arXiv:2602. 12424v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarks establish a standardized evaluation framework to systematically assess the performance of large language models (LLMs), facilitating objective comparisons and driving advancements in the field.
By Ziqian Zhang, Xingjian Hu, Yue Huang, Kai Zhang, Ruoxi Chen, Yixin Liu, Qingsong Wen, Kaidi Xu, Xiangliang Zhang, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, Lichao Sun
arXiv:2409.00696v4 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs)....
By Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin Vechev
The paper introduces a Chinese competitive debating dataset and benchmark, comprising 148 fully adjudicated matches with 2,698 stages and 20,542 exchange units, all annotated by 120 professional judges using a shared rubric. It offers manually verified transcripts, segmentation, and preserved scores, votes, and rationales, enabling evaluation of large language models on winner-tendency prediction, stage-score prediction, and best-debater prediction. Zero‑shot experiments show the best models achieve 66.2% winner‑prediction accuracy, a 0.250 Pearson correlation for stage scores, and 56.8% best‑debater accuracy.
By Zongrui Yang, Haoyuan Li, Zhongsheng Wang, Zhirui Zeng, Pengqian Han, Yi Zhou, Yuting Wang, Jiamou Liu
Teochew has a substantial speaker community and exhibits distinctive lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic features, yet textual resources for evaluating large language models remain limited. We present T...
EviSI is an evidence‑based evaluation agent for low‑latency simultaneous speech‑to‑speech translation. It combines Multidimensional Quality Metrics with interpreter‑developed criteria, using shared source evidence to assess four dimensions—Anchor, Event, Logic, and Fluency—while deduplicating verified errors before scoring. On English‑to‑Chinese and Chinese‑to‑English data, EviSI’s rankings correlate strongly with human judgments, outperforming BLEU and COMET, and its multilingual extension maintains these correlations across five language directions.
By Ben Yan, Zongyao Li, Xiaoyu Chen, Daimeng Wei, Weidong Liu, Huan Zhao, Chong Li, Yaode Wang, Yuzhe Shang
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
By Aakash Kumar Tiwari
Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains largely pre-scientific: it involves many design decisions, with little guidance on how to make them. These choices can substantially affect measured...
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
By Bertil Braun, Martin Forell
The paper introduces Inverse Turing Bench, a benchmark designed to assess how well language models can distinguish between human-only and human-AI dialogues in multi-turn text. It provides paired dialogue transcripts and evaluates models on correctly identifying the type of conversation. Preliminary results show GPTZero, Claude Opus-4.6, and GPT-5.5 achieving the highest accuracies of 89.41%, 77.92%, and 75.94% respectively, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of statistical versus semantic detection approaches.
By William Hager, Ishika Rathi, Masum Hasan, Cameron Jones
arXiv:2610.19185v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains largely pre-scientific: it involves many design decisions, with little guidance on how to make them....
By Shenbin Qian, David Samuel, Jind\v{r}ich Helcl, Andrey Kutuzov, Stephan Oepen
VākQA is a newly introduced benchmark for Telugu spoken factoid question answering, comprising 2,001 question‑answer pairs across six domains, 2.53 hours of speech audio, bilingual transcriptions, and human‑verified reference answers. The study validates automatic evaluation methods against human judgments, finding that Gemini‑as‑a‑judge best approximates human ratings but is inconsistently strict, while open‑weight judges tend to penalize correct Telugu answers that differ in surface form. Using this validated setup, the authors benchmark proprietary and open‑weight models, highlighting challenges such as cultural specificity loss in translation, phonetic confusions from speech input, and compounded errors from cascaded ASR‑MT pipelines.
arXiv:2504.11582v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: How can a monolingual English speaker determine whether an automatic translation in French is good enough to be shared? Existing MT error detection...
By Dayeon Ki, Kevin Duh, Marine Carpuat