arXiv:2606. 25984v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors.
By Mingguang Chen, Bo Qu
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: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.
By Inder Preet, Shuxin Lin, Dhaval Patel
arXiv:2606. 25984v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors.
By Mingguang Chen, Bo Qu
arXiv:2608. 13221v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The evaluation of LLM reasoning is moving from final-answer accuracy to process-level assessment, yet existing methods still fail to capture how models plan reasoning paths and allocate reasoning resources--that is, how they organize search.
By Shunwen Bai, Ziping Ma, Chaoyang Zhang, Yarong Wang, Jiale Liu, Zhen Qin, Qingpei Guo
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.
By Henry Shaowu Yuchi, Michal Kucer, Benjamin H. Sims, Selma Peterson, Emily Taylor
arXiv:2604. 17621v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Many real-world questions appear deceptively simple yet implicitly demand two capabilities: (i) systematic coverage of a bounded knowledge universe and (ii) compositional set-based reasoning over that universe, a phenomenon we term "the tip of the iceberg.
By Xiao Zhang, Qianru Meng, Yongjian Chen, Yumeng Wang, Johan Bos
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.
By Pau Arnal, Khaled Denfir, Danylo Smahliuk, Amrut Avhad, Marcus A. Castro
arXiv:2606. 26671v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training alignment determines the reasoning and human preference following capabilities of large language models, yet most existing works withhold detailed data construction, filtering rules and training recipes, which hinders community reproducibility and lightweight model optimization.
By Qiaobo Hao, Yangqian Wu, Shunyi Wang, Zhongjian Zhang, Ziqun Li, Yayin He, Muqing Li, Chen Zhong
arXiv:2607. 01431v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.
By Samir Abdaljalil, Erchin Serpedin, Hasan Kurban
arXiv:2607. 14707v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder.
By Akash Raj
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song