A Threshold Exceedance Criteria (TEC) framework is introduced that decomposes an uplift study into independently executable components: determining non-expert participant eligibility, defining the CBRN threat scope for the study, and statistically estimating material uplift.
Abstract
As frontier language models advance, policymakers and model developers need methods for assessing whether model access materially increases a non-expert actor's ability to plan high-consequence Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN) misuse relative to public tools alone. Existing CBRN evaluations differ in non-expert definitions, threat scope, baselines, scoring rubrics, and decision rules, making results difficult to compare across studies. We introduce a Threshold Exceedance Criteria (TEC) framework that decomposes an uplift study into independently executable components: determining non-expert participant eligibility, defining the CBRN threat scope for the study, and statistically estimating material uplift. We then operationalize the TEC framework in a large-scale empirical study using a design that determines two forms of uplift: generative (where a model assists plan creation from scratch) and revisionist (where a model assists refinement of an existing plan). The study produced attack plans across the CBRN domains, which we evaluated through subject-matter-expert review to estimate generative and revisionist uplift. Applying the framework, our empirical study revealed domain heterogeneity: under this controlled pre-release evaluation, model-assisted plans sometimes received expert-equivalent instructional ratings, but confirmed material uplift was limited to the radiological domain. These findings informed mitigation and deployment-governance decisions rather than characterizing deployed model behavior. We conclude with methodological lessons for future CBRN uplift evaluations, emphasizing prespecified criteria, explicit baselines, separation of generative and revisionist estimates, and careful distinction between preliminary screening signals and confirmed risk determinations.
FinRiskAtlas is introduced, a Chinese-language benchmark that evaluates financial LLMs along two complementary dimensions: operation execution under fixed evidence states and evidence-state control under evolving review conditions, and shows that broad financial capability scores do not fully capture where models are reliable in professional workflows.
Suyang Zhong, Jingzhe Zhu, Qi Xu et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as technical assistants, but their competence in solid waste management (SWM) remains difficult to assess because existing benchmarks emphasize general knowledge rather than professional decisions under engineering, environmental, and policy constraints. We introduce WuYuEval, a multi-level benchmark for evaluating LLMs in SWM across foundational knowledge, domain reasoning, and expert decision-making. After quality auditing, WuYuEval contains a Foundation Module with 4,590 closed-ended multiple-choice questions across six task types and eight domain categories, together with an Expert Module with 247 scenario-based open-ended questions involving multi-objective optimization, constraint trade-offs, and system design. For expert tasks, we combine anchor-calibrated LLM-as-a-Judge scoring with Elo-based pairwise comparison. Across 33 LLMs, performance varied widely. The leading model reached 94.64\% accuracy on the Foundation Module, but average accuracy still fell from 84.14\% on easy questions to 42.50\% on hard questions, with lower performance concentrated in calculation, experimental design, urban planning, and open-ended expert tasks. Reasoning-oriented Thinking modes improve most matched model pairs after auditing, but the gains depend on baseline capability and are not uniformly positive. These results suggest that visible deliberation helps only when it remains anchored to units, assumptions, and engineering constraints; otherwise, it may drift from decisive answer boundaries. WuYuEval therefore provides both an evaluation resource and an empirical basis for developing SWM-oriented foundation models with professional reasoning chains and explicit constraint control.
Yi Zhang, Hongyang Wang, Zheng Hao Leong et al.· 0 citations
AtmosCoder-Bench is introduced, an execution-grounded benchmark that makes the calculation process visible, and finds that multiple-choice formats inflate measured accuracy by at least 12 percentage points.
Mao-Hao Ran, Chendong Ma, Yanting Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in financial reasoning, but existing benchmarks often evaluate domain knowledge, numerical reasoning, long-context understanding, and tool use in separate settings. This limits their ability to assess realistic professional workflows that require auditable, context-grounded, and tool-executable decisions. We introduce \textbf{INS-ActBench}, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating professional actuarial capability in LLMs. INS-ActBench contains 12,050 Q\&A pairs from public exams and sample questions released by 16 actuarial associations. It covers three subsets: \textbf{INS-Act-Know} for standardized actuarial knowledge, \textbf{INS-Act-Case} for long-context insurance case reasoning, and \textbf{INS-Act-Practice} for spreadsheet and R-code tasks with verifiable numerical outputs. Experiments on nine representative LLMs and human actuarial experts reveal a clear capability boundary: frontier LLMs perform strongly on standardized knowledge, but remain much weaker in case reasoning, tool-based workflows, and jurisdiction-sensitive practice. INS-ActBench provides a reproducible foundation for developing actuarial LLMs toward reliable professional assistance. The code is available at https://github.com/FDU-INS/INS-ActBench.
Fragmented safety evaluation undermines the governance of dangerous AI capabilities. We present a modular framework that evaluates each model through three orthogonal pipelines---Knowledge ($K$), Defense ($D$), and Harm ($H$)---under a unified protocol, aggregating results into a standardized dangerous-capability profile $\phi$. Pluggable modules supply scenario seeds, knowledge banks, hazard queries, and judge rubrics, while the core evaluation engine remains unchanged across domains; the CB evaluation is complemented by a cyber pilot demonstrating protocol transfer. Instantiating the framework with a chemical-biological (CB) module, we evaluate 12 commercial LLMs from four families. Our first contribution is a horizontal comparison of dangerous capability across models and model families: the three dimensions expose sharply divergent profiles---models with comparable knowledge differ in refusal resilience, and strong defenders do not generate less harmful content when they do comply---while family-level patterns further separate Claude, DeepSeek, and GPT models. The second is a temporal analysis of capability evolution: tracking $K$, $D$, and $H$ against model release dates reveals that dangerous capability has not monotonically declined; newer models deepen knowledge while only partially improving defense, showing that scaling and alignment progress do not uniformly translate into safety. Reliability is established via cross-judge consistency (bootstrap $\rho>0.79$, 4 of 5 judges) and pipeline orthogonality ($K$--$D$--$H$ inter-correlations $\rho \in [0.32, 0.52]$).
Zheng-Yi Jin, Ru Zhang, Xiao Chen et al.· 0 citations
Foundation models are increasingly reused as software components, making model selection a critical software-engineering decision. Current model hubs primarily support discovery through popularity metrics, often neglecting functional capabilities, operational constraints, and community-perceived quality. We argue that foundation-model selection should be treated as an explicit, auditable software-component selection task rather than as keyword search, popularity ranking, or opaque conversational advice. This paper proposes HugSelect, an explainable decision-support framework for foundation-model selection. HugSelect builds a knowledge base of 71,274 models by combining repository metadata, extracted functional capabilities, and perceived quality attributes derived from community discussions into a unified pipeline. It ranks candidate models using a weighted additive model that exposes criterion-level score decompositions. We evaluated HugSelect through pipeline validation, comparative case studies against four commercial LLM-based recommendation systems (44 scenarios), fine-grained ablation, and an exploratory user study (n = 10). Extraction pipelines achieved an F1 score of 0.801 for functional features and an accuracy of 0.84 for quality-attribute mapping. HugSelect achieved a model-level Coverage@10 of 0.61 and family-level Coverage@10 of 0.91, showing recommendation quality comparable to that of the evaluated commercial systems, with no significant overall differences in ranking quality, while providing stable, traceable, and inspectable reasoning. Ablation confirmed that functional features were the main driver of retrieval accuracy, and preliminary user feedback suggests that the framework is useful and intuitive.
