions as in real human behaviors. We introduce a context-based assessment protocol that sequentially administers standardized questionnaires for privacy attitudes, prosocialness, and acceptance of data sharing within a bounded, history-carrying session. To evaluate value-action alignments under competing attitudes, we use multi-group structural equation modeling (MGSEM) to identify relations from privacy concerns and prosocialness to data sharing. We propose Value-Action Alignment Rate (VAAR), a human-referenced directional agreement metric that aggregates path-level evidence for expected signs. Across multiple LLMs, we observe stable but model-specific Privacy-PSA-AoDS profiles, and substantial heterogeneity in value-action alignment.

Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level. Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference. We present EpiQAL, to our knowledge the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering over research literature, comprising three subsets built from open-access articles across diverse diseases. The three subsets progressively test factual recall, multi-step inference, and conclusion reconstruction under incomplete information, and are constructed through a quality-controlled pipeline combining taxonomy guidance, multi-model verification, and difficulty screening. Experiments on fifteen models spanning open-source and proprietary systems reveal that current LLMs show limited performance on epidemiological reasoning, with multi-step inference posing the greatest challenge. Model rankings shift across subsets, and scale alone does not predict success. Chain-of-Thought prompting benefits multi-step inference but yields mixed results elsewhere. EpiQAL provides fine-grained diagnostic signals for evidence-grounding, inferential reasoning, and conclusion reconstruction.

Humor preferences vary widely across individuals and cultures, complicating the evaluation of humor using large language models (LLMs). In this study, we model heterogeneity in humor preferences in Oogiri, a Japanese creative response game, by clustering users with voting logs and estimating cluster-specific weights over interpretable preference factors using Bradley-Terry-Luce models. We elicit preference judgments from LLMs by prompting them to select the funnier response and found that user clusters exhibit distinct preference patterns and that the LLM results can resemble those of particular clusters. Finally, we demonstrate that, by persona prompting, LLM preferences can be directed toward a specific cluster. The scripts for data collection and analysis are publicly available to support reproducibility.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at natural language tasks but remain brittle in domains requiring precise logical and symbolic reasoning. Chaotic dynamical systems provide an especially demanding test because chaos is deterministic yet often misinterpreted as randomness or complexity. We introduce ChaosBench-Logic, a benchmark that evaluates LLM reasoning across 30 diverse dynamical systems using a unified first-order logic (FOL) ontology. Each system is annotated with truth assignments for 11 semantic predicates, and 621 questions are generated across seven reasoning categories, including multi-hop implications, cross-system analogies, counterfactual reasoning, bias probes, and multi-turn dialogues. We define metrics for logical accuracy, implication consistency, dialogue coherence, and contradiction, and we release an open-source evaluation pipeline. Initial experiments show that frontier LLMs such as GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and the open-source LLaMA-3 70B achieve 91-94% per-item accuracy, yet still score 0% on compositional items and exhibit fragile global coherence. Dialogue-level accuracy ranges from 53.1% (GPT-4 CoT) to 75.5% (LLaMA-3 zero-shot). ChaosBench-Logic provides a rigorous testbed for diagnosing such failures and a foundation for developing neuro-symbolic approaches that improve scientific reasoning in LLMs.

Applying well-established statistical methods effectively to LLM evals requires consideration of model correlations and prediction noises. Leading evals often ignore data noise, have low statistical power, or make unnecessary trade-offs. We define and measure three types of noise: 1) prediction noise from generating different answers on a given question, 2) data noise from sampling questions, and 3) their combined total noise following the law of total variance. To emphasize relative comparisons and gain statistical power, we propose all-pairs comparison, which applies paired comparison to all pairs of LLMs and measures all the noise components based on millions of question-level predictions across many evals and settings, revealing clear trends. First, most evals exhibit a characteristic and highly predictable total noise level across all model pairs. Second, paired prediction noise typically exceeds paired data noise, which means reducing prediction noise by averaging can significantly increase statistical power. By measuring all the noises together, we can assess eval results in context and make better empirical decisions.

