Aligned but Flattened: Analyzing the Trade-off between Cultural Alignment and Diversity in LLMs

Cultural fine-tuning has become the de facto paradigm for building culture-aware large language models (LLMs), yet existing optimization exclusively for alignment scores provides an incomplete portrait of cultural fidelity by systematically obscuring inherent cultural diversity. This unidimensional evaluation lens prompts a fundamental question: do models genuinely perceive distinct cultural nuances, or do they merely memorize dominant cultural values? To address this, we propose a synergistic evaluation framework that jointly formalizes cultural alignment and diversity. Through extensive benchmarking of six mainstream LLMs on the World Values Survey, this framework uncovers a systematic and critical trade-off: the pursuit of cultural alignment consistently incurs an acute expense of diversity, leading to severe "cultural flattening." Investigating this behavioral shift, we demonstrate that these superficial alignment gains stem from models artificially anchoring to dominant majorities, converging onto a monolithic response pattern that wipes out the heterogeneous distributions inherent to human groups. Crucially, our mechanistic analysis suggests that this diversity collapse is not merely a behavioral anomaly but more likely a structural consequence of the low-rank bias inherent in neural network optimization. Therefore, our findings expose the limitations of current post-training paradigms and call for a shift toward alignment objectives that preserve cross-cultural pluralism.

WildSEEK: Evaluating Language Models for Information-Seeking

Language models are increasingly mediating information access to end users, urging a systematic evaluation of their responses for a fair and reliable information ecosystem. Existing evaluations, however, are often topic-specific or synthetic, limiting their ability to capture the complexity of "in the wild" information-seeking queries and the risks present in model responses. To address this gap, we introduce WildSEEK, a manually annotated dataset of 3k information-seeking queries from real user interactions, and an evaluation framework for LLM-generated responses. WildSEEK includes annotations for risk-sensitive domains (e.g. health and financial information), and distinguishes factoid queries from analytical queries which seek responses beyond facts. We train classifiers on WildSEEK to analyze more than 1.8M realistic user queries. We find that over a third of information-seeking queries are high-risk and more often analytical. Our findings show that LLM responses fail more often in four criteria: sycophantic behavior, overreliance, a default US-centric perspective, and poor handling of vulnerable populations -- with failure rates being mostly higher for analytical queries. By providing methods to monitor the reliability, safety, and fairness of LLM behavior, our dataset and evaluation framework offer an empirical foundation for the broader question of how these systems should behave as they take on a growing role in information access.

Evaluating the Hidden Costs of Personalization in Large Language Models

While Large language models (LLMs) incorporate user personalization signals to improve usability and helpfulness, they increasingly shift from providing balanced, informative responses toward optimizing for user satisfaction when conditioned on personal context such as conversation history, inferred preferences, and user profiles. Specifically, we identify three emerging risks: (1) irrelevant personalization, where models reference personal information in unnecessary contexts; (2) preference narrowing, where models reinforce informational echo chambers; and (3) sycophantic bias, where models agree excessively with user opinions. As a result, models may reference personal information in contexts where it is unnecessary, inadvertently collapse response diversity, or agree excessively with user opinions. Despite the growing use of personalization in AI assistants, there has been limited systematic evaluation of its potential side effects. To bridge this gap, we propose PRISK, a dynamic evaluation framework with automated data generation and tailored metrics that uncovers systematic limitations in current LLM personalization and how personalized information shapes its responses. Our empirical analysis across 13 LLMs demonstrates the presence of user profiles and retrieved memories consistently exacerbates biases, resulting in an average drop of 45.9% in irrelevant personalization, 41.7% in preference narrowing and 61.7% in sycophantic bias.

