The paper introduces Evaluation-as-Search (EaS), a feedback‑driven method that adaptively probes LLM‑powered meeting assistants by focusing on natural questions likely to reveal grounding failures. Using EaS, the authors build MeetingProbe, a benchmark of over 3,000 annotated question‑answer pairs from 20 transcripts across three meeting genres and three assistants. Ablation studies show that adaptive search uncovers 2.5× more failures than random probing, revealing a capability gradient and eight recurring failure categories dominated by discourse‑pragmatic challenges.
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.
arXiv:2607. 14109v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding.
Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores.
The paper presents a post‑training recipe for small dialogue‑game agents that involves three steps: acquiring broad game participation via supervised fine‑tuning, repairing specific local failures with turn‑local preference pairs, and preserving general capabilities. Applied to the LM Playschool Challenge, the method raises the public clemscore from 10.67 to 38.92 and the closed in‑domain score from 13.41 to 41.17 while keeping overall static performance nearly unchanged. The gains are mainly within the targeted game family, with limited improvement on out‑of‑domain clemscore.
arXiv:2603. 09995v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Behavioral interview evaluation using large language models presents unique challenges that require structured assessment, realistic interviewer behavior simulation, and pedagogical value for candidate training.
arXiv:2504. 07385v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness.
arXiv:2604. 09497v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Accurate evaluation is central to the large language model (LLM) ecosystem, guiding model selection and downstream adoption across diverse use cases.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts.
The paper introduces UPHELD, a large benchmark of human-to-human dialogues written by professional script writers, featuring realistic turn densities and over 36,000 per-turn human annotations. It evaluates existing automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge methods, finding them unreliable against expert human judgment. Using UPHELD, the authors develop a Mixture-of-Judges framework that improves correlation with human assessments by about 30%.
arXiv:2606. 00919v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have seen widespread adoption across various domains, yet their reliability is frequently undermined by hallucinations - responses that are plausible-sounding but factually incorrect.
EduDial is a large-scale multi-turn teacher‑student dialogue corpus covering 345 core knowledge points and 34,250 dialogue sessions, designed around Bloom’s taxonomy and ten questioning strategies such as situational, ZPD, and metacognitive questioning. The dataset includes differentiated teaching strategies for students at varying cognitive levels to provide targeted guidance. Using EduDial, the authors trained EduDial‑LLM 32B and introduced an 11‑dimensional evaluation framework that measures teaching quality and content quality, showing that most mainstream LLMs struggle with student‑centered teaching while EduDial‑LLM outperforms all baselines across all metrics.