The Lit2Test benchmark centers on a six-field contract organized around a falsifying outcome, so that every proposal precommits the observation that would prove it wrong, making its quality decidable in the first place rather than merely arguable.
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used to propose research ideas, yet the prevailing ways of judging such ideas supply no shared decision rule: free-form judging sways with style and position, and scoring against a later paper rewards recovery of one realized trajectory. We introduce a benchmark that carries a proposal from Literature to Test: the Lit2Test benchmark centers on a six-field contract organized around a falsifying outcome, so that every proposal precommits the observation that would prove it wrong, making its quality decidable in the first place rather than merely arguable. Built prospectively from 200 real-paper neighborhoods, Lit2Test elicits proposals from four frontier models and compares them through 1,200 pairwise comparisons judged blind in both presentation orders. The protocol audits its own reliability through diagnostic controls and bounded human calibration, with three annotators corroborating the conclusions within explicitly stated reliability bounds. Lit2Test recovers a strict ranking of the four models in all 10,000 bootstrap replicates, and the separation comes from the quality of the proposed tests and metrics rather than from surface fluency. We release the benchmark, construction pipeline, and audit artifacts for public use.
A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.
Large language models have improved rapidly on tasks with verifiable answers, such as mathematics and programming. Much less is known about their ability to reason about what we call conceptual questions: questions for which no ground truth is realistically accessible and no widely accepted resolution methodology exists, but on which progress can still be made by debating arguments. Most philosophical questions are of this kind, as are central components of questions in AI safety, decision theory, and social choice. Our approach is based on the view that while bottom-line conclusions on such questions are hard to evaluate, individual contextualized arguments can be evaluated far more reliably. We therefore introduce a dataset of 951 argumentative critiques of 442 position texts, spanning topics from AI safety and decision theory to ethics and politics, with 1,458 ratings by six expert raters along dimensions including centrality, strength, correctness, and clarity. We propose two scoring functions and benchmark a range of models. Performance tracks general capability rankings.
Emery Cooper, Caspar Oesterheld, Linh Nguyen et al.· 0 citations
Large language models are increasingly used as decision aids whose probability judgments shape downstream choices. Whether those judgments carry a systematic directional tilt has been hard to detect: calibration metrics aggregate unsigned errors, and naturalistic uncertainty offers no ground-truth probability. When an LLM rates a startup's success at 70% but its failure at 15%, the missing 15 points expose a distortion no aggregate score flags. We introduce OptimismBench, which detects directional bias with inverted pairs: each scenario elicits both P(success) and P(failure), and asymmetry between the two framings yields a signed bias score without ground truth. Across 16 models from 8 providers, fourteen are optimistic; pessimism appears only in Anthropic's frontier tier. Eleven matched base-versus-chat pairs across four families show post-training sets the sign of the bias, with opposite shifts in different families. The pattern survives prompt, temperature, perspective, and self-debiasing ablations. A seventeen-model six-language comparison further shows model identity dominates language, with inter-model variance at 4.7x inter-language variance. We release 3,870 items across 10 languages for per-model directional-bias auditing. When alignment makes a model more helpful, it also tilts its probabilities; downstream pipelines inherit the tilt by default.
This work measures the capability that role assumes and finds it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with, one-shot greedy authoring with no test-time reasoning.
Wenhui Chen, Jianlin Chen, Ziyao Lin et al.· 0 citations
The Reasoning Answer Faithfulness Score (RAFS) is introduced, a reference free, instance level diagnostic of whether an emitted mathematical trace is locally credible, supports its answer, and is stable under resampling and targeted counterfactual interventions.
Vivek Shukla, Varun Shukla, Atul et al.· 0 citations
Take three frontier mixture-of-experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA; 3.6-4.0B active parameters each) and fine-tune them to reason in a low-resource language. On accuracy benchmarks almost nothing happens, and the benchmark itself is noise at this scale: changing only the random seed moves the score by 7.7 points, more than every data and recipe effect we measured. That null is our first result. The real changes live where accuracy cannot see. Base models never think in Greek: 0 of 1,000 reasoning traces, even when the question is Greek, so the model answers correctly while reasoning in a form its user cannot read, audit, or correct. After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), every released checkpoint reasons in the language of the question on ~98% of items, one family at 3x fewer tokens, with judged grammaticality improving on all four models and general ability within a few points of each base: nothing was forgotten, and fluency was gained. We propose six behavioural dimensions that make such changes measurable, each gated to reject any metric that correlates with output length, and we report how our own instruments lied: six failures, each caught by a control. What SFT cannot do is fix its own defects: a quarter of answers skip the requested format, answers leak into the reasoning channel, and an explicit"think in English"is obeyed under half the time. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, pre-registered before training, fixes the first two outright (fallback 24% to 2.5%, leak 3.5% to 0.0%, both against a flat random-reward control) and moves the third (+9.1pp), while the Greek reasoning habit survives an accuracy-only gradient untouched. We release five checkpoints. The instruments, the controls and the pre-registration travel to any low-resource language; Greek is the case that let us measure them.