Why RAGs Hallucinate: Penalty-Aware Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems with Knowledge-Gap Canaries

Volume-based accuracy rewards retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems for guessing: a system that answers everything outscores one that declines when its knowledge base cannot support an answer. Building on the confidence-target analysis of Kalai et al. (2025), we present a penalty-aware evaluation framework for deployed RAG products, combining (i) asymmetric scoring (correct +1, wrong -4, abstain 0), (ii) knowledge-gap canaries, questions whose answers are verifiably absent from the knowledge base, so that any answer constitutes ungrounded generation from parametric memory, and (iii) a failure-attribution pipeline that separates retrieval, generation, and abstention-policy failures. Applying the framework to three commercial RAG systems and a no-retrieval baseline on SimpleQA-Verified (1,000 questions x 3 repeats, graded blind by a cross-family three-judge panel with 98.9% unanimity), we find that accuracy when answering is closely clustered across systems (97.0-98.0%), while canary violation rates differ roughly sixfold (16.7% vs. 98.1%). The systems are separated less by what they answer correctly than by whether they answer at all when they should not, and penalty-aware scoring reorders the volume-based ranking accordingly; the reordering is stable across penalty settings from k=1 to k=9. All code, configurations, transcripts, and judge votes are released for independent audit.

Where vs What: Decomposing Structural and Content Failures in LLM-Generated Structured Outputs

Structured outputs such as JSON and tables are central to modern LLM-based systems, yet generation failures are evaluated monolithically, conflating two distinct error modes: placement errors (correct values at wrong positions) and value errors (wrong values at intended positions). We introduce Structure-Content Decomposition (SCD), a framework that independently measures structural fidelity and content accuracy. Applying SCD to nested JSON and table tasks across six models (7B to frontier), we uncover a consistent phenomenon: structural fidelity degrades earlier and more sharply than content accuracy as complexity increases. At the highest complexity, even DeepSeek-V4-Flash (with reasoning) misplaces 35% of recalled values, while Qwen2.5-7B misplaces 74%. Controlled ablations suggest that this pattern is associated with reliance on semantic shortcuts rather than topological understanding of output structure. Based on these findings, we propose SA-RLVR, converting SCD metrics into verifiable rewards for reinforcement learning via GRPO. SA-RLVR successfully optimizes structural addressing across distinct topologies: it lifts JSON Value Placement Accuracy (VPA) from 26% to 63% while generalizing to held-out schemas; moreover, it consistently drives VPA improvements in the table domain, demonstrating that structure-aware rewards can directly enhance multi-domain structural positioning.

KnowSim: Evaluating Information Calibration in LLM Assistants with User Simulators that Learn

To effectively collaborate with users on knowledge-intensive tasks, Large Language Models (LLMs) must perform information calibration: matching content to a user's evolving understanding and cognitive capacity. Yet user simulators used to evaluate and train LLMs do not explicitly model user knowledge so they neither produce realistic interactions across knowledge levels nor reflect how interactions unfold as that knowledge evolves. To close this gap, we introduce KNOWSIM, an evaluation framework built around a user simulator that maintains explicit knowledge states, represented as a graph of Information Units with prerequisite relationships, that evolve under update rules grounded in learning theory. KNOWSIM computes three metrics (Knowledge Gain, Delivery Calibration, Cognitive Overload) directly from the knowledge state trajectory, reflecting key mechanistic aspects of information calibration. We validate KNOWSIM against 705 human-AI sessions across two domains, stratified by knowledge level: its rankings align significantly with human judgments (73-74% sign agreement), outperforming three baseline simulators. Applied to 9 LLMs, KNOWSIM reveals that the best model shifts by user knowledge level, revealing aptitude-treatment interactions invisible to standard evaluation.

Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary

Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness.

Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC): A Theoretical Framework for Process-Oriented Cognitive Evaluation of Text-Based AI Systems

