Chunjie Wu

Zerui Cheng, Jiashuo Liu, Chunjie Wu et al.

The main issue with most evaluation schemes today is their "static" nature: the same problems are reused repeatedly, allowing for memorization, format exploitation, and eventual saturation. To measure genuine AI progress, we need evaluation that is robust by construction, not by post-hoc detection. In response, we propose VeRA (Verified Reasoning Data Augmentation), a framework that converts benchmark problems into executable specifications, comprising (i) a natural language template with placeholder slots, (ii) a coherent generator that samples valid configurations, and (iii) a deterministic verifier that validates parameters and calculates the corresponding correct answers for each configuration. From a single seed problem, VeRA automatically creates unlimited verified variants with reliable labels at near-zero marginal cost without human involvement. VeRA operates in two complementary modes. VeRA-E (equivalent) rewrites problems while keeping the underlying logic intact, useful for detecting memorization versus genuine reasoning. VeRA-H (hardened) systematically increases complexity while remaining verifiable, enabling reliable creation and labelling of fresh difficult tasks at the boundary of intelligence. Evaluating 16 frontier models with VeRA, we find: (i) VeRA-E improves evaluation quality and reveals contamination patterns. (ii) VeRA-H enables human-free generation of hard tasks with reliable labels. (iii) VeRA establishes verified benchmarks as a general paradigm. VeRA reconceptualizes benchmarks from static objects used until exhausted, to executable specifications generating fresh, verified instances on demand, enhancing robustness and cost-effectiveness for evaluation. With VeRA, we envision that evaluation in any verifiable domain can scale indefinitely without sacrificing label integrity. To stimulate future research, we have open-sourced all code and datasets.

Jiashuo Liu, Jiayun Wu, Chunjie Wu et al.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation ($N=100,000$ iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score ($E[S_m]$), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity ($T_k$), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

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.