arXiv AI By Chao Wang (Independent Researcher)

What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper "What Do We Expect from LLMs? Mapping the Design of LLM Benchmarks" analyzes 14,767 arXiv submissions from 2022 to 2026 that introduce or update evaluation resources for large language models. It systematically maps changes in target systems, domains, evaluation materials, conditions, and scoring mechanisms, revealing a growing emphasis on action, interaction, and professional applications. The study also notes uneven development in model participation, with LLM-based scoring increasing in both agent and non-agent groups, while model-generated materials do not show a comparable rise.

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 Computation and Language
5d ago

LLJ Cards: Best practices for the Use of LLMs as Judges

arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...

By Khaoula Chehbouni, Melina Medjdoub, Florian Carichon, Golnoosh Farnadi, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung
arXiv AI
Sep 3

EvalDetectBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Evaluation Awareness in Frontier Language Models

EvalDetectBench is an open pipeline and benchmark designed to measure evaluation awareness in frontier large language models, enabling practitioners to test models against any Inspect-compatible evaluation. It includes a curated transcript suite from current frontier system-card evaluations and diverse deployment sources, and it assesses both how reliably models recognize they are being evaluated and how detectable individual benchmarks are. The benchmark addresses systematic bias by calibrating probes per model and harmonizing generator selection to correct for variance caused by model identity and prompt choice.

By Xinning Li, Kemunto Ochwang'i, Aryasomayajula Ram Bharadwaj, Alexandra Souly, Robert Kirk
arXiv AI
Aug 25

What Proves You Wrong: Benchmarking Language Models on Falsifiable Research Ideation

The paper introduces Lit2Test, a benchmark that evaluates language models’ research idea proposals by requiring each idea to include a falsifiable outcome, thereby making quality decidable. Built from 200 real-paper neighborhoods, the benchmark gathers proposals from four frontier models and compares them via 1,200 blind pairwise judgments, with reliability checks and human calibration. The results show a consistent ranking of the models, driven by test and metric quality rather than fluency, and the authors release the benchmark and related artifacts for public use.

By Ziyue Wang (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Aomufei Yuan (Peking University), Yiran Yao (Tianjin University), Linli Yao (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Hongyao Zuo (Tianjin University), Ziwen Gong (Hainan University), Yuanxin Liu (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Shicheng Li (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Yishuo Cai (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Tong Yang (Peking University), Xu Sun (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Xiaohui Li (Huawei Technologies), Haoli Bai (Huawei Technologies)