Evaluating artificial intelligence systems has historically relied on outcome-based benchmarks that measure task accuracy, robustness, or fairness. While indispensable, these benchmarks provide limited diagnostic insight into the underlying cognitive processes that generate performance-leaving critical questions unanswered about how AI systems reason, integrate memory, manage complexity, or avoid generating false information. This paper introduces the Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC), a theoretically grounded framework for shifting evaluation from what text-based AI systems produce to how they think. MAAC defines nine cognitively motivated dimensions: Cognitive Load, Tool Execution, Content Quality, Memory Integration, Complexity Handling, Hallucination Control, Knowledge Transfer, Processing Efficiency, and Process-Outcome Alignment. Each dimension is grounded in established cognitive science theory-drawing on Marr's tri-level hypothesis, Baddeley's working memory model, Sweller's cognitive load theory, and unified theories of cognition. Five theoretical analyses provide initial support for the framework's coherence and empirical testability: dimension-to-theory mapping; a coverage matrix assessing breadth and non-redundancy; a formal gap analysis relative to current evaluation practice; a worked diagnostic illustration; and a set of a priori interdependency predictions for future empirical testing. MAAC provides a theoretical and operational framework for principled process-level cognitive assessment of text-based AI systems, complementing existing outcome-based benchmarks with cognitively grounded, multi-dimensional evaluation.

IKS-Instruct: A 24,000-Example Multilingual Dataset for Teaching Language Models Indian Knowledge Systems

Instruction tuning has become the standard method for adapting large language models to follow human intent, yet existing instruction datasets are dominated by English-language general-knowledge tasks and lack coverage of specialized pedagogical domains. This paper presents IKS-Instruct, a dataset of 24,795 instruction-response pairs for teaching language models to deliver educational content grounded in Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). The dataset spans seven languages (English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam), covers 41 pedagogical techniques from the Vedic oral and mathematical traditions, and is aligned with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum for classes 6 through 12. The pairs are derived from six source types: classical text corpora (Bhagavad Gita, Thirukkural, Sangam literature, Vedic texts), curriculum-aligned pedagogical templates, Vedic mathematical sutra demonstrations, bilingual instruction pairs, technique-grounded multi-turn dialogues, and cross-tradition comparative analyses. Quality is assessed through a multi-judge evaluation framework in which independent language models score responses on 12 dimensions including technique fidelity, pedagogical quality, factual accuracy, and IKS cultural depth. Under a uniform five-judge external panel (median aggregation over 1,201 stratified items), the strongest IKS-Instruct fine-tune of a compact 7B model reaches a median judge score of 6.39, within 0.15 of a strong general-purpose reference model (Nemotron-Nano at 6.54) at a fraction of its deployment cost, while the base model without IKS fine-tuning scores near zero on the IKS-specific dimensions. Model quality does not increase monotonically with data curation, a result we report together with the corresponding data-quality gains.

Communicating Chess Strategies in Natural Language

Chess engines have long achieved superhuman playing strength. However, the underlying strategy behind their move suggestions is difficult for human players, even skilled ones, to comprehend. Motivated by this, we propose the task of chess strategy verbalization, which is to describe chess strategies in natural language. We design (i) a pipeline for verbalizing strategies and (ii) an evaluation framework for objective evaluation of generated strategy descriptions. Our experiments show that natural language is a promising and interpretable medium for communicating strategic information to both human and LLM players. We glean additional interesting insights, including (a) the importance of evaluating strategies beyond the main line, (b) the limitations of pure concept-based descriptions, and (c) the limitations of relying on LLMs rather than humans for evaluation.

Integrating knowledge graphs and multilingual scholarly corpora for domain-adaptive LLMs in SSH

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into scientific research workflows, particularly for bibliographic discovery and literature synthesis, raises significant methodological, epistemic and regulatory challenges for the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), especially with regard to disciplinary diversity, multilingual access to sources and the evaluation of results. This paper presents an on-going use case developed within the European project LLMs4EU and the ALT-EDIC infrastructure, aimed at adapting foundation models to SSH research practices and supporting tasks such as question answering, comparative document analysis and literature review. The evaluation framework follows the LLMs4EU protocol and encompasses both independent quantitative benchmarking (retrieval, summarisation, traceability and hallucination detection) and a qualitative assessment involving a panel of Digital Humanities experts. By embedding model adaptation within research infrastructures and a structured legal and ethical compliance framework, the use case explores how domain-sensitive and regulation-aware generative AI can support SSH scholarship while preserving reliability and epistemic responsibility.