Large language models (LLMs) act as digital twins for human respondents, yet their psychometric comparability remains uncertain. We propose a construct validity framework spanning construct representation and the nomothetic span, benchmarking models against human gold standards. Across studies, digital twins achieved high aggregate-level accuracy and profile correlations, but showed attenuated item-level correlations. In word association tests, LLM networks exhibited humanlike small-world structure and theory-consistent communities, yet diverged lexically and in local structure. In decision-making and contextualized tasks, they under-reproduced heuristic biases, demonstrating normative rationality, compressed variance, and limited temporal sensitivity. Feature-rich and trait relevant conditioning improved Big Five personality prediction and nomothetic-span alignment, but network invariance remained limited, with partial configural solutions and persistent loading differences. In cross-language free-text tasks in English and Chinese, feature-rich digital twins better approximated construct-level narrative content, but linguistic and idiographic differences persisted. These findings clarify that digital twins are most useful within validated boundaries, where the construct, task and level of inference align with evidence from human data.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates valid evaluation methods to provide guidance for both downstream applications and actionable future improvements. The Item Response Theory (IRT) model with Computerized Adaptive Testing has recently emerged as a promising framework for evaluating LLMs via their response accuracy. Beyond simple response accuracy, LLMs' chain of thought (CoT) lengths serve as a vital indicator of their reasoning ability. To leverage the CoT length information to assist LLM evaluation, we propose the Latency-Response Theory (LaRT) model, which jointly models both the response accuracy and CoT length by introducing a key correlation parameter between the latent ability and the latent speed. We derive an efficient stochastic approximation Expectation-Maximization algorithm for parameter estimation. We establish rigorous identifiability results for the latent ability and latent speed parameters to ensure the statistical validity of their estimation. Through both theoretical asymptotic analyses and simulation studies, we demonstrate LaRT's advantages over IRT in terms of superior estimation accuracy and shorter confidence intervals for latent trait estimation. To evaluate LaRT in real data, we collect responses from diverse LLMs on popular benchmark datasets. We find that LaRT yields different LLM rankings than IRT and outperforms IRT across multiple key evaluation metrics including predictive power, item efficiency, ranking validity, and LLM evaluation efficiency. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Toby-X/Latency-Response-Theory-Model

Targeted interventions on language models, such as unlearning or model editing, aim to modify specific information, but their effects often propagate to related, unintended areas (e.g., removing virology content may degrade performance on allergies); these side-effects are commonly referred to as the ripple effect. We introduce RippleBench-Maker, an automatic pipeline that retrieves semantic neighbors of any source concept from a knowledge repository and generates multiple-choice questions at varying semantic distances. We instantiate this framework using WikiRAG, an open-source RAG system over English Wikipedia, to construct RippleBench-WMDP-Bio (584 seed topics, 352,961 questions), and evaluate eight unlearning methods on Llama3-8B-Instruct. All eight exhibit accuracy drops that are largest near the unlearned target and decay with semantic distance, each with a distinct propagation profile. We replicate these findings across Mistral-7B, Zephyr-7B, and Yi-34B; cross-model delta curves are nearly identical, suggesting ripple effects are a property of the unlearning method rather than the base model. We validate all major pipeline stages using a four-experiment Mechanical Turk study (5,200+ responses, 61 workers). We release all code, data, and infrastructure.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated several emergent behaviors with scale, including reasoning and fluency in long-form text generation. However, they continue to struggle with tasks requiring precise spatial and positional reasoning. ASCII art, a symbolic medium where characters encode structure and form, provides a unique probe of this limitation. We introduce ASCIIBench, a novel benchmark for evaluating both the generation and classification of ASCII-text images. ASCIIBench consists of a filtered dataset of 5,135 class-labeled ASCII images and is, to our knowledge, the first publicly available benchmark of its kind. Alongside the dataset, we release weights for a fine-tuned CLIP model adapted to capture ASCII structure, enabling the evaluation of LLM-generated ASCII art. Our analysis shows that cosine similarity over CLIP embeddings fails to separate most ASCII categories, yielding chance-level performance even for low-variance classes. In contrast, classes with high internal mean similarity exhibit clear discriminability, revealing that the bottleneck lies in representation rather than generational variance. These findings position ASCII art as a stress test for multimodal representations and motivate the development of new embedding methods or evaluation metrics tailored to symbolic visual modalities. All resources are available at https://github.com/ASCIIBench/ASCIIBench.

To address the scalability of feedback in computer science while mitigating the privacy and cost limitations of commercial Large Language Models (LLMs), this study evaluates a locally hosted Small Language Model (SLM). We deployed a quantized Llama-3.1, GPT-4, and human instructors across introductory programming (N=176), operating systems (N=80), and a writing seminar (N=7). Mixed-methods analysis of student perceptions reveals that while the local SLM matched commercial LLMs and was rated higher by students for readability and actionability in technical courses, human feedback remained more favoured for highly specialized writing tasks. We demonstrate that local SLMs offer a privacy-preserving, zero-marginal-cost alternative for foundational feedback, supporting a tiered pedagogical framework where AI handles structural guidance while instructors focus on high-level conceptual scaffolding.

Reliable assessment of the abilities of large audio language models (LALMs) is essential to advancing the state of the art. As benchmarks rapidly evolve to incorporate complex reasoning and subjective tasks, they increasingly necessitate open-ended responses from LALMs. We present Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment (ORCA) -- a reliable and lightweight model-based approach for answer correctness and disagreement modeling. We employ a three-stage annotation pipeline combining human judgment, structured feedback, and human-AI correction, yielding 9,663 annotations across 3,699 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on three audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks (achieving a Krippendorff's alpha of 0.82). Our experiments employing curriculum learning show that ORCA models achieve a Spearman correlation of 0.91 with average human correctness ratings on seen benchmarks and generalize to unseen benchmarks with a score of 0.85, outperforming several LLM judge baselines including Gemini 2.5 Flash. Furthermore, we demonstrate that ORCA's predicted variance correlates strongly with human disagreement, allowing it to effectively identify problematic benchmark items.

The identification and localization of errors is a core task in peer review, yet the exponential growth of scientific output has made it increasingly difficult for human reviewers to reliably detect errors given the limited pool of experts. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked interest in their potential to support such evaluation tasks, from academic peer review to automated scientific assessment. However, despite the growing use of LLMs in review systems, their capabilities to pinpoint errors remain underexplored. In this work, we introduce Fault Localization Across Writing in Science (FLAWS), an automated benchmark consisting of 713 paper-error pairs designed to evaluate how effectively LLMs detect errors that undermine key claims in research papers. We construct the benchmark by systematically inserting claim-invalidating errors into peer-reviewed papers using LLMs, paired with an automated evaluation metric that measures whether models can identify and localize these errors. Developing such a benchmark presents unique challenges that we overcome: ensuring that the inserted errors are well-defined, challenging, and relevant to the content of the paper, avoiding artifacts that would make identification trivial, and designing a scalable, automated evaluation metric. On the resulting benchmark, we evaluate five frontier LLMs: Claude Sonnet 4.5, DeepSeek Reasoner v3.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT 5, and Grok 4. Among these, GPT 5 is the top-performing model, achieving 39.1% identification accuracy when k=10, where k is the number of top-ranked error text candidates generated by the LLM.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet how closely LLMs mirror human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practice, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective as social simulators. Here, we address this gap by replicating large-scale game-theoretic experiments and by introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. We test three open models typically used to power agents (Llama, Mistral, and Qwen). Across 121 dyadic games spanning four classical game types, Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Characterizing models through behavioral phenotyping, we find that humans and Llama share an envious decision profile, while Qwen and Mistral exhibit different profiles. An attention-based analysis of payoff salience reveals Llama processes payoff information in a structured, layer-dependent manner absent in Qwen and Mistral, suggesting a mechanistic basis for its closer alignment with human behavior. Population-level behavioral replication is achieved without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending the experimental parameter space beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations. Our findings demonstrate appropriately configured LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns, exhibit human-like decision phenotypes, and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional behavioral research that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

It is increasingly important to evaluate the characteristics of systems based on large language models (LLMs). Evaluations in this context often rely on a curated benchmark set of input prompts provided to the LLM, where the output for each prompt may be assigned a binary or ordinal score and the aggregation of scores across prompts is then used as a summary evaluation. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian approach for quantifying the uncertainty that arises in such evaluation metrics as a result of the stochasticity of the LLM-based systems; the same prompt may exhibit different outcomes on repeated runs. Our framework leads naturally to a sequential evaluation, in which we leverage the Bayesian model to preferentially select which prompts in the benchmark to use next, enabling more cost-effective LLM evaluations. We demonstrate this approach through four case studies: pairwise LLM preferences in interactive dialogue (MT-Bench), refusal rates on adversarial inputs (JailbreakBench), embodied agentic reasoning (ALFWorld), and agentic web-search Q&A (GAIA). Our results illustrate how a Bayesian approach can provide insightful uncertainty quantification about the behavior of blackbox LLM-based systems in a manner that is not accessible via deterministic or single-run evaluations.

