Do Assessment Instruments Measure the Same Thing for Humans and LLMs? A Latent Structure Analysis

The rapid development and growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly important to understand their capabilities. A common approach is to evaluate LLMs using assessment instruments originally designed to measure skills and competencies in humans, such as standardized exams, and to use performance on these instruments as evidence for generalizable claims about LLMs' underlying abilities on the same skills the assessments are intended to measure in humans. However, from a validity perspective, such inferences require that the relationship between observed performance and underlying constructs established for humans also holds for LLMs. In particular, a necessary condition for transferring score interpretations is similarity in the latent structure of responses to the assessment. In this study, we examine whether this condition holds in two educational contexts: high-school chemistry and a quantitative reasoning section of a university entrance exam. Using a case study design, we compare human response data with responses generated by six multimodal LLMs. Our analytical approach combines exploratory factor analysis, factor congruence, and resampling to assess latent structure similarity across human learners and LLMs. Across both instruments, we find systematic differences between human and LLM factor structures, showing evidence that the analyzed assessments may not measure the same constructs for humans and LLMs. These findings call into question the validity of evaluation practices that use educational assessments to make claims about AI capabilities.

HexEval: An Evidence-Driven Hexagonal Framework for Multidimensional Scholar Assessment

Scholar assessment plays a fundamental role in faculty recruitment, funding allocation, academic promotion, and talent discovery. Existing scholar assessment methods predominantly rely on bibliometric indicators and reputation proxies, while recent large language model (LLM)-based approaches mainly focus on evaluating individual research papers rather than comprehensively assessing scholars. We argue that scholar assessment should be formulated as an evidence-driven reasoning problem that jointly considers intrinsic research quality and externally verifiable scholarly behavior. To this end, we propose HexEval, an evidence-driven hexagonal framework for multidimensional scholar assessment. HexEval explicitly organizes scholar assessment into two complementary evidence layers. The intrinsic layer evaluates anonymized representative works along three dimensions, namely research rigor, methodological innovation, and scientific contribution, whereas the external layer characterizes scholars through knowledge translation, research coherence, and academic impact using heterogeneous evidence collected from GitHub, Lens, OpenAlex, and other publicly verifiable sources. Instead of producing opaque aggregate scores, HexEval preserves intermediate evidence, dimension-specific rationales, and verification signals throughout the evaluation process, enabling interpretable and auditable scholar profiles. Experiments across all six dimensions show dimension-dependent agreement with human or external reference criteria: structured calibration improves absolute agreement for intrinsic quality, while the external modules recover broad trajectory and ordinal impact signals. These results support evidence-driven reasoning over heterogeneous scholarly evidence as a promising paradigm for auditable AI-assisted scholar assessment, while exposing the coverage and attribution limitations of public scholarly data.

The Judgment-Consequence Gap: LLM Moral Reasoning in Healthcare Decisions

As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their moral reasoning becomes essential. Decisions about scarce medical resources often hinge on judgments of responsibility, particularly when patients' own actions contribute to illness. We investigate how LLMs reason about responsibility and its consequences, tracing their judgments across successive levels, from the behavior, to the resulting illness, to the denial of care. We evaluate a wide range of LLMs, spanning different model families and capability levels, on various clinical vignettes adapted from prior studies. Our results identify a judgment-consequence gap: LLMs largely agree with humans that patients bear responsibility for health-harming behaviors, yet overwhelmingly refuse to let that judgment influence how they allocate scarce resources. Specifically, LLMs default to random allocation, whereas humans consistently favor the less-culpable patient. Compared to humans, LLMs also place greater emphasis on access to information, reducing responsibility judgments when health-risk knowledge is unavailable. These findings reveal that LLMs apply a systematically different moral framework than humans when responsibility and resource scarcity intersect, surprisingly often amplifying normative disagreement with humans as reasoning capability increases.

AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

MonitrLLM: A Community-Centered Evaluation Infrastructure for Large Language Models

Benchmark suites assess model capability on controlled tasks; large-scale conversation corpora capture naturalistic use without user feedback; and in-interface feedback mechanisms record satisfaction without task purpose. Together, they leave a critical gap in LLM evaluation: no existing infrastructure routinely links interaction trajectories to user-defined outcomes. We introduce MonitrLLM, open-source infrastructure for community-centered LLM evaluations that links full conversation transcripts to user-reported task intent and outcome assessments, treating all three as primary evaluative signals rather than optional metadata. To demonstrate the value of this approach, we conducted a two-week feasibility pilot with 26 college students using ChatGPT, collecting 206 evaluation reports with full conversation transcripts. The findings from our pilot demonstrate the value of connecting conversation trajectories with user-reported outcomes. For instance, despite reporting high average satisfaction (4.19/5) with their LLM interactions, participants also experience a substantial 23.1% failure rate on their goal tasks. We also find that multi-turn conversations are reported as failing at 2.5 times the rate of single-turn exchanges, a pattern that reframes extended interaction as a signal of difficulty rather than engagement. We conclude by discussing the value of incorporating direct user feedback with observational data for robust LLM evaluations, and the possibilities for infrastructure that enables this goal.

Do large language models scrutinise what they review? A multimodal audit of scoring calibration, error detection, and author-identity effects

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate peer reviews, prompting examination of their capacity for critical evaluation. This study evaluates two multimodal LLMs, Qwen2.5-VL-72B and Pixtral-Large-124B, as reviewers across 165 submissions to the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations, a venue that postdates both models' training cutoffs. Manuscripts were presented to both models with author identities blinded, replaced with high-prestige affiliations, or replaced with low-prestige affiliations, and in either text-only or text-with-figure format. Additionally, 145 verifiably detectable errors were inserted into 55 manuscripts to assess error identification under natural and verification-oriented prompts. Across all manuscript groups, including rejected submissions, LLM scores ranged from 7.0 to 8.1, whereas human mean scores ranged from 3.4 to 6.8. The models detected 12.1\% of the verified errors under natural prompting, and a one-sentence verification instruction increased detection to 22.2\%; however, 78\% of the errors remained undetected. Providing figures reduced error detection while increasing review scores. No visual error was reliably verified against its corresponding figure, and half of the text-only reviews described figures that were not provided. Author identity did not influence either review scores or error detection. LLM editorial decisions exactly matched those produced by simple score averaging.

Opaque Epistemic Mediation: How LLM Deployment Configurations Shape the Validation of Pseudo-Science

Commercial large language models are increasingly used as knowledge references, yet their stance on contested scientific claims is neither stable nor transparent. We tested how four major LLM families (Claude, Grok, GPT, Gemini) evaluate ethnonationalist pseudo-science derived from Frank Salter's biosocial framework across four temporal snapshots (October 2025-February 2026), via both API and web interfaces. Grok's Fast versions (which power the default user experience on X) consistently assigned credibility scores of 70-75, two to five times higher than all other models (which scored 15-40). This pattern was absent from control prompts testing basic evolutionary consensus and refuted Lamarckian claims, where all models performed comparably. Three additional findings emerged: (1) a silent patch reversed Grok's behaviour from chaotic to stably high validation overnight, without any public documentation; (2) the same Grok model identifier produced radically divergent outputs via API (75) and an unstable, near-zero collapse via web (mean 5.5) three months later; (3) refusal to rate the pseudo-scientific claim, the most defensible response observed, appeared in two model families through different interfaces (Claude Opus 4.1 categorically via web, GPT-5.1 Chat intermittently via API) and eroded in the successor version of each. These results indicate that the epistemic stance of a commercial LLM is not a stable property of the model but a contingent effect of deployment configuration: system prompts, safety layers, interface routing, and silent updates. This remains opaque to users and researchers alike. We argue this constitutes a matter of public concern requiring new forms of epistemic accountability.

Assessment in Team Problem-Solving Exercises in Computing Education

This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.