DRIFTLENS: Measuring Memory-Induced Reasoning Drift in Personalized Language Models

Personalization changes what a model says to a user; we show that it can also change the reasoning trajectory used to justify the response. Modern LLMs personalize interactions by storing user attributes, preferences, and prior context, then injecting this information into future prompts. We study whether such memory reshapes reasoning on open-ended questions where no single ground-truth answer exists. To quantify this effect, we introduce DRIFTLENS, a ground-truth-free framework that maps each expressed reasoning step to a value category and measures divergence between a question's no-memory trajectory and its trajectory under injected user-attribute memory. We first validate that DRIFTLENS distinguishes content-free pragmatic noise from substantive reasoning changes. Across four LLMs and 10 user-attribute categories, including age, occupation, and disability, user-attribute memory induces medium-to-large reasoning drift above each model's pragmatic-noise floor, even when final answers remain fluent, on-topic, and plausible. We then evaluate GRPO- and DPO-based post-training methods for reducing drift. Both reduce drift, but neither uniformly dominates; effects on downstream capability, helpfulness, and instruction following are model-and reward-dependent. These results suggest that memory-induced reasoning drift is a measurable and only partly mitigated failure mode of personalized language models.

Grounded Optimization: A Layered Engineering Framework for Reducing LLM Hallucination in Automated Personal Document Rewriting

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to resume optimization for applicant tracking systems, introducing hallucination failures distinct from general text generation: anachronistic technology injection, cross-domain terminology contamination, structural mutation, and content fabrication. We present Grounded Optimization, a five-layer framework combining temporal context validation, deterministic contamination detection, structural invariant enforcement, prompt-level grounding, and an evaluator agent. In ablation experiments across three LLMs, four temperature settings, and six layer configurations on 25 synthetic resumes spanning 14 industries, undefended baselines produce 2.48-5.36 detected hallucinations per resume. Among detectors independent of the active defenses, temporal hallucinations are reduced by 50-95% across all conditions; overall detected hallucination rate falls to 0.04-0.24. Prompt-level grounding alone achieves zero detected hallucinations at low temperature with a capable instruction-following model; higher temperatures and weaker models reveal the need for the deterministic layers as a complement. We release the contamination taxonomy, evaluation code, and raw data.

Measuring the Gap Between Human and LLM Research Ideas

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.

MetaHOPE: A Metaphor-Oriented Evaluation Framework for Analysing MT and LLM Translation Errors

In this opinion paper, we propose MetaHOPE, an error severity-aware annotation framework for evaluating metaphor translations. Metaphors present challenges for machine translation (MT) and natural language understanding and processing (NLU, NLP), because it presents the features of semantic complexity, contextual dependency, and cultural embeddings that can lead to ambiguity issues for NLP models. To investigate how state-of-the-art NLP models perform on translating metaphors, we select three representative systems, i.e., GoogleMT, GPT5.4, and Hunyuan-7b as Neural MT (NMT) models and LLMs. We used two human-annotated metaphor corpora, including VUAMC and PSUCMC for English-to-Chinese and Chinese-to-English translation purposes. The original corpora we used are monolingual, where we carried out error annotation using the MetaHOPE framework, and also produced the human post-edited gold reference for bilingual use as a new resource. We believe the MetaHOPE evaluation framework for metaphor translation annotation, the parallel corpora resources, and the error analysis on SOTA automatic translation models can be useful and shed some light for the field of metaphor translation study. We share our resources publicly upon paper acceptance.

JudgeArena: A Unified Framework for Reproducible LLM-Judge Evaluation

LLM-as-a-judge evaluation has become a dominant paradigm for ranking language models, yet the ecosystem remains fragmented: most benchmarks ship their own code base, hardcode a specific closed-model judge, and support a single evaluation protocol. This fragmentation makes it difficult to study how design choices--the benchmark, the judge model, the prompt, the inference backend--affect the conclusions we draw about model quality. We introduce JudgeArena, an open-source framework that unifies major LLM-judge benchmarks (AlpacaEval, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, and m-Arena-Hard) under a single interface with swappable judges and comprehensive metadata logging for increased transparency in reporting and reproducibility. It enables systematic studies of judge choices, as any model accessible via vLLM, llama.cpp, or OpenRouter can serve as both candidate and judge. Furthermore, JudgeArena ships with tuned judge configurations for open models that match or outperform closed-model judges, validated on human preference datasets in both English and multilingual settings, reducing the reliance on opaque closed models. Finally, by combining existing human annotations with LLM-judge evaluations of a target model, JudgeArena can simulate LMArena Elo scores with high accuracy offering a practical, open, and low-cost alternative to large-scale human annotation campaigns.

