The paper introduces KIDBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the safety of large language models (LLMs) for children aged 7-11. It includes realistic child queries across ten categories, single- and multi-turn prompts, and compares different prompting strategies—no cues, implicit cues, and explicit age instructions—showing that cueing improves safety scores. The study also reveals uneven safety performance across languages and cultures, and presents KIDGuardLlama, a child-safety evaluator, and KIDLlama, a child-safe response model.
By Samee Arif, Angana Borah, Rada Mihalcea
The paper introduces the Core Sentiment Inventory (CSI), a new personality trait evaluation tool for large language models (LLMs) that addresses reliability and validity issues found in existing methods like the Big Five Inventory (BFI). CSI is designed specifically for LLMs, supports both English and Chinese, and provides detailed psychological portraits of model behavior. Experiments show that CSI captures nuanced behavioral patterns, improves reliability, and correlates strongly (above 0.85) with real-world LLM outputs.
By Huanhuan Ma, Haisong Gong, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xing Xie, Philip S. Yu, Dongkuan Xu
arXiv:2608.30873v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used for interpersonal advice and as tools for studying social behavior across languages and cultures. A common shortcut for el...
By Jinhee Won, Xinlan Emily Hu
arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
By Khaoula Chehbouni, Melina Medjdoub, Florian Carichon, Golnoosh Farnadi, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
arXiv:2608.20385v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Systematic reviews rely on quality appraisal of included studies, a process that is time-consuming and sensitive to ambiguity in checklist criteria. Al...
By Timo van der Kuil (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Bruno Messina Coimbra (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Mirjam van Zuiden (Clinical Psychology Utrecht University), Robert A. Bagheri (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Rens van de Schoot (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Klaas Dieleman (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Berend Greijn (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Stefan Houkes (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Sebastiaan Rodenhuis (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University), Elizabeth M. Grandfield (Methodology and Statistics Utrecht University)
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
By Danica Dillion, Chen Cecilia Liu, Baihui Wang, Daniele Barolo, Tanmay Rajore, Niket Tandon, Pranathi Ravikumar, Kurt Gray
arXiv:2606. 05180v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced.
By Ivo Bueno, Babette B\"uhler, Philipp Stark, Tim F\"utterer, Ulrich Trautwein, Dorottya Demszky, Heather Hill, Enkelejda Kasneci
The paper investigates how persona prompting—using short textual descriptions of individuals—to align large language models (LLMs) with human survey responses. It examines the impact of selecting different persona attributes and finds that not all attribute combinations improve performance, suggesting that the variation in human responses to survey questions may explain mixed results. The study evaluates multiple attribute selection methods across four social surveys, two countries, six LLMs, and twenty prediction tasks, offering guidance on when persona prompting is beneficial and which attribute choices are most effective.
By Leon Fr\"ohling, Jens Rupprecht, Markus Strohmaier, Claudia Wagner
arXiv:2606. 29685v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How can we evaluate whether frontier AI systems recognize child-safety risks before they escalate into explicit harm?
By Kaavya Krishna-Kumar, Elaine Lau, Vaughn Robinson, Jay Caldwell, Sheriff Issaka, Skyler Wang, Francisco Guzm\'an, Steven Kelling, Jonas Mueller
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.
By Kathrin Wardatzky, Oana Inel, Luca Rossetto, Abraham Bernstein
arXiv:2602. 08873v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now used for academic expert recommendation.
By Lisette Esp\'in-Noboa, Gonzalo Gabriel M\'endez
arXiv:2305.12474v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large Language Models(LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various natural language processing tasks; however, how to comprehensiv...
By Xiaotian Zhang, Chunyang Li, Yi Zong, Zhengyu Ying, Liang He, Xipeng Qiu, Tianxiang Sun, Peng Li, Shiqiao Meng, Yanjun Zheng, Jun Zhan, Zhangyue Yin, Xiannian Hu, Guofeng Quan, Qixiang Wang