arXiv:2605. 27914v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling.
arXiv:2607. 12790v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists.
arXiv:2606. 09843v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave.
Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications it does not.
arXiv:2607. 28685v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent-safety benchmarks measure different behaviors, and their scores get quoted interchangeably as an agent's safety.
arXiv:2606. 21008v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The metanym game is a competitive word game for LLMs that measures structural intelligence against established cognitive-science constructs.
arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.
arXiv:2607. 18966v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models trained with reinforcement learning may learn to optimize the grader's judgment rather than the intended objective.
arXiv:2604. 22891v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on.
arXiv:2606. 05183v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pass/fail safety evaluation reports whether a model refused.
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.
Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why. We introduce canary tools: diagnostic probe tools planted in an agent's Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool set, each engineered to probe one specific tool-selection weakness.
Agentic systems have widened the gap between producing candidate outputs and reviewing them. This paper asks a practical architectural question: should domain specialization be built into an evaluator's weights, or into the rule that decides when its judgment can be trusted?