Jiani Hou

Xue Liu, Xin Ma, Yuxin Ma et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.

Liya Zhu, Peizhuang Cong, Aowei Ji et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in reasoning, question answering, and professional applications; however, their true capabilities remain difficult to evaluate using existing benchmarks. Current datasets often focus on simplified tasks or artificial scenarios, overlooking long-tail knowledge and the complexities of real-world applications. To bridge this gap, we propose LPFQA, a long-tail knowledge-based benchmark derived from authentic professional forums across 20 academic and industrial fields, covering 502 tasks grounded in practical expertise. LPFQA introduces four key innovations: fine-grained evaluation dimensions that target knowledge depth, reasoning, terminology comprehension, and contextual analysis; a hierarchical difficulty structure that ensures semantic clarity and unique answers; authentic professional scenario modeling with realistic user personas; and interdisciplinary knowledge integration across diverse domains. We evaluated 12 mainstream LLMs on LPFQA and observed significant performance disparities, especially in specialized reasoning tasks. LPFQA provides a robust, authentic, and discriminative benchmark for advancing LLM evaluation and guiding future model development.