As model context lengths continue to grow, concerns about whether models effectively use the full context length have persisted. While several carefully designed long-context evaluations have recently been released, these evaluations tend to rely on retrieval from one or more sections of the context, which allows nearly all of the context tokens to be disregarded as noise. This represents only one type of task that might be performed with long context. We introduce Oolong, a benchmark of long-context reasoning tasks that require analyzing individual chunks of text on an atomic level, and then aggregating these analyses to answer distributional questions. Oolong is separated into two task sets: Oolong-synth, a set of naturalistic synthetic tasks, where we can easily ablate components of the reasoning problem; and Oolong-real, a downstream setting which requires reasoning over real-world conversational data. Oolong requires models to reason over large quantities of examples, to perform both classification and counting in-context, and to reason over temporal and user relations. Even frontier models struggle on Oolong, with GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.5-Pro all achieving less than 50% accuracy on both splits at 128K. We release the data and evaluation harness for Oolong to enable further development of models that can reason over large quantities of text.

We investigate the performance of large language models (LLMs) on repetitive deterministic prediction tasks and study how the sequence accuracy rate (SAR) scales with output length. Each such task involves the repetition of the same operation $N$ times. Examples of such tasks include letter replacement in letter strings following a given rule, integer addition, and multiplication of string operators in many-body quantum mechanics. If the LLM performs the task by a simple repetition algorithm, the success rate would follow an exponential decay with sequence length. In contrast, our experiments on leading LLMs reveal a crossover that is sharper than exponential: $-\log\mathrm{SAR}$ grows super-linearly with $N$, and accuracy collapses around a characteristic length $N_*$, the accuracy cliff that separates reliable from unreliable generation. The hypothesis of independent per-step errors is rejected for every model and task we studied. The crossover is well described by a double-exponential accumulation law, $\mathrm{SAR}=\exp(-β_0 Nα^{N-1})$, whose crossover scale $N_*$ does not depend on the functional form chosen to fit it. To interpret this behaviour we introduce a minimal effective model in which step-correctness variables interact through dense random couplings and compete with an external field set by the prompt. Solved by direct enumeration, the model reproduces the super-linear error accumulation and the accuracy cliff qualitatively, and it assigns to each model--task pair two interpretable parameters, an intrinsic error rate and an error-accumulation factor.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential to accelerate scientific discovery as valuable tools for analyzing data, generating hypotheses, and supporting innovative approaches in various scientific fields. In this work, we investigate how LLMs can handle the transition from conceptual research ideas to well-structured research plans. Effective research planning not only supports scientists in advancing their research but also represents a crucial capability for the development of autonomous research agents. Despite its importance, the field lacks a systematic understanding of LLMs' research planning capability. To rigorously measure this capability, we introduce the Idea2Plan task and Idea2Plan Bench, a set of benchmarks built from ICML 2025 and Nature Mental Health papers released after major LLM training cutoffs. Each benchmark instance includes a research idea and a grading rubric capturing the key components of valid plans. We further propose Idea2Plan JudgeEval, a complementary benchmark to assess the reliability of LLM-based judges against expert annotations. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves the strongest performance on the benchmark, though substantial headroom remains for improvement. Our study provides new insights into LLMs' capability for research planning and lays the groundwork for future progress.

Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content, raising concerns about the long-term homogenization of human thought through repeated exposure to similar outputs. Yet scalable methods for evaluating LM output diversity remain limited, especially beyond narrow tasks such as random number or name generation, or beyond repeated sampling from a single model. We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries that admit a wide range of plausible answers with no single ground truth. We introduce the first comprehensive taxonomy for characterizing the full spectrum of open-ended prompts posed to LMs, comprising 6 top-level categories (e.g., brainstorm & ideation) that further breaks down to 17 subcategories. Using Infinity-Chat, we present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect in open-ended generation of LMs, characterized by (1) intra-model repetition, where a single model consistently generates similar responses, and more so (2) inter-model homogeneity, where different models produce strikingly similar outputs. Infinity-Chat also includes 31,250 human annotations, across absolute ratings and pairwise preferences, with 25 independent human annotations per example. This enables studying collective and individual-specific human preferences in response to open-ended queries. Our findings show that LMs, reward models, and LM judges are less well calibrated to human ratings on model generations that elicit differing idiosyncratic annotator preferences, despite maintaining comparable overall quality. Overall, INFINITY-CHAT presents the first large-scale resource for systematically studying real-world open-ended queries to LMs, revealing critical insights to guide future research for mitigating long-term AI safety risks posed by the Artificial Hivemind.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically requires thousands of benchmark items, making the process expensive, slow, and increasingly impractical at scale. Existing evaluation protocols rely on average accuracy over fixed item sets, treating all items as equally informative despite substantial variation in difficulty and discrimination. We introduce ATLAS, an adaptive testing framework based on Item Response Theory (IRT) that estimates model ability using Fisher information-guided item selection. ATLAS reduces the number of required items by up to 90% while maintaining measurement precision. For instance, it matches whole-bank ability estimates using only 41 items (0.157 MAE) on HellaSwag (5,600 items). We further reconstruct accuracy from ATLAS's ability estimates and find that reconstructed accuracies closely match raw accuracies across all five benchmarks, indicating that ability $θ$ preserves the global performance structure. At the same time, $θ$ provides finer discrimination within accuracy-equivalent models: among more than 3,000 evaluated models, 23-31% shift by more than 10 rank positions, and models with identical accuracies receive meaningfully different ability estimates. Code and calibrated item banks are available at https://github.com/Peiyu-Georgia-Li/ATLAS.git.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted for tasks like drafting emails, summarizing meetings, and answering health questions. In these settings, users may need to share private information (e.g., contact details, health records). To evaluate LLMs' ability to identify and redact such information, prior work introduced real-life, scenario-based benchmarks (e.g., ConfAIde, PrivacyLens) and found that LLMs can leak private information in complex scenarios. However, these evaluations relied on proxy LLMs to judge the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses, rather than directly measuring users' perceptions. To understand how users perceive the helpfulness and privacy-preservation quality of LLM responses to privacy-sensitive scenarios, we conducted a user study ($n=94$) using 90 PrivacyLens scenarios. We found that users had low agreement with each other when evaluating identical LLM responses. In contrast, five proxy LLMs reached high agreement, yet each proxy LLM had low correlation with users' evaluations. These results indicate that proxy LLMs cannot accurately estimate users' wide range of perceptions of utility and privacy in privacy-sensitive scenarios. We discuss the need for more user-centered studies to measure LLMs' ability to help users while preserving privacy, and for improving alignment between LLMs and users in estimating perceived privacy and utility.

Creativity is often seen as a hallmark of human intelligence. While large language models(LLMs) are increasingly perceived as generating creative text, there is still no cross-domain and scalable framework to evaluate their creativity across diverse scenarios. Existing methods of LLM creativity evaluation either heavily rely on humans, limiting speed and scalability, or are fragmented across different domains and different definitions of creativity. To address this gap, we propose CreativityPrism, an evaluation and analysis framework that consolidates eight tasks from three domains: divergent thinking, creative writing, and logical reasoning, into a taxonomy of creativity that emphasizes three dimensions: quality, novelty, and diversity of LLM generations. The framework is designed to be scalable with reliable automatic evaluation judges that have been validated against human annotations. We evaluate 17 state-of-the-art (SoTA) LLMs on CreativityPrism and find that while frontier-scale LLMs dominate creative writing and logical reasoning tasks by a .10 (or 15%) lead over locally-deployable open models, they offer no significant advantage in divergent thinking, a domain much less explored in existing post-training regimes. Our analysis also shows that high performance in one creative dimension or domain rarely generalizes to others; specifically, novelty metrics often show weak or negative correlations with other metrics. This fragmentation confirms that a cross-domain, multi-dimensional framework like CreativityPrism is essential for any meaningful assessment of LLM creativity.

We present $\textbf{Korean SimpleQA (KoSimpleQA)}$, a benchmark for evaluating factuality in large language models (LLMs) with a focus on Korean cultural knowledge. KoSimpleQA is designed to be challenging yet easy to grade, consisting of 938 short, fact-seeking questions with unambiguous answers. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation across a diverse set of open-source LLMs of varying sizes that support Korean, and find that even the strongest model generates correct answer only 31.6% of the time, underscoring the challenging nature of KoSimpleQA. Notably, performance rankings on KoSimpleQA differ substantially from those on the English SimpleQA, highlighting the unique value of our dataset. Furthermore, we observe that reasoning helps mitigate the cross-lingual knowledge gap in LLMs, which refers to disparities in their ability to manifest knowledge across languages. KoSimpleQA can be found at https://github.com/naver-ai/KoSimpleQA.

Integration of Large Language Models with search/retrieval engines has become ubiquitous, yet these systems harbor a critical vulnerability that undermines their reliability. We present the first systematic investigation of "chameleon behavior" in LLMs: their alarming tendency to shift stances when presented with contradictory questions in multi-turn conversations (especially in search-enabled LLMs). Through our novel Chameleon Benchmark Dataset, comprising 17,770 carefully crafted question-answer pairs across 1,180 multi-turn conversations spanning 12 controversial domains, we expose fundamental flaws in state-of-the-art systems. We introduce two theoretically grounded metrics: the Chameleon Score (0-1) that quantifies stance instability, and Source Re-use Rate (0-1) that measures knowledge diversity. Our rigorous evaluation of Llama-4-Maverick, GPT-4o-mini, and Gemini-2.5-Flash reveals consistent failures: all models exhibit severe chameleon behavior (scores 0.391-0.511), with GPT-4o-mini showing the worst performance. Crucially, small across-temperature variance (less than 0.004) suggests the effect is not a sampling artifact. Our analysis uncovers the mechanism: strong correlations between source re-use rate and confidence (r=0.627) and stance changes (r=0.429) are statistically significant (p less than 0.05), indicating that limited knowledge diversity makes models pathologically deferential to query framing. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive consistency evaluation before deploying LLMs in healthcare, legal, and financial systems where maintaining coherent positions across interactions is critical for reliable decision support.

Engineering construction automation aims to transform natural language specifications into physically viable structures, requiring complex integrated reasoning under strict physical constraints. While modern LLMs possess broad knowledge and strong reasoning capabilities that make them promising candidates for this domain, their construction competencies remain largely unevaluated. To address this gap, we introduce BuildArena, the first physics-aligned interactive benchmark designed for language-driven engineering construction. Technically, it contributes to the community in two aspects: (1) an extendable task design strategy spanning static and dynamic mechanics across multiple difficulty tiers; (2) a 3D Spatial Geometric Computation Library for supporting construction based on language instructions. On nine frontier LLMs and three additional open-weight models, BuildArena comprehensively evaluates their capabilities for language-driven and physics-grounded construction automation. We release the code at https://github.com/AI4Science-WestlakeU/BuildArena to benefit construction automation in engineering applications.

Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as a lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, and reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a large-scale competitive programming benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated problems, averaging 60 official test cases each, drawn from 72 contests across 14 Informatics Olympiads held between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench has four key features: (1) expert-designed tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive test cases; (2) direct comparison to elite human contestants; (3) continuous updates to reduce contamination risk; and (4) a fully offline, reproducible evaluation system. Benchmarking 34 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves an 81.76th percentile, still falling short of top human contestants, while among the open-weight models, GPT-OSS-120B reaches only the 60th percentile. Reasoning-trace analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration. Finally, analyses across release dates, task familiarity, and code similarity find minimal evidence of data contamination in our benchmark. Our leaderboard, code, and data are available at: https://liveoibench.github.io/.

Despite rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), statistical reasoning remains underrepresented in existing LLM benchmarks, which often do not reflect the layered, proof-driven nature of real statistical practice. To address this gap, we introduce StatEval, the first large-scale benchmark for statistical reasoning across curricular and research-level settings. StatEval includes over 100,000 curated problems, with 20,000+ foundational questions spanning undergraduate and graduate curricula and 80,000+ research-level proof tasks extracted from leading statistical journals. To construct StatEval, we develop TRACE (Topology and Reasoning-Aware Context Extractor), a multi-agent pipeline with human-in-the-loop validation that converts unstructured academic texts into self-contained theorem-level reasoning tasks. We also propose an Adaptive Process-Based Scoring Pipeline for complex statistical proofs, enabling fine-grained evaluation beyond final-answer matching. Experiments show that while LLMs perform reasonably on foundational tasks, they struggle with rigorous research-level reasoning. Beyond evaluation, StatEval serves as a resource for improving reasoning, as retrieval-augmented generation and domain-specific alignment consistently enhance performance. Together, these results establish StatEval as both a benchmark and an infrastructure for advancing statistical reasoning in LLMs.