In this section, we will describe the evaluation process in detail. We evaluated various L VLMs, including medical-specific models, open-source general models, and closed-source API general models.

Before that, it is crucial to develop benchmarks to evaluate L VLMs' effectiveness in various medical applications.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown emerging potential in spatiotemporal reasoning, making them promising candidates for building urban agents that support diverse urban downstream applications. Despite these benefits, existing studies primarily focus on evaluating urban LLM agent on outcome-level metrics (e.g., prediction accuracy, traffic efficiency), offering limited insight into their underlying reasoning processes. As a result, the strengths and limitations of urban LLM agents in spatiotemporal reasoning remain poorly understood. To this end, we introduce USTBench, the first benchmark to evaluate LLMs' spatiotemporal reasoning abilities as urban agents across four decomposed dimensions: spatiotemporal understanding, forecasting, planning, and reflection with feedback. Specifically, USTBench supports five diverse urban decision-making and four spatiotemporal prediction tasks, all running within our constructed interactive city environment UAgentEnv. The benchmark includes 62,466 structured QA pairs for process-level evaluation and standardized end-to-end task assessments, enabling fine-grained diagnostics and broad task-level comparison across diverse urban scenarios. Through extensive evaluation of thirteen leading LLMs, we reveal that although LLMs show promising potential across various urban downstream tasks, they still struggle in long-horizon planning and reflective adaptation in dynamic urban contexts. Notably, recent advanced reasoning models (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) trained on general logic or mathematical problems do not consistently outperform non-reasoning LLMs. This discrepancy highlights the need for domain-specialized adaptation methods to enhance urban spatiotemporal reasoning. Overall, USTBench provides a foundation to build more adaptive and effective LLM-based urban agents and broad smart city applications.

The performance and usability of Large-Language Models (LLMs) are driving their use in explanation generation tasks. However, despite their widespread adoption, LLM explanations have been found to be unreliable, making it difficult for users to distinguish good from bad explanations. To address this issue, we present Rubrik's CUBE, an education-inspired rubric and a dataset of 26k explanations, written and later quality-annotated using the rubric by both humans and six open- and closed-source LLMs. The CUBE dataset focuses on two reasoning and two language tasks, providing the necessary diversity for us to effectively test our proposed rubric. Using Rubrik, we find that explanations are influenced by both task and perceived difficulty. Low quality stems primarily from a lack of conciseness in LLM-generated explanations, rather than cohesion and word choice. The full dataset, rubric, and code will be made available upon acceptance.

Zero-shot prompting techniques have significantly improved the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, we lack a clear understanding of why zero-shot prompts are so effective. For example, in the prompt "Let's think step-by-step," is "think" or "step-by-step" more crucial to its success? Existing interpretability methods, such as gradient-based and attention-based approaches, are computationally intensive and restricted to open-source models. We introduce the ZIP score (Zero-shot Importance of Perturbation score), a versatile metric applicable to both open and closed-source models, based on systematic input word perturbations. Our experiments across four recent LLMs, seven widely-used prompts, and several tasks, reveal interesting patterns in word importance. For instance, while both 'step-by-step' and 'think' show high ZIP scores, which one is more influential depends on the model and task. We validate our method using controlled experiments and compare our results with human judgments, finding that proprietary models align more closely with human intuition regarding word significance. These findings enhance our understanding of LLM behavior and contribute to developing more effective zero-shot prompts and improved model analysis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are one of the most promising developments in the field of artificial intelligence, and the software engineering community has readily noticed their potential role in the software development life-cycle. Developers routinely ask LLMs to generate code snippets, increasing productivity but also potentially introducing ownership, privacy, correctness, and security issues. Previous work highlighted how code generated by mainstream commercial LLMs is often not safe, containing vulnerabilities, bugs, and code smells. In this paper, we present a framework that leverages testing and static analysis to assess the quality, and guide the self-improvement, of code generated by general-purpose, open-source LLMs. First, we ask LLMs to generate C code to solve a number of programming tasks. Then we employ ground-truth tests to assess the (in)correctness of the generated code, and a static analysis tool to detect potential safety vulnerabilities. Next, we assess the models ability to evaluate the generated code, by asking them to detect errors and vulnerabilities. Finally, we test the models ability to fix the generated code, providing the reports produced during the static analysis and incorrectness evaluation phases as feedback. Our results show that models often produce incorrect code, and that the generated code can include safety issues. Moreover, they perform very poorly at detecting either issue. On the positive side, we observe a substantial ability to fix flawed code when provided with information about failed tests or potential vulnerabilities, indicating a promising avenue for improving the safety of LLM-based code generation tools.

Making legal knowledge accessible to non-experts is crucial for enhancing general legal literacy and encouraging civic participation in democracy. However, legal documents are often challenging to understand for people without legal backgrounds. In this paper, we present a novel application of large language models (LLMs) in legal education to help non-experts learn intricate legal concepts through storytelling, an effective pedagogical tool in conveying complex and abstract concepts. We also introduce a new dataset LegalStories, which consists of 294 complex legal doctrines, each accompanied by a story and a set of multiple-choice questions generated by LLMs. To construct the dataset, we experiment with various LLMs to generate legal stories explaining these concepts. Furthermore, we use an expert-in-the-loop approach to iteratively design multiple-choice questions. Then, we evaluate the effectiveness of storytelling with LLMs through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with legal novices on 10 samples from the dataset. We find that LLM-generated stories enhance comprehension of legal concepts and interest in law among non-native speakers compared to only definitions. Moreover, stories consistently help participants relate legal concepts to their lives. Finally, we find that learning with stories shows a higher retention rate for non-native speakers in the follow-up assessment. Our work has strong implications for using LLMs in promoting teaching and learning in the legal field and beyond.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations alongside answers. However, previous research on evaluating LLMs has solely focused on answer accuracy, neglecting the correctness of the generated CoT. In this paper, we delve deeper into the CoT reasoning capabilities of LLMs in multi-hop question answering by utilizing knowledge graphs (KGs). We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT. Through experiments conducted on 5 different families of LLMs across 2 multi-hop question-answering datasets, we find that LLMs possess sufficient knowledge to perform reasoning. However, there exists a significant disparity between answer accuracy and faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs, indicating that they often arrive at correct answers through incorrect reasoning.