SCAN: Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation for LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06698v3
• Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 04:36:33 GMT
• Title: SCAN: Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation for LLMs
• Authors: Zongqi Wang, Tianle Gu, Chen Gong, Xin Tian, Siqi Bao, Yujiu Yang,
• Abstract summary: textbfSCAN (Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation) is a practical framework that enables detailed characterization of Large Language Models.<n>SCAN incorporates four key components:.<n>TaxBuilder, which extracts capability-indicating tags from queries to construct a hierarchical taxonomy;.<n>RealMix, a query synthesis and filtering mechanism that ensures sufficient evaluation data for each capability tag;.<n>A PC$2$-based (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) LLM-as-a-Judge approach achieves significantly higher accuracy compared to classic LLM-as-a-Judge method
• Score: 54.54085382131134
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) has become increasingly important, with automatic evaluation benchmarks gaining prominence as alternatives to human evaluation. While existing research has focused on approximating model rankings, such benchmarks