Chen Bo Calvin Zhang

Srivatsa Kundurthy, Clara Na, Michael Handley et al.

We consider the task of end-to-end spreadsheet generation, where language models produce spreadsheet artifacts to satisfy users' explicit and implicit constraints, specified in natural language. We introduce SpreadsheetArena, a platform for evaluating models' performance on the task via blind pairwise preference votes of LLM-generated spreadsheet workbooks. As with other complex, open-ended tasks, relevant evaluation criteria can vary greatly across use cases, often in ways that are difficult to formalize. Compared to general dialogue or text generation settings, spreadsheet generation presents unique challenges and opportunities: the task output structure is well-defined and multi-dimensional, and there are often complex interactivity and layout considerations. We observe that stylistic, structural, and functional features of preferred spreadsheets vary meaningfully across prompts. Expert evaluations of spreadsheets for finance prompts suggest that even highly ranked models do not reliably produce spreadsheets aligned with domain-specific best practices. We host a live arena and release a dataset of prompts, generated spreadsheets, and preference votes, which we hope will facilitate further study of tasks operating over spreadsheets as a challenging and interesting class of complex, open-ended tasks for LLMs.

Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Christina Q. Knight, Nicholas Kruus et al.

Large language models (LLMs) perform increasingly well on biology benchmarks, but it remains unclear whether they uplift novice users -- i.e., enable humans to perform better than with internet-only resources. This uncertainty is central to understanding both scientific acceleration and dual-use risk. We conducted a multi-model, multi-benchmark human uplift study comparing novices with LLM access versus internet-only access across eight biosecurity-relevant task sets. Participants worked on complex problems with ample time (up to 13 hours for the most involved tasks). We found that LLM access provided substantial uplift: novices with LLMs were 4.16 times more accurate than controls (95% CI [2.63, 6.87]). On four benchmarks with available expert baselines (internet-only), novices with LLMs outperformed experts on three of them. Perhaps surprisingly, standalone LLMs often exceeded LLM-assisted novices, indicating that users were not eliciting the strongest available contributions from the LLMs. Most participants (89.6%) reported little difficulty obtaining dual-use-relevant information despite safeguards. Overall, LLMs substantially uplift novices on biological tasks previously reserved for trained practitioners, underscoring the need for sustained, interactive uplift evaluations alongside traditional benchmarks.