arXiv:2607. 17063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led practitioners to increasingly rely on them for answering questions about hardware description languages (HDLs).
arXiv:2607. 22554v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong accuracy on benchmarks, yet it remains unclear how reliably they apply this knowledge when the same question is phrased in different but equivalent ways.
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:2606. 06197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Question answering (QA) systems have achieved notable progress with the advent of large language models (LLMs).
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.
arXiv:2606. 27047v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of tasks, but ensuring their reliability in highly technical domains remains a significant challenge.
The paper presents a tri‑agent framework for evaluating large language models’ question‑clarification abilities. It involves a Question Clarifying Agent that identifies ambiguities and asks follow‑up questions, a Respondent Agent that simulates human replies, and an Evaluator Agent that judges the dialogue using metrics such as ambiguity handling, question quality, dialogue efficiency, language appropriateness, and intent alignment. The authors illustrate the approach with synthetic supply‑chain data and discuss validating the evaluator against human judgments.
Reliable evaluation of open-ended question answering remains a bottleneck for measuring answer correctness of modern LLMs. Unlike multiple-choice tasks, free-form answers may be correct in many surfac...
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.
arXiv:2610.08026v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, several methods for detecting when large language models (LLMs) hallucinate have been developed. These methods are often benchmarked w...
arXiv:2606. 08471v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recently, language models have made rapid progress across various domains and applications.
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.
The paper introduces a semantic correctness taxonomy that categorizes open‑ended QA answers into eight ordered classes, distinguishing between correct, verbose, and hallucinated responses. It releases two datasets—CAP‑Correctness and CAP‑Statements—to support benchmark evaluation and NLI‑based training. The authors also propose CAP (Context‑Aware Precision), a reference‑based metric that scores question‑conditioned statements via bidirectional NLI and demonstrates superior performance under a monotonicity protocol.