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:2608.21601v1 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: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. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.
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.
Small language models can grade open‑ended exam answers as reliably as much larger models when they use an explicit rubric. In experiments with six cost‑efficient model configurations, the rubric decouples grading from judge intelligence, with answer identity explaining 95.6% of score variance and judge identity only 0.2%. Removing rubric criteria or the official answer collapses reliability and inflates scores, showing the rubric’s essential role.
arXiv:2606. 13685v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized.
arXiv:2608. 09128v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent social settings where they must cooperate, negotiate, and adapt to other agents.
arXiv:2606. 15887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.
FM‑Bench is a new benchmark that tests large language model agents on long‑horizon decision making by having them run a football club for 20 in‑game years. The agent must manage a squad, trade players, negotiate contracts, invest in facilities and youth, set lineups, and respond to a board that can fire it, all using 26 tools and roughly 340–400 decision stops, with a deterministic engine producing a final score without human or LLM judges. The benchmark includes a solo track where each of 15 frontier models competes against a frozen scripted world, and an Arena track where the same models plus a scripted anchor share one 20‑year world, allowing the first head‑to‑head evaluation at this scale. whyItMatters":"FM‑Bench provides a rigorous, large‑scale test of sustained, cumulative decision‑making in language‑model agents, revealing that managerial strategy—not computational scale or vendor—drives performance over long horizons."
FM‑Bench is a new benchmark that tests large language model agents on long‑horizon decision‑making by having them run a football club for 20 in‑game years. The agent must manage a squad, trade players, negotiate contracts, invest in facilities, set lineups, and respond to a board that can fire it, all while a deterministic engine aggregates the outcomes into a final score without human judgment. The benchmark evaluates six behavioral capabilities and compares 15 frontier models in solo and arena tracks, revealing that managerial behavior—not computational scale—drives performance.
arXiv:2607. 02104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise.