Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency.
The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.
By Lukas Gehring, Benjamin Paa{\ss}en
arXiv:2608. 13708v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatically generating textbook-grounded assessment items can reduce science teachers' workload, but existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems rely on flat retrieval, support only single-question generation, lack safeguards against weak evidence, and are ill-suited to low-resource, board-exam-structured curricula.
By Fatema Tuj Johora Faria, Mukaffi Bin Moin, M. F. Mridha, Jubayer Al Mahmud
AEScorer is an agentic evidence‑grounded framework designed for graded factuality verification, addressing the limitation of binary judgments in current methods. It operates in two stages: first, it gathers and refines external evidence through agentic search; second, it predicts a scalar factuality score to capture nuanced differences in correctness. The authors also introduce GradedVeriBench, a benchmark covering general and multi‑hop question answering, and demonstrate that AEScorer outperforms existing approaches on this new benchmark.
By Hui Huang, Muyun Yang, Yuki Arase
arXiv:2608. 07688v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: IT audits require auditors to judge whether heterogeneous organizational evidence satisfies semantic security and compliance controls.
By Allison Wilson, Sina Moradi Sabet, Diar Shakimov, Panteha Shahrivar, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, Dean Konenkamp, Mohammad A. Tayebi
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
By Tao Liu, Ye Lu, Ruohua Zhang, Siyu Song, Wentao Liu, Aimin Zhou, Hao Hao
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
By Xinpeng Qiu, Wang Yihu, Zhifeng Liu, Xiaochen Wang, Jimin Wang
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...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
By Yihan Hong, Huaiyuan Yao, Bolin Shen, Wanpeng Xu, Hua Wei, Yushun Dong
arXiv:2607. 01248v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used for knowledge acquisition, code generation, academic writing, and agent-based automation.
By Yang Zhao, Yingshuo Li, Zeyu Zhang
The paper examines LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to assess AI-generated text, questioning the assumption that judgments are derived from reasoning over responses and rubrics. It finds that classifiers trained solely on rubric text can predict judge outputs, indicating that rubrics contain recoverable evaluative signals independent of the responses. Counterfactual experiments show judges often fail to adjust decisions when either the response or rubric criterion is reversed, raising doubts about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation.
By Anshul Bagaria, Sowmya S Sundaram, Gokul S Krishnan, Balaraman Ravindran
arXiv:2505. 02763v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the central promises of legal AI is to automate drudgery -- the formal, repetitive tasks of lawyers' work that consume time without calling for much discretion.
By Matthew Dahl, Eric Mart\'inez