Beyond Perplexity: A Behavioral Evaluation Framework for Deployment-Memory Claims in LLM Test-Time Training

Large language model test-time training (TTT) is often evaluated through local proxy metrics: models are updated on recent tokens, retrieved context, target-domain data, or verifiable task attempts, and then judged by perplexity, future-token loss, long-context performance, or reward. These metrics are well matched to claims about stream adaptation, domain adaptation, context compression, and reward-backed test-time improvement. They are weaker evidence, however, for a capability that TTT results are increasingly used to motivate: deployed assistant memory, personalization, or sparse post-deployment learning, which instead requires behavioral evidence such as later recall, paraphrase robustness, retention, locality, conflict handling, and use in downstream actions after the original support context is removed. We introduce a behavioral evaluation framework that calibrates TTT memory claims to the evidence that supports them. It has two components: a claim-calibrated evidence ladder that separates stream/domain adaptation, bridge internalization, and deployment-time behavioral learning; and an evaluation protocol with matched explicit-memory baselines and mutually exclusive failure categories. We validate the framework by auditing recent TTT and memory-adjacent work and by instantiating it as a controlled diagnostic in which, in a sparse nonce-fact setting, one-step LoRA updates lower support and answer loss across three Qwen3 model scales while generated free-form recall stays at zero, exposing a measurable gap between proxy improvement and deployment behavior. The framework gives authors and evaluators a concrete standard for aligning TTT memory claims with the evidence actually reported.

SEFORA: Student Essays with Feedback Corpus and LLM Feedback Evaluation Framework

Effective writing feedback is among the strongest drivers of student learning, yet producing it at scale is labor-intensive. LLMs offer a natural path to scaling writing support, but two gaps stand in the way: few public corpora capture how instructors actually deliver feedback in real classrooms, and no reliable method measures whether generated feedback aligns with what an instructor would write. We address both. SEFORA is a public corpus pairing instructor inline feedback with assignment prompts, rubrics, scores, and multi-draft revisions across various college writing genres, comprising 564 drafts and 8,240 instructor annotations. UniMatch is a reference-based evaluation framework for open-ended generation: it segments feedback into feedback units, scores their semantic correspondence under instructor-derived criteria, and aligns them via optimal matching to yield interpretable precision, recall, and F1. Across 74 experimental configurations spanning multiple LLMs, no setting exceeds 0.4 F1. UniMatch reveals that models struggle to identify the feedback instructors would prioritize, and performance degrades as models generate more.

Benchmarking Frontier LLMs on Arabic Cultural and Sociolinguistic Knowledge: A Cross-Evaluation Framework with Human SME Ground Truth

The cost of human expert evaluation is a principal bottleneck to deploying language models in specialized, high-stakes domains. This is particularly acute for Arabic sociolinguistic knowledge: credible grading requires not only linguistic fluency but deep cultural familiarity that cannot be approximated by surface-level metrics. We address this with a cross-evaluation framework instantiated on two underrepresented Arabic dialect communities: Egyptian and Iraqi Arabic. We contribute 103 validated prompt-rubric pairs (70 Egyptian, 33 Iraqi; 53 Cultural, 50 Linguistic), authored and graded by native-speaker SMEs using penalty-weighted rubrics distinguishing positive content requirements from answer-specific negative error criteria. Three frontier LLMs serve as target models (graded by human SMEs across 302 unique prompt-response pairs), while five frontier LLMs serve as automated judges enforcing a provider-level self-evaluation guard. A dual-metric scheme combining Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) with Signed Mean Error separates directional grading bias from symmetric noise. Across 1,307 judge evaluations: GPT-5.4 is the most reliable judge (MADj = 10.21 pp, Signed Error = -1.12%); four of five judges show systematic leniency (+2.01% to +6.56%); Cultural tasks are harder to grade than Linguistic tasks for all judges (MAD gap 1.83-4.78 pp); and models substantially outperform on Egyptian prompts compared to Iraqi prompts. However, given leniency differences between Iraqi and Egyptian SMEs, we cannot solely attribute this gap to model knowledge. We therefore emphasize findings that do not assume identical leniency across human graders. Across all samples, implicit cultural reasoning -- requiring models to simulate native-speaker judgment rather than rely on lexical verification -- emerges as the primary failure mode for automated grading across all judge models.

