The paper proposes a method to capture expert human judgment and reasoning for automated evaluation systems that can scale across high‑stakes domains such as healthcare, defense, finance, governance, and politics. By assembling expert networks and encoding their reasoning into structured editorial standards, the authors demonstrate that automated judges trained on these standards outperform uncalibrated frontier models on source‑quality and neutrality metrics in AI news reporting. The study validates the approach with strong inter‑annotator agreement and high F1 scores, suggesting a viable framework for expert‑calibrated evaluation in any domain where expertise is scarce.
arXiv:2610.33240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As frontier AI systems increasingly serve as sources of political and current-events information, evaluating the epistemic quality of their responses i...
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:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
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.
The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.
arXiv:2606. 09556v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist agents are often evaluated as if capability were mainly a function of model quality, prompting, or reasoning scaffolds.
arXiv:2610.15409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise agents need retrieval evaluation sets that expose domain-specific failures and guide developers towards efficient deployment tradeoffs. Neit...
arXiv:2607. 26191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results.
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:2605. 25240v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs.
Legal Research Bench (LRB) is a new benchmark comprising 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. The study evaluates thirteen advanced language‑model agents using web search, case‑law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools, scoring responses only when all required criteria are met and cited authorities verify. Results show that even the best model, Claude Opus 4.8, achieves full correctness on only 42.9% of questions, with performance varying by legal area and task complexity, and no clear link between more tool calls or inference cost and higher accuracy.
arXiv:2607. 25648v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources.