arXiv:2607. 16122v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluations should do more than measure a models current performance.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 28471v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model capability is the central variable in LLM pre-training, yet is never observed directly: data shapes it prospectively, while evaluation reveals it only retrospectively, compressing samples, prompts, decoding, and scoring rules into one noisy score.
Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why. We introduce canary tools: diagnostic probe tools planted in an agent's Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool set, each engineered to probe one specific tool-selection weakness.
arXiv:2608. 04719v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why.
arXiv:2607. 05638v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Teams deploying large language models in business contexts need evaluation systems, yet most treat evaluation as static model selection: run benchmarks, rank models, deploy the winner.
arXiv:2606. 09118v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM capabilities advance rapidly, the evaluation methods used to assess them increasingly lag behind.
arXiv:2607. 20465v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The quality of training data fundamentally determines the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet no unified benchmark exists to measure how well LLMs, agents, and data-centric workflows actually prepare training data end to end.