Memory Makes the Difference: Evaluating How Different Memory Roles Shape Conversational Agents

Prior research on memory mechanism in RAG-based conversational system has emphasized how memory is stored and retrieved. However, far less is known about how memories with different functional roles influence response quality. Specifically, how they shape an agent's responses under varying conversational contexts and whether they lead to substantively different response behaviors. Existing evaluations in conversational system are also largely reference-based, insufficiently capturing the nuances in responses that may address users' preferences differently. In this work, we probe the impact of different memory types in shaping agents' responses. We present a fine-grained taxonomy of conversational memory, classify retrieved memories into different role types, and design a user-centric evaluation framework that simulates user perspectives. Through comparative experiments on long-term datasets and frontier LLMs, our analysis reveal many differentiated effects of memories: e.g., clarifying memory improves responses' factual accuracy and constraint awareness, making them more correct and personalized; irrelevant memory reduces topic relevance and degrades constraint awareness. Despite the power of frontier LLMs, these findings shed light on how different memory types can be leveraged to produce more personalized responses and inspire further research in this direction.

The Origins of Stochasticity: Comprehensive Investigations on Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods. In this paper, we propose a granular uncertainty taxonomy that systematically attributes LLM uncertainty into input-level, parameter-level, token-level, and decoding-process sources. Correspondingly, we categorize existing UQ methods into Bayesian, ensemble, consensus-based, and single-pass approaches. Furthermore, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework covering diverse generation settings and metrics. We empirically evaluate 21 typical UQ methods across three prominent LLM families, including Qwen3, Llama 3.2, and DeepSeek-V3, on benchmarks such as TriviaQA, GSM8K, and HumanEval. Our experimental results demonstrate that (i) the effectiveness of UQ methods is sensitive to task types and generation settings; (ii) consensus-based methods, typed Deg and EigV, consistently outperform other UQ approaches; and (iii) larger model scales correlate with lower uncertainty estimates, suggesting an empirical scaling law for LLM uncertainty. This work bridges the gap between theoretical origins and practical deployment, providing a versatile diagnostic tool for systematically quantifying uncertainty in LLM applications.

Lexical Consensus: Grounded Word Learning and Shared Meaning in Artificial Agents

Artificial intelligence systems are commonly evaluated through task performance and behavioral imitation, but such evaluations leave open whether an artificial agent can acquire, stabilize, and use new lexical meanings from grounded experience. This paper introduces Lexical Consensus, an experimental framework for studying grounded word learning over a structured perceptual substrate. Using frozen DINOv2 visual embeddings, Carroll-style nonce words, and interpretable lexical learners plus linear baselines, we test whether agents can acquire artificial labels for visual concepts, generalize them bidirectionally, and stabilize them across controlled settings. The main result is a robust perceptual-coherence gradient: native categories are easiest to learn, coherent overextensions remain learnable, mid-range disjunctive concepts degrade, and far-disjunctive concepts approach chance. A pre-registered CIFAR-100 dissociation experiment confirms that this gradient is governed by perceptual distance rather than semantic relatedness: perceptual distance predicts acquisition accuracy (partial R^2 = 0.245, p < 1e-7), while semantic distance adds no significant explanatory power (partial R^2 = 0.002, p = 0.660). Bidirectional evaluation shows that naming and retrieval are distinct: exemplar-based mechanisms outperform centroid prototypes in label-to-image retrieval, exposing a memory-fidelity dimension separate from naming accuracy. Falsification controls, homogeneous candidate-pool evaluations, and null results on representational restructuring indicate that frozen perceptual geometry both enables lexical grounding and limits what can be acquired without representational adaptation.