WuYu-EnvLE-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Environmental Law Enforcement

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for environmental enforcement, but their ability to produce traceable enforcement decisions remains unclear. We introduce WuYu-EnvLE-Bench, a benchmark built from real enforcement cases, regulatory standards, and expert review. It contains 2,521 benchmark instances, 14 tasks, and 12 pollution-medium subdomains across pre-enforcement, in-enforcement, and post-enforcement workflows. Using Absolute Environmental Enforcement Score (AES) and Intelligent Enforcement Index (IEI), we evaluate open-source and closed-source LLMs across capability, response quality, and resource efficiency. Results show that LLMs perform well on rule-bounded tasks but remain unreliable in evidence-chain construction, contradiction detection, multi-source integration, and procedural judgment. Model scaling also shows diminishing returns: medium-sized models approach leading models in structured tasks, while larger models do not reliably overcome evidence-reasoning bottlenecks. WuYu-EnvLE-Bench highlights the need for evidence-grounded, rule-aware, and task-adaptive enforcement reasoning.

Grokipedia vs Wikipedia: An LLM-Based Audit of Political Neutrality along Ideologies

Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

Assessing AI in Introductory Physics Problem Solving

Reasoning or inference-scaling models are the new generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) capable of complex problem solving. To investigate their problem-solving capability in physics, we evaluated model o4-mini by OpenAI on solving traditional, end-of-chapter problems from Halliday and Resnick's "Fundamentals of Physics," spanning core topics in the undergraduate physics curriculum. Performance was analyzed across modality and problem difficulty. The model solved the problems with overall accuracy of about 90%, but performance depended strongly on representation: accuracy was much higher on text-only problems (96%) than on problems requiring coordinated interpretation of text and images (79%). Accuracy also declined significantly as the problem difficulty increased from low to medium to high. These results show that state-of-the-art LLMs can solve much of the standard introductory physics problems, but that their performance remains uneven and constrained by problem modality and problem difficulty.

Calibrated Trust, Not Sharper Prediction: An Empirical Test of Uncertainty Fusion

A recurring proposal in legal AI is to improve case-outcome prediction by fusing uncertainty tools (evidence graphs with belief propagation, sequential Bayesian odds updating, Dempster-Shafer combination, and conformal prediction) into one pipeline. We test this on 1,000 real European Court of Human Rights cases from LexGLUE and FairLex, predicting whether the Court found a Convention violation from the case's fact paragraphs. We compare three families across two frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5) as per-fact evidence estimators: (A) the raw LLM, (B) the LLM routed through the fusion pipeline, and (C) a term-frequency baseline through the same pipeline. Across roughly 4,750 tests we find: (1) on discrimination (AUROC around 0.83) the pipeline yields no improvement over either the raw LLM or the baseline; a frontier LLM used directly is the strongest single discriminator. (2) Naively composing an LLM with Bayesian-odds and Dempster-Shafer fusion more than doubles calibration error (ECE from about 0.16 to 0.46) via a prior-mismatch mechanism that replicates across both models. (3) Dempster-Shafer fusion is actively unsafe on long chains, committing confidently to wrong labels at below-chance accuracy; we recommend removing it. (4) The pipeline's genuine value is operational: routed through a conformal selective-prediction layer, the system decides which cases to automate and which to escalate. After removing Dempster-Shafer, recalibrating, and applying class-conditional risk control on the full 1,000-case set, the tuned engine auto-clears at 96.8 percent accuracy with 0.5 percent errors escaping and 96.3 percent caught for review, versus 85.9 / 3.8 / 72.1 for an untuned baseline. The contribution of such pipelines in law is calibrated trust, not sharper prediction.

Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic survey respondents, but existing evaluations ask whether answers look plausible at the individual level. We argue the right question is psychometric: do LLMs preserve the joint distribution, latent structure, reliability, mediation pathways, and demographic effects of real human survey data? We introduce a Lithuanian organisational-psychology dataset (n=263 employees; Dunham Attitudes Toward Change, UWES-17, Koopmans IWPQ; 68 items, 12 subscales) and condition a 37-model lineup spanning OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and twelve open-weight families on real respondent profiles under a five-level persona-disclosure ladder, presentation and reasoning-effort ablations, counterfactual demographic swaps (gender, role, education), a cross-language check, and a verbatim-recall memorization probe. The resulting Psychometric Similarity Score (PSS) is anchored against five non-LLM statistical baselines and a held-out human-vs-human ceiling, with respondent-bootstrap confidence intervals and an item-permutation null for Tucker's phi. LLMs reproduce the qualitative direction of human psychometric relationships, but a Gaussian-copula baseline beats every LLM on the sample-driven PSS components; the LLM "crowd" is more similar to itself (mean inter-LLM PSS 0.73) than to humans; and memorization does not drive the leaderboard (recall-PSS rank correlation 0.00). Counterfactual swaps reveal education-driven effects (mean |d|=0.56) that dwarf gender (0.12) and role (0.18); Tucker's phi on UWES falls inside the permutation null for 8 of 37 models. Downstream, every LLM shows a strong acquiescence shift (+0.84 SD), synthetic-trained regressors lose predictive validity on held-out humans (mean R^2 -0.18 vs 0.28), and models fabricate indirect effects on 3 of 10 placebo mediation paths. LLM samples are not a drop-in replacement for human survey data.

A Framework for Using and Evaluating LLMs as Surrogate Experts in Security Surveys: Reliability, Bias, and Implications

Expert surveys are widely used in security research to study practitioner workows and decision-making, yet recruiting domain experts - especially in Security Operations Centres (SOCs), where analysts face high workload, burnout and confidentiality constraints - is difficult and often results in small samples. Large language models (LLMs) oer an appealing alternative by generating synthetic responses at scale, but little guidance exists on when such surrogate participants are reliable. We present a methodological framework for evaluating LLMs as substitutes or supplements to expert survey respondents. Using responses from SOC professionals, we compare persona-based and aggregate LLM-generated answers across multiple models and prompting settings. We measure stability, inter-model agreement and alignment with human responses. Our results show that although LLMs produce internally consistent answers, they systematically diverge from experts, exhibiting reduced variance, central tendency bias and homogenised opinions. This work contributes methodological evidence and practical guidance to the security research community on the appropriate use and limitations of LLM-generated survey responses. We conclude that LLMs are useful for piloting and hypothesis generation but not for replacing expert elicitation, and we discuss implications for researchers using LLM-augmented surveys.

Evaluating Large Language Models for Antisemitic Incident Classification

Addressing hate and violence in society requires timely detection of hateful events from public reporting, but automated identification of hateful events remains underexplored. We introduce the task of hateful event detection and investigate the ability of AI systems, specifically large language models (LLMs), to discover and classify reports of antisemitic events with fine-grained labels. We evaluate OpenAI's GPT-4o and Meta's Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct on multiple expert-annotated datasets containing antisemitic event descriptions from news articles, civil society reports, and official records. We show that LLMs, particularly GPT-4o, have potential for this task, but substantial improvement is needed. Providing clear term definitions and in-context examples in prompts can improve performance: definitions are most helpful for rhetoric-oriented events (e.g. classical antisemitic tropes), while examples help label action-oriented events (e.g. physical assault). A case study of college newspapers demonstrates that LLMs can help surface relevant real-world events, supporting early monitoring and intervention. Overall, our findings highlight both opportunities and critical gaps in AI's ability to recognize complex harms and underscore the need for collaborative efforts among AI developers, policymakers, and civil society to design models, implement robust evaluation, and develop policy frameworks for defining and combating hate efficiently and effectively.

