arXiv:2608. 04549v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier LLMs are increasingly put to use on open-ended complex questions, different in nature from the ones they are typically evaluated on.
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
arXiv:2602. 07840v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating relevance in large-scale search systems is fundamentally constrained by the governance gap between nuanced, resource-constrained human oversight and the high-throughput requirements of production systems.
IDEAlign introduces a new protocol for evaluating the similarity of large language model (LLM) annotations to expert judgments. It uses pick‑the‑odd‑one‑out tasks to capture expert similarity and benchmarks various similarity methods—including text embeddings, topic models, and LLM-as-a-judge—against these human ratings. Applied to educational datasets, the study finds that most metrics miss nuanced expert dimensions, with LLM-as-a-judge performing best yet still insufficient for full expert alignment.
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
arXiv:2609.23201v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretabl...
arXiv:2608. 07529v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as technical assistants, but their competence in solid waste management (SWM) remains difficult to assess because existing benchmarks emphasize general knowledge rather than professional decisions under engineering, environmental, and policy constraints.
arXiv:2603. 23522v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended questions is difficult because response quality depends on the question's context.
arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
arXiv:2609. 12366v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present ORQA, a method for testing occupation-level knowledge in large language models.
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...