Can LLMs Control Readability? A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for CEFR-Controlled Arabic Generation

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic text, their ability to reliably control readability levels remains unclear. We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework for Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR)-controlled Arabic text generation, assessing whether instruction-following LLMs can serve as reliable generators for adaptive language learning. Our framework integrates controlled prompting, automatic readability prediction using a validated Taha-19 model, lexical constraint validation, and syntactic complexity profiling. Results show that structured prompting substantially improves CEFR alignment. In particular, CEFR-guided prompting with lexical constraints achieves the highest conformity to reference linguistic profiles (0.91 cosine similarity) and near-perfect agreement with predicted readability levels (0.99), while unconstrained prompting exhibits weak control. These findings establish an empirical foundation for integrating readability-aware Arabic text generation into adaptive educational systems.

Quality and Agreement in Multilabel Emotion Annotation: A Case Study and Evaluation Framework

Emotion annotation is inherently subjective, yet most NLP pipelines still assume "gold" labels, typically produced by majority voting, and treat annotator variation as noise. In this paper, we present a multilabel emotion annotation case study and use it to examine how annotator behavior and aggregation choices affect both agreement estimates and downstream emotion classifiers. Rather than collapsing disagreement into a single label, we represent targets as soft vote-share labels (including an intensity-weighted variant) and evaluate models using both thresholded metrics (macro-/micro-F1) and probabilistic alignment (Bernoulli cross-entropy SoftBCE), alongside data-derived disagreement diagnostics. Across annotation regimes, we show that disagreement is structured and leaves measurable traces in model behavior: hard labels may maximize F1 metrics, while soft supervision yields predictions that better reflect empirical annotator variance and uncertainty. Our results provide practical guidance for designing, aggregating, and evaluating multilabel emotion datasets when multiple interpretations are plausible.

The Register Gap: A Meaning Intelligence Framework for Nigerian Public Discourse

We introduce the Meaning Intelligence Framework (MIF), a nine-dimension annotation and evaluation schema for Nigerian public discourse that separates surface sentiment from true communicative intent. Existing benchmarks for Nigerian languages, including NaijaSenti and AfriSenti, treat sentiment classification as a three-way polarity task. We argue that the dominant failure mode of AI systems on Nigerian discourse is not translation failure but context failure: the same utterance carries opposite pragmatic force depending on speaker, audience, and situation. The MIF operationalises this insight across nine scored dimensions: register, surface sentiment, true intent, irony, coded subtext, risk tier, annotator confidence, speaker emotion, and recommended communications action. We construct a 30-item calibration dataset spanning Standard English, Nigerian English, Nigerian Pidgin, and code-mixed registers, and evaluate three frontier language models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro) under zero-shot and schema-informed prompting conditions. Two headline findings emerge. First, the Register Gap: zero-shot register classification accuracy is 33.3%, rising to 73.3% (+40 points) when the model receives the MIF schema in-context. Second, model capability and cultural competence are decoupled: GPT-5 (MIS 67.8) and Gemini 2.5 Pro (MIS 65.4) score lower than Flash (MIS 78.6), and neither benefits from schema-informed prompting. We release the framework specification, annotation guidelines, and calibration set to support reproducibility.

EvalConvoLearn: An Open-Source Framework for Evaluating Grounded Learner Simulations in Tutoring Conversations

Conversational learner simulations are valuable tools for testing learning theories, evaluating instructional materials and automated tutors, or powering teachable agents. Recently, large language models (LLM) have enabled richer, more naturalistic interactions with simulated learners; however, no open framework exists for evaluating whether such simulations faithfully reproduce real learner behavior. We introduce EvalConvoLearn, an open-source framework that assesses learner simulations along two axes: learning behavior (skill-conditioned mastery outcomes) and conversational quality (talk moves, error type distributions, question rate, turn length). EvalConvoLearn measures how closely a simulated learner approximates answer distributions observed in data by grounding metrics in authentic tutoring conversation datasets, and anchoring generated tutor responses in existing tutor utterances. The framework is demonstrated on a dataset of tutoring dialogues, including results for two LLM-based learner simulations, and the published GitHub code.