The Judge Knows When It Knows: Calibrated Abstention for LLM-Based A/B-Test Prediction

Can a multimodal LLM predict which version of a web page will win a real A/B test from screenshots alone? We report the most complete answer we are aware of, from six weeks of pre-registered experiments on real conversion tests: mostly no -- and the exceptions are identifiable in advance. On 330 real A/B tests a Gemini 3 Flash judge reaches Cohen's kappa = 0.14, but on the trustworthy (statistically significant) half of the labels the evidence is inconclusive (kappa = 0.11, CI includes zero). We show that 44% of the "ground-truth" labels in a leading CRO agency's catalog come from non-significant tests, and that the judge agrees more with the unreliable labels than the reliable ones -- a shared prior between labeler and model, not prediction. Every standard improvement lever (a 2.8x more expensive frontier model, prompt redesign, stimulus fidelity, change-type priors) fails its pre-registered gate. The judge's confident calls are different: a vote-margin gate isolates a subset (49% coverage) reaching kappa = 0.31 on significant labels. We measure the mechanism directly -- judges differing in model or prompt agree with each other at kappa = 0.74-0.88 while agreeing with real outcomes at only ~0.2, so a 16-vote panel carries about 2 effective independent votes -- and we reproduce it in humans: 15 CRO experts agree with each other (inter-rater kappa = 0.53) but score at chance against real outcomes (kappa ~ 0). Consensus, human or model, is reproducible, persuasive, and not evidence. We release our pre-registrations, locked gates, negative results, statistical harness, human responses, and a claims ledger in which every number carries an evidence tier.

Pre-Flight: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Aviation Operational Knowledge

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for aviation business operations, from documentation and training generation to customer facing assistants. General purpose benchmarks do not measure whether a model reasons safely and correctly about aviation specific operational knowledge, and the high stakes, regulated nature of the domain makes that gap consequential. We present Pre-Flight, an open source benchmark of 300 multiple choice questions drawn from international standards and airport ground operations material, covering international airport ground operations, ICAO and US FAA regulations, aviation general knowledge and complex operational scenarios. Questions were authored and reviewed by practitioners with experience in air traffic management, ground operations and commercial flying. We evaluate a range of contemporary commercial and open weight models using the Inspect evaluation framework, scoring by accuracy under a standard multiple choice protocol, and we maintain the leaderboard on a rolling basis as new models are released. Against an informal expert reference of around 95%, obtained from a low sample quiz of aviation professionals at a conference, even the strongest model evaluated (released in 2026) reaches 82.7%, having improved only gradually from roughly 75% in early 2025. A substantial and persistent gap below expert level reliability therefore remains. We release the dataset, the evaluation harness and the results, and the benchmark is available within the community evaluations package distributed with inspect_evals. We argue that domain specific evaluation of this kind is a necessary precondition for responsible deployment of generative AI in non safety critical aviation operations.

Meta-Benchmarks for Financial-Services LLM Evaluation

Public LLM leaderboards optimise for global average performance and do not capture the specific cognitive demands of financial-services work: a model that leads on MMLU-Pro may underperform on document-grounded compliance reasoning, and a coding leader may handle multi-turn customer interactions poorly. We present a meta-benchmarking framework that organises 452 publicly reported benchmarks into 41 O*NET Generalized Work Activities and aggregates those into 38 BIAN banking business domains spanning sales, operations, risk, and support work. A multiplicative weighting scheme (discrimination x coverage x recency), computed over a rolling model window, rewards benchmarks that still separate the best models, are widely reported, and remain in active use, suppressing saturated legacy tests automatically. These weights scale the K-factor in a pairwise Elo tournament, producing cross-benchmark-comparable work-activity scores without raw score normalisation; business-domain scores are weighted averages of the constituent work-activity Elos. We demonstrate the framework on a point-in-time public snapshot covering 288 models across 25 organisations as of June 2026, and describe the methodology, full taxonomy, design decisions, and limitations with the aim of making the approach reproducible for institutions facing similar selection and governance challenges.

