arXiv:2607. 20485v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on standard benchmarks, yet it remains largely unexplored whether they truly meet user expectations.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 05697v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: User interface (UI) and user experience (UX) evaluation is central to product development, yet reliable feedback still relies on recruiting human participants or running online A/B tests, making early-stage iteration slow and costly.
arXiv:2607. 16412v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current benchmarks for language models primarily evaluate execution on fully specified tasks.
arXiv:2608. 03044v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human opinions, but prior work reports conflicting results: some studies find promising alignment with human survey data, while others find persona collapse and weak demographic sensitivity.
User interface (UI) and user experience (UX) evaluation is central to product development, yet reliable feedback still relies on recruiting human participants or running online A/B tests, making early-stage iteration slow and costly. In light of this, recent work has explored Multimodal Large Language Models as proxy evaluators.
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
arXiv:2609.22607v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue here that the current dominant practice in LLM human simulation: prompting instruction-tuned assistant language models to role-play personas,...