arXiv AI By Mingguang Chen, Bo Qu

InvestPhilBench: A Multi-Layer Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Procedural Reasoning in Expert Investment Philosophy

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 25984v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors.

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 AI
Aug 25

GIM: Evaluating models via tasks that integrate multiple cognitive domains

The paper introduces the Grounded Integration Measure (GIM), a benchmark of 820 expert‑authored problems designed to test models on tasks that integrate multiple cognitive operations such as constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, and audience calibration. GIM emphasizes realistic, broadly accessible knowledge rather than specialized expertise, and uses a judge‑aware 2‑parameter logistic IRT model to produce robust ability estimates across 53 model‑thinking‑level configurations. The authors provide a comprehensive leaderboard of 22 models and 47 test configurations, and conduct an extensive study on how test‑time compute affects model capability, finding that configuration choices like thinking budget and quantization can be as influential as model selection itself. whyItMatters":"By focusing on integration of multiple cognitive domains, GIM offers a more realistic assessment of model reasoning capabilities than benchmarks that either overemphasize memorization or abstract reasoning alone."

By Rohit Patel, Alexandre Rezende, Steven McClain
arXiv AI
Aug 11

WuYuEval: A Multi-Level Benchmark for Large Language Models in Solid Waste Management

arXiv:2608. 07529v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as technical assistants, but their competence in solid waste management (SWM) remains difficult to assess because existing benchmarks emphasize general knowledge rather than professional decisions under engineering, environmental, and policy constraints.

By Yi Zhang, Hongyang Wang, Zheng Hao Leong, Zihao Wu, Kaijun Lin, Zhixing Pan, Qixun Huangfu, Wei Ren, Wenyan Wu, Fangyun Wang, Wenting Yu, Hengyu Lin, Muling Yang, Zongguo Wen