Measuring Whether LLM Tutors Teach or Solve: A Diagnostic for Educational Impact

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

LessonBench-V1: A Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating AI Lesson Generation Agents

Large Language Model (LLM) based AI educational content generation systems are increasingly being developed, yet no standardised benchmark exists to systematically evaluate them. This study introduces LessonBench-V1, a benchmark dataset comprising 647 human-written lessons paired with LLM-based reverse-engineered lesson plans across 240 STEM topics spanning mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computer science. The lessons are drawn from 97 trusted open sources, including LibreTexts, Brilliant.org and GeeksForGeeks. Each lesson plan is human-reviewed and produced through a pedagogically grounded methodology that synthesises Bloom's Taxonomy, Gagné's Events, Merrill's First Principles, and the 5E Instructional Model. The lesson plans capture 3,620 learning objectives with pedagogical metadata, enabling systematic, reproducible evaluation of lesson-generation AI agents and supporting further research. The study further proposes a three-dimensional evaluation pipeline for use with the dataset.

Automated reproducibility assessments in the social and behavioral sciences using large language models

Reproducibility in the social and behavioral sciences is typically evaluated by independent researchers who reanalyze the original data to assess whether the published findings can be recovered. However, such approaches are resource-intensive and difficult to scale. Here, we show that large language models (LLMs) can automate reproducibility assessments. Using N=76 published studies with predefined claims from the behavioral and social sciences, we compare LLM-generated analysis with the original findings and human reanalysis. For 7 studies, the LLM could not produce a viable effect size estimate. For the remaining studies, our LLM pipeline recovered the original effect sizes in 41% of studies using a +/-0.05 tolerance in Cohen's d. Further, our LLM pipeline reached the same qualitative conclusion as the original study in 96% of cases, where conclusions indicate whether the reanalysis supports the original claim. For comparison, human reanalysts recovered the original effect sizes in 34% of studies and reached the same qualitative conclusion in 74% of cases. Together, these results show that LLMs can serve as a scalable tool for automated reproducibility assessment and provide a foundation for systematic auditing of empirical results in the social and behavioral sciences.

Can AI Reason Like an Urban Planner? Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Professional Judgment

Problem, Research Strategy, and Findings: The rise of large language models (LLMs) raises a key question for urban planning: which forms of professional planning knowledge can AI replicate, and which still require human judgment? Although AI tools are increasingly used in planning practice, there is still no systematic framework for testing whether they can reason with the contextual sensitivity, value awareness, and institutional literacy central to planning expertise. This paper introduces Urban Planning Bench (UPBench), a domain-specific evaluation framework that assesses LLM reasoning through a 4x5 matrix of four knowledge pillars and five cognitive levels adapted from Bloom's revised taxonomy. Evaluating 25 LLMs with automated scoring and expert review, we find a non-monotonic cognitive curve: models perform better on higher-order analytical tasks than on factual recall and integrative judgment. This suggests that planning knowledge often treated as lower-order is deeply shaped by institutional, jurisdictional, and temporal context, making it hard for LLMs to generalize. We summarize these limits as four epistemic diagnostics: regulatory hallucination, conceptual conflation, wickedness paralysis, and phronetic deficit. Takeaway for Practice: The findings support differential delegation in planning. LLMs can assist with cross-disciplinary synthesis, literature review, scenario generation, and preliminary policy analysis. However, they remain unreliable for jurisdiction-specific regulation, normative conflict resolution, and context-sensitive procedure. Agencies should require verification for AI-assisted regulatory analysis, while planning education should emphasize institutional literacy, normative judgment, and contextual sensitivity.

