EvalDetectBench is an open pipeline and benchmark designed to measure evaluation awareness in frontier large language models, enabling practitioners to test models against any Inspect-compatible evaluation. It includes a curated transcript suite from current frontier system-card evaluations and diverse deployment sources, and it assesses both how reliably models recognize they are being evaluated and how detectable individual benchmarks are. The benchmark addresses systematic bias by calibrating probes per model and harmonizing generator selection to correct for variance caused by model identity and prompt choice.
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....
arXiv:2605. 23055v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Frontier language models sometimes recognize that they are being evaluated and adjust their behavior, undermining validity of benchmark results.
The paper investigates whether existing AI safety benchmarks, designed for large language models, are suitable for evaluating small language models (SLMs). By testing five benchmark suites on 26 open‑source SLMs with a unified scoring rubric, the authors find that ambiguous judgments dominate, especially for complex prompts and certain architectures. This ambiguity, linked to factors like lexical density and output perplexity, undermines the reliability of aggregate leaderboards and reveals a confound between model capability and perceived safety.
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...
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
arXiv:2608. 06202v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness.
The paper "What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks" analyzes 14,767 arXiv submissions from 2022 to 2026 that introduce or update evaluation resources for large language models. It systematically maps changes in target systems, domains, evaluation materials, conditions, and scoring mechanisms, revealing a growing emphasis on action, interaction, and professional applications. The study also notes uneven development in model participation, with LLM-based scoring increasing in both agent and non-agent groups, while model-generated materials do not show a comparable rise.
arXiv:2608.21766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Both capability and safety benchmarks rest upon the assumption that the behavior of language models undergoing a test is informative about their beha...
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...
arXiv:2509.20645v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Modern ML research increasingly faces an evaluation bottleneck: building benchmarks and running experiments is costly, slowing iteration. We...
arXiv:2606. 12747v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety-relevant studies of language models, including alignment and jailbreaking evaluations and AI control protocols, often rely on prefilling model outputs.
arXiv:2607. 28801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples.