As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more capable of handling increasingly complex tasks, the evaluation set must keep pace with these advancements to ensure it remains sufficiently discriminative. Item Discrimination (ID) theory, which is widely used in educational assessment, measures the ability of individual test items to differentiate between high and low performers. Inspired by this theory, we propose an ID-induced prompt synthesis framework for evaluating LLMs so that the evaluation set continually updates and refines according to model abilities.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

By the second iteration, it exceeds the performance of RLHF-based methods across all metrics, achieving these results with less data.

In this paper we complement these previous studies of operator alternatives and focus on operators that seek to achieve greater robustness w.r.t.

With the rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) in medicine, a key question is whether they can function as competent pediatricians in real-world clinical settings. We developed PEDIASBench, a systematic evaluation framework centered on a knowledge-system framework and tailored to realistic clinical environments. PEDIASBench assesses LLMs across three dimensions: application of basic knowledge, dynamic diagnosis and treatment capability, and pediatric medical safety and medical ethics. We evaluated 12 representative models released over the past two years, including GPT-4o, Qwen3-235B-A22B, and DeepSeek-V3, covering 19 pediatric subspecialties and 211 prototypical diseases. State-of-the-art models performed well on foundational knowledge, with Qwen3-235B-A22B achieving over 90% accuracy on licensing-level questions, but performance declined ~15% as task complexity increased, revealing limitations in complex reasoning. Multiple-choice assessments highlighted weaknesses in integrative reasoning and knowledge recall. In dynamic diagnosis and treatment scenarios, DeepSeek-R1 scored highest in case reasoning (mean 0.58), yet most models struggled to adapt to real-time patient changes. On pediatric medical ethics and safety tasks, Qwen2.5-72B performed best (accuracy 92.05%), though humanistic sensitivity remained limited. These findings indicate that pediatric LLMs are constrained by limited dynamic decision-making and underdeveloped humanistic care. Future development should focus on multimodal integration and a clinical feedback-model iteration loop to enhance safety, interpretability, and human-AI collaboration. While current LLMs cannot independently perform pediatric care, they hold promise for decision support, medical education, and patient communication, laying the groundwork for a safe, trustworthy, and collaborative intelligent pediatric healthcare system.

Players have to manage the ingredients, use the stove, and deliver meals. As the team works together, they decide how tasks should be allocated among themselves so resources are used effectively. For example, player 1 could notice that player 2 tends to stay near the stove, so they instead spend more time preparing ingredients and delivering food, allowing player 2 to continue working at the stove. Through these interactions, the team creates a "convention" in the

Accessing legal help in Bangladesh is hard. People face high fees, complex legal language, a shortage of lawyers, and millions of unresolved court cases. Generative AI models like OpenAI GPT-4.1 Mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Meta Llama 3 70B, and DeepSeek R1 could potentially democratize legal assistance by providing quick and affordable legal advice. In this study, we collected 250 authentic legal questions from the Facebook group "Know Your Rights," where verified legal experts regularly provide authoritative answers. These questions were subsequently submitted to four four advanced AI models and responses were generated using a consistent, standardized prompt. A comprehensive dual evaluation framework was employed, in which a state-of-the-art LLM model served as a judge, assessing each AI-generated response across four critical dimensions: factual accuracy, legal appropriateness, completeness, and clarity. Following this, the same set of questions was evaluated by three licensed Bangladeshi legal professionals according to the same criteria. In addition, automated evaluation metrics, including BLEU scores, were applied to assess response similarity. Our findings reveal a complex landscape where AI models frequently generate high-quality, well-structured legal responses but also produce dangerous misinformation, including fabricated case citations, incorrect legal procedures, and potentially harmful advice. These results underscore the critical need for rigorous expert validation and comprehensive safeguards before AI systems can be safely deployed for legal consultation in Bangladesh.

Large language models (LLMs) show increasing promise in medical applications, but their ability to detect and correct errors in clinical texts -- a prerequisite for safe deployment -- remains under-evaluated, particularly beyond English. We introduce MedRECT, a cross-lingual benchmark (Japanese/English) that formulates medical error handling as three subtasks: error detection, error localization (sentence extraction), and error correction. MedRECT is built with a scalable, automated pipeline from the Japanese Medical Licensing Examinations (JMLE) and a curated English counterpart, yielding MedRECT-ja (663 texts) and MedRECT-en (458 texts) with comparable error/no-error balance. We evaluate 9 contemporary LLMs spanning proprietary, open-weight, and reasoning families. Key findings: (i) reasoning models substantially outperform standard architectures, with up to 13.5% relative improvement in error detection and 51.0% in sentence extraction; (ii) cross-lingual evaluation reveals 5-10% performance gaps from English to Japanese, with smaller disparities for reasoning models; (iii) targeted LoRA fine-tuning yields asymmetric improvements in error correction performance (Japanese: +0.078, English: +0.168) while preserving reasoning capabilities; and (iv) our fine-tuned model exceeds human expert performance on structured medical error correction tasks. To our knowledge, MedRECT is the first comprehensive cross-lingual benchmark for medical error correction, providing a reproducible framework and resources for developing safer medical LLMs across languages.