From Test-Taking to Test-Making: Examining LLM Authoring of Commonsense Assessment Items (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in answering questions pertaining to commonsense reasoning and inference. |
| Approach: | They prompt LLMs to generate items in the style of a benchmark for commonsense reasoning . they find that LLM authors that answer COPA items are more successful . |
| Outcome: | The authors' responses to their own items and their own generated items are better than those of the original LLMs. |
Similar Papers
HellaSwag-Pro: A Large-Scale Bilingual Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs in Commonsense Reasoning (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Xiaoyuan Li, Moxin Li, Rui Men, Yichang Zhang, Keqin Bao, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin
| Challenge: | Existing studies show that large language models are robust in commonsense reasoning . however, some variations in questions can lead to incorrect responses . |
| Approach: | They propose a large-scale bilingual benchmark consisting of 11,200 cases . they conduct extensive experiments on 41 representative LLMs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark systematically evaluates the robustness of large language models in commonsense reasoning. |
LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Desmond Elliott, Raquel Fernández, Albert Gatt, Esam Ghaleb, Mario Giulianelli, Michael Hanna, Alexander Koller, Andre Martins, Philipp Mondorf, Vera Neplenbroek, Sandro Pezzelle, Barbara Plank, David Schlangen, Alessandro Suglia, Aditya K Surikuchi, Ece Takmaz, Alberto Testoni
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of NLP models with LLMs are based on human judgments . however, there are concerns about their validity and reproducibility in proprietary models . |
| Approach: | They evaluate 11 current LLMs for their ability to replicate annotations. they show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can replicate human annotations on 20 NLP datasets and show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
Take Out Your Calculators: Estimating the Real Difficulty of Question Items with LLM Student Simulations (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Standardized math assessments require expensive human pilot studies to establish the difficulty of test items. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models to model difficulty of multiple-choice math questions for real-world students. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model predicts difficulty of multiple-choice math questions for students . correlations between model and real-world difficulty are high, the authors show . |
Towards Quantifying Commonsense Reasoning with Mechanistic Insights (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have evaluated commonsense reasoning abilities using text-based tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose to capture commonsense knowledge in a graphical representation of 37 daily human activities in graphical form and frame them to frame commonsensical queries. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can frame an enormous number of commonsense queries ( 10 17) and perform rigorous evaluations of common sense reasoning in LLMs. |
On the Consistency of Commonsense in Large Language Models (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of commonsense for large language models focus on downstream knowledge tasks, failing to probe whether LLMs truly understand and utilize knowledge or merely memorize it. |
| Approach: | They propose to automatically construct a large benchmark named CoCo which measures LLMs’ knowledge memorization, comprehension, and application and examines the consistency between these tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark systematically assesses LLMs’ knowledge memorization, comprehension, and application and examines the consistency between these tasks. |
Current Advances in LLM Reasoning (2026.acl-tutorials)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | This tutorial examines comprehensive evaluation strategies to assess the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) advanced inference time methods and post-training methods that aim to make LLMs think more like humans are discussed in this tutorial. |
| Approach: | This tutorial explores comprehensive evaluation strategies to assess the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) and discusses two types of methods to improve models’ reasoning: advanced inference time methods, structured and self-improvement inference methods, and post-training methods, such as RLHF, DPO, and GRPO. |
| Outcome: | This tutorial examines evaluation strategies to assess the reasoning abilities of large language models and discusses two types of methods to improve models’ reasoning. |
Do LLMs Adhere to Label Definitions? Examining Their Receptivity to External Label Definitions (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Seyedali Mohammadi, Bhaskara Hanuma Vedula, Hemank Lamba, Edward Raff, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Francis Ferraro, Manas Gaur
| Challenge: | Exact label definitions are considered as clues to disambiguate unclear labels, helping models perform their tasks more effectively. |
| Approach: | They conducted controlled experiments on multiple explanation benchmark datasets and label definition conditions using expert-curated, LLM-generated, perturbed, and swapped definitions. |
| Outcome: | The results suggest that models often default to internal representations, particularly in general tasks, while domain-specific tasks benefit more from explicit definitions. |
The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in NLP research but there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether they can replace humans. |
| Approach: | They propose a statistical procedure that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed procedure compares LLMs with open-source LLM annotators and judges on ten language and vision-language tasks. |
Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship? (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving, but their potential in authorship analysis remains under-explored. |
| Approach: | They propose to integrate explicit linguistic features into LLMs to provide explanations into their reasoning processes. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models demonstrate their ability to perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively and provide explainability through explicit linguistic features. |
Morables: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fables (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Matteo Marcuzzo, Alessandro Zangari, Andrea Albarelli, Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar
| Challenge: | Literature-based benchmarks provide a compelling framework for evaluating LLMs' capacity for complex abstract reasoning and inference. |
| Approach: | They propose a novel moral reasoning benchmark built from fables and short stories that uses adversarial variants to stress-test model robustness. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms models on fables and short stories, but is susceptible to adversarial manipulation and rely on superficial patterns rather than true moral reasoning. |