Impacts of Histories and Models on LLM Grading: A Study in Advanced Software Engineering Courses

Graduate-level research reading report assessment creates a substantial labor burden for educators. While large language models (LLMs) hold great potential for automating academic grading, their reliability for this specialized task remains understudied, particularly regarding grading consistency, the lack of which represents a primary obstacle to educational fairness. This paper proposes a human-aligned LLM-assisted grading workflow and presents a case study based on 180 student submissions from a graduate advanced software engineering course. We evaluate two mainstream LLMs, Grok and GPT, in terms of grading consistency and alignment with human scores. We find LLMs exhibit distinct levels of intra-model consistency and significant inter-model grading inconsistencies, while simple ensemble approaches cannot improve alignment with human evaluation. Critically, continuous interaction history drives systematic drift in models' grading standards away from human expert scores. Our findings demonstrate LLMs' potential in reducing grading workload for educators in graduate education, while highlighting that indiscriminate LLM grading may introduce systemic unfairness, suggesting that specific operational practices are required to mitigate such disparities.

Contemporary AI lacks the imagination to diverge or negate in science

Bold claims that AI will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, yet large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop evidence is scarce. Here we mount the largest evaluation to date, inviting authors of 121,640 recent preprints in biology, medicine, chemistry, and social science to judge large language model (LLM)-generated ideas derived from their own papers. 6,749 representative scientists returned 25,139 rating sets on novelty, feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas while reasoning models explore a wider hypothesis space, but no model spontaneously proposes null hypotheses, a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas resembling their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more than life scientists; senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is earned, as LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields demanding context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators, including LLM-as-a-judge and state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, agree weakly with expert judgment. Retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures nuances of taste, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the consistency of human peer reviewers. An analysis of 39 million papers from 2010 to 2025 links survey findings to macro-level patterns: following ChatGPT's release, null claims are sharply suppressed and ideas contract. Agent-based simulations further suggest that saturated fields should especially prize human uniqueness. For all the hype, today's AI for science remains a collaborator whose imagination and judgment benefit from human grounding.

Predicting consumer-technology ownership without a diffusion history

We test whether the perceived attributes of a consumer technology predict how widely it is owned. In a 2022 Prolific survey of US adults (n = 678), respondents rated 65 consumer technologies on six attributes. We then elicited the same ratings from two frontier language models, Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 and OpenAI GPT-5.5. We regress ownership prevalence on four UTAUT2 acceptance attributes plus a log-age covariate with a sign-constrained penalized regression and evaluate it by holding out one technology at a time. The attribute model improves on a baseline of years-since-launch: mean absolute error falls by 17% with the human ratings, and by more with either model, most with Opus 4.7. Over the short 2022-to-2025 window, where ownership moved little, the same attributes do not improve on a no-change baseline. We set out the limitations of the approach, including the possibility that language-model ratings reflect prior knowledge of these technologies rather than independent attribute reasoning. We include a deployment illustration: 2027 ownership predictions for eleven products launched in 2025 and 2026.

Probing Outcome-Level Resemblance and Mechanism-Level Alignment in LLM Risk Decisions: Evidence from the St. Petersburg Game

LLMs can appear cautious in risk decision-making tasks, yet cautious-looking outputs do not necessarily indicate alignment with human decision-making mechanisms. We investigate this distinction using the St. Petersburg game as a controlled testbed, a classical paradox in which the expected payoff is infinite, yet humans typically report low, finite willingness to pay. We evaluate 28 LLMs with a structured prompt suite that includes the original game; controlled decision variants that perturb truncation, repeated play, numeric endowment, and occupational identity; a human-perspective prompt that asks models to reason as human decision makers; and paired comparisons between base models and their instruction-tuned counterparts. In the original game, most models generate finite bids, creating the appearance of human-like risk behavior. However, this outcome-level resemblance masks substantial mechanism-level differences. The controlled variants reveal that rather than maintaining human-like behavior seen in the original game, models often shift to conditionally and computationally rational behavior. Human-cue prompting and instruction tuning often lower bids and reduce some visible pathologies, but most mechanism-level response patterns remain largely unchanged. These findings show that behavioral alignment in risk decision-making can be surface-level: LLMs may produce human-like risk decisions without exhibiting human-consistent mechanisms. High-stakes evaluations of LLM decision-making should therefore move beyond outcome similarity and examine whether the alignment is supported by mechanism-level consistency.

