arXiv:2608. 11947v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multiple-choice benchmarks are widely used to evaluate large language models, but MCQ scores conflate knowledge with sensitivity to option order, which makes them unreliable measures of model knowledge.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2504. 06659v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite advances in Preference Alignment (PA) for Large Language Models (LLMs), mainstream methods like reinforcement learning with human feedback face notable challenges.
arXiv:2602. 02898v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language model benchmarks are pervasive and computationally-efficient proxies for real-world performance.
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.
arXiv:2606. 26079v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines.
arXiv:2602. 13110v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scalable judges in pairwise evaluation, but they remain prone to miscalibration and biases.
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.