惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

D
Docker
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
小众软件
小众软件
博客园 - Franky
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
Jina AI
Jina AI
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
I
InfoQ
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
F
Fortinet All Blogs
博客园 - 【当耐特】
IT之家
IT之家
G
Google Developers Blog
J
Java Code Geeks
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
V
Visual Studio Blog
U
Unit 42
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
月光博客
月光博客
GbyAI
GbyAI
雷峰网
雷峰网

cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Playing Along: Learning a Double-Agent Defender for Belief Steering via Theory of Mind RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents A Triadic Suffix Tokenization Scheme for Numerical Reasoning Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarking Synthius-Mem: Brain-Inspired Hallucination-Resistant Persona Memory Achieving 94.4% Memory Accuracy and 99.6% Adversarial Robustness on LoCoMo Time is Not a Label: Continuous Phase Rotation for Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Agentic Memory NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models Think Before you Write: QA-Guided Reasoning for Character Descriptions in Books METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues Retrieval as Generation: A Unified Framework with Self-Triggered Information Planning Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations Enhancing Multimodal Large Language Models for Ancient Chinese Character Evolution Analysis via Glyph-Driven Fine-Tuning Polyglot Teachers: Evaluating Language Models for Multilingual Synthetic Data Generation Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method CocoaBench: Evaluating Unified Digital Agents in the Wild MathAgent: Adversarial Evolution of Constraint Graphs for Mathematical Reasoning Data Synthesis Evaluating Memory Capability in Continuous Lifelog Scenario How Robust Are Large Language Models for Clinical Numeracy? An Empirical Study on Numerical Reasoning Abilities in Clinical Contexts Efficient Training for Cross-lingual Speech Language Models Shared Emotion Geometry Across Small Language Models: A Cross-Architecture Study of Representation, Behavior, and Methodological Confounds A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of Persona Steering on LLM Capabilities Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection Mem$^2$Evolve: Towards Self-Evolving Agents via Co-Evolutionary Capability Expansion and Experience Distillation AOP-Smart: A RAG-Enhanced Large Language Model Framework for Adverse Outcome Pathway Analysis OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation Advancing Polish Language Modeling through Tokenizer Optimization in the Bielik v3 7B and 11B Series
Overview of the Sensemaking Task at the ELOQUENT 2025 Lab...
Pavel Šindelář, Ondřej Bojar · 2025-07-16 · via cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

ELOQUENT is a set of shared tasks that aims to create easily testable high-level criteria for evaluating generative language models. Sensemaking is one such shared task. In Sensemaking, we try to assess how well generative models ``make sense out of a given text'' in three steps inspired by exams in a classroom setting: (1) Teacher systems should prepare a set of questions, (2) Student systems should answer these questions, and (3) Evaluator systems should score these answers, all adhering rather strictly to a given set of input materials. We report on the 2025 edition of Sensemaking, where we had 7 sources of test materials (fact-checking analyses of statements, textbooks, transcribed recordings of a lecture, and educational videos) spanning English, German, Ukrainian, and Czech languages. This year, 4 teams participated, providing us with 2 Teacher submissions, 2 Student submissions, and 2 Evaluator submissions. We added baselines for Teacher and Student using commercial large language model systems. We devised a fully automatic evaluation procedure, which we compare to a minimalistic manual evaluation. We were able to make some interesting observations. For the first task, the creation of questions, better evaluation strategies will still have to be devised because it is difficult to discern the quality of the various candidate question sets. In the second task, question answering, the LLMs examined overall perform acceptably, but restricting their answers to the given input texts remains problematic. In the third task, evaluation of question answers, our adversarial tests reveal that systems using the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm erroneously rate both garbled question-answer pairs and answers to mixed-up questions as acceptable.