Large Language Models in K-12 Education: Alignment with State Curriculum Standards and Student Personas

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular in educational settings, they raise important questions about the ethical implications of their use. Publicly available online chatbots are quickly improving in capability and accuracy leading to more widespread use, including among students looking for help with their homework. This makes it crucial to consider whether these models are aligned with educational standards. Because curriculum standards in the United States are set at the state level, they differ significantly in required content, emphasis, and narrative focus. In this work, we develop an LLM-based pipeline to identify variations in U.S. History curricula across states and evaluate the extent to which different LLMs reflect these state-specific curricular differences. In addition, we conduct controlled experiments that vary user personas by stating user attributes such as geographic location, grade level, gender and race to evaluate the sensitivity of LLM responses to user characteristics. We find that while models are able to adjust their presentation of historical topics, these shifts may come from the perceived political leanings of states and do not necessarily reflect actual curriculum content. Additionally, models successfully adapt to a student's grade level while showing minimal sensitivity to race or gender, suggesting they are capable of useful adaptation to student personas with limited demographic bias. Together, these findings highlight potential risks that open access to LLM chatbots may cause to student learning outcomes stemming from misalignment with state curriculum standards and highlight the need for more robust alignment techniques.

Do Large Language Models Have Emotions?

Do LLMs have emotions? A recent paper from Anthropic reports finding internal representations of emotion concepts in Claude Sonnet 4.5, concluding that the LLM has 'functional emotions.' We evaluate this claim against what is known about how emotions actually function in biological systems. We argue that emotions serve two core functions: the context-sensitive interpretation of situations, and the reorganization of processing across multiple systems in response to those interpretations. The Anthropic findings offer partial support for the first function, though the consistent, discrete emotional representations identified in Claude sit uneasily with affective neuroscience findings that human emotion is characterized by variable rather than uniform neural signatures. On the second function, the evidence is mixed: Claude's representations modulate output without producing the dynamic reorganization of attention, decision speed, and motivational state that defines emotion in biological systems. We close by proposing what it would take for an LLM to have emotions.

Thinking Through Signs: PEEL as a Semiotic Scaffolding for Epistemically Accountable AI-Enabled Research

Large language models are reshaping research practice while quietly eroding researchers epistemic accountability. This commentary introduces PEEL - Protocols for Epistemically Engaged Literacy in AI, a working scaffolding that combines deterministic distant reading via Voyant Tools with LLM interpretation via Claude, grounded in Peircean semiotics and abductive reasoning. Applied to AI-generated condensations of three source texts, PEEL reveals systematic distortions in quantity, term frequency, and epistemic voice that are invisible without non-AI measurement -- and yields three design implications: deterministic instruments must accompany AI tools; fluency is not fidelity; epistemic authority must be designed in, not assumed.

Merit or networks? What decides where research is published

Does scientific publishing reward the quality of ideas or the advantage of connections? The question is universal to prestige-driven science, yet it has resisted decades of study because a paper's quality could not be gauged ahead of its publication fate without using that fate as the yardstick. We break this constraint by measuring a paper's idea quality directly from its text, before publication, using a discipline-trained LLM evaluator that scores the idea without seeing author names or outcomes. Using economics as a case study, we combine this text-legible idea-quality score with an execution-quality rubric, a connection index, an author-ability index, and an off-the-shelf language-model text score to estimate a five-input production function for journal placement across 6,208 economics working papers. The inputs are not rivals but a sequence along the ladder of prestige. Execution sets a meritocratic floor and is the largest input overall. Text-legible idea quality grades the rungs in between. Connections set a favoritism ceiling that bites mainly near the apex, the most selective journals. Connections work through two additive channels: connected authors write papers that score higher, and at equal scores their papers are still more likely to place better. Yet this advantage is bounded. Connections raise the odds of every rung without making the apex the typical outcome for ordinary ideas, and even the highest-scoring papers face real friction reaching the visible journal ladder. The result nests, rather than chooses between, the meritocracy and network accounts of how science is published.