The paper introduces an audit layer for vision‑language model benchmarks that reuses per‑question artifacts from evaluation runs to assess the benchmark itself. Six detectors analyze saved outputs, and an additional text‑only rerun removes visual inputs to produce per‑question reports and aggregate statistics, including permutation‑null excess and interval estimates. Applying this method to the MMStar benchmark reveals that 20.2% of its questions show no accuracy gain from images, with a small but significant excess in mathematics and science categories, and identifies questions where all models chose the same non‑gold option.
By Denis Degtiarev, Anna Gromova, Sergey Katkov, Artem Mikhailin, Safina Mukhamedshina, Albert Nasybullin, Karina Shaikhutdinova, Artem Tuzov
The paper introduces a dual‑judge evaluation protocol for vision‑language models in legally grounded tasks, pairing a 0‑10 quality judge with a strict binary semantic‑equivalence judge. Using a controlled UK traffic‑sign interpretation task, the authors analyze 4,680 evaluations across visibility and occlusion conditions, finding moderate association between judges and an asymmetric Type II error pattern that is most pronounced under heavy occlusion. The protocol requires only one additional LLM call and reveals quality‑trustworthiness signals that single‑judge methods miss.
By Su Myat Noe, Ha Thanh Nguyen, May Myo Zin, Ken Satoh
The study analyzes 373,019 judgments from LLM‑scored benchmarks, decomposing variance into system, item, judge, and interaction components via generalizability theory. It finds that with a single judge, generalizability converges to a ceiling determined by the system‑by‑judge variance, which is substantially lower in pairwise preference settings, allowing one judge to suffice. The research also reveals significant biases in presentation order and highlights that many published win‑rate claims fall below the measured floor of the benchmarks.
By Atul Anand
The paper investigates how different scoring rules affect the ranking of large language models (LLMs) on the IndiaFinBench benchmark, which contains 406 expert‑annotated items covering regulatory interpretation, numerical reasoning, contradiction detection, and temporal reasoning. Using twelve LLMs evaluated under strict string‑matching, a cross‑model judge, and a composite regime, the authors find that model rankings vary dramatically across regimes, with no significant rank correlation (Spearman ρ = -0.273). Item‑level analysis reveals that a substantial portion of items are answered identically by all models, while a higher‑discrimination band isolates more challenging cases.
By Rajveer Singh Pall
The study evaluates zero‑shot essay scoring using sub‑3B open language models that run locally on a single 8 GB consumer GPU. Four instruction‑tuned models (Qwen2.5‑0.5B, 1.5B, 3B and SmolLM2‑1.7B) were tested on all eight ASAP‑AES prompts, comparing rubric‑decomposed versus holistic prompting, different aggregation methods, and trait‑mapping strategies. Results show rubric‑decomposed prompting consistently outperforms holistic prompting, trait‑mapping is sensitive to calibration, and longer essays reduce error, yet the best local configuration (macro QWK 0.388) still falls short of human agreement and a length‑only baseline, suggesting these models are best suited for formative, human‑supervised feedback.
By Nguyen Dung Son, Dang Quang Minh, Nguyen Huu Loi, Truong Viet Vu, Nguyen Thai Anh
arXiv:2608. 16852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulatory compliance monitoring in deployed language models is increasingly implemented as a legal and audit control, checking model outputs against written rules spanning data protection, healthcare, financial regulation, and platform policy.
By Saisab Sadhu, Aadit Sengupta, Vinay Kumar Sankarapu, Pratinav Seth