RedditPersona: A Modular Framework for Community-Conditioned LLM Adaptation from Reddit

Community-conditioned language model adaptation needs choices about data collection, community definition, and evaluation that are currently made independently in each study, making it hard to compare assumptions or reuse artifacts. We present RedditPersona, a modular framework that standardizes these choices: it collects Reddit posts and comments, profiles active users, partitions them under five grouping strategies (subreddit-based, graph-structural, semantic, hybrid, and interaction-based), trains a parameter-efficient adapter per strategy via QLoRA, and evaluates them under a shared metric suite spanning fluency, fidelity, distributional alignment, and community identifiability. Applied to 112 subreddits in the urban well-being domain (301,429 user profiles, 16M+ comments), we find that adapters' behavioral identifiability tracks each strategy's agreement with the subreddit baseline, and that a consistent trade-off between identifiability and distributional similarity to real text holds across all five strategies. The code and configuration files are available at: https://github.com/Ahghaffari/redditpersona.

Automated Essay Scoring and Language Certification: Assessing Generalizability, Agreement and Validity for French

In Automated Essay Scoring (AES), benchmarking practices have fostered minimalist evaluation practices, in contrast with the broader-view recommendations of evaluation frameworks, such as the argument-based validation framework (ABV), which argued in favor of a multidimensional assessment of systems, especially in the context of high-stakes language tests. In this paper, we introduce an enhanced and more practical version of the ABV framework, incorporating fairness analysis, correlations with linguistic features, prediction error evaluation, and model agreement compared with human raters. Applying this framework to French AES, we compare 8 model architectures on a corpus of 27k exam essays (2 raters each) and a generalization corpus of 961 essays (at least nine raters each). Our analyses illustrate the benefits of applying the ABV framework to better understand the capabilities and pitfalls of AES models, while also advancing the state-of-the-art for French AES.

Text Analytics Evaluation Framework: A Case Study on LLMs and Social Media

LLMs have demonstrated exceptional proficiency in a wide range of NLP tasks. However, a notable gap remains in practical data analysis scenarios, particularly when LLMs are required to process long sequences of unstructured documents, such as news feeds or, as specifically addressed in this paper, social media posts. To empirically assess the effectiveness of LLMs in this setting, we introduce a question-based evaluation framework comprising 470 manually curated questions designed to evaluate LLMs' semantic understanding and reasoning abilities over aggregated text data. We apply our benchmark on diverse Twitter datasets covering various NLP tasks, including sentiment analysis, hate speech detection, and emotion recognition. Our results reveal that the performance depends heavily on input scale and the complexity of the data sources, declining noticeably in multi-label or target-dependent scenarios. In addition, as task complexity increases, performance drops progressively from basic semantic existence identification to more demanding operations such as comparison, counting, and calculation. Furthermore, as the input size grows beyond 500 instances, we identify a common limitation across LLMs, particularly Open-weights models: performance degrades substantially, especially on numerical tasks. These findings highlight critical architectural bottlenecks in current LLMs for performing rigorous quantitative analysis over large text collections.

LoCar: Localization-Aware Evaluation of In-Vehicle Assistants through Fine-Grained Sociolinguistic Control

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into in-vehicle conversational systems, identifying the optimal model remains challenging due to the lack of domain-specific evaluation standards tailored to real-world deployment requirements. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework for in-vehicle assistants, with a particular focus on Korean-language localization. Our empirical analysis reveals notable patterns in model behavior. First, fine-grained Korean honorific control remains unstable in current LLMs, indicating that precise speech-level realization must be explicitly evaluated in localization settings. Second, models exhibit weaker performance in strategic conversational metrics like clarification and proactivity. Our analysis suggests this stems from the inherent subjective complexity of these tasks, where our framework adopts a conservative evaluation stance to prioritize reliability. Together, our findings underscore that automotive AI must move beyond general competence toward precise linguistic tailoring and reliable, safety-oriented interaction management.