arXiv:2610.33240v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As frontier AI systems increasingly serve as sources of political and current-events information, evaluating the epistemic quality of their responses i...
By Matt Wilde, Jillian Fisher, Andrew B. Hall, Kathryn Salam, Robbie Goldfarb
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
By Abbas Raza Ali, Muhammad Ajmal Siddiqui, Moona Zahid
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
arXiv:2602. 07840v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating relevance in large-scale search systems is fundamentally constrained by the governance gap between nuanced, resource-constrained human oversight and the high-throughput requirements of production systems.
By Benjamin Le, Xueying Lu, Nick Stern, Wenqiong Liu, Igor Lapchuk, Xiang Li, Baofen Zheng, Kevin Rosenberg, Jiewen Huang, Zhe Zhang, Abraham Cabangbang, Satej Milind Wagle, Jianqiang Shen, Raghavan Muthuregunathan, Abhinav Gupta, Mathew Teoh, Andrew Kirk, Thomas Kwan, Jingwei Wu, Wenjing Zhang
The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.
By Daan R. Henselmans, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Arno Libert
arXiv:2606. 09556v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist agents are often evaluated as if capability were mainly a function of model quality, prompting, or reasoning scaffolds.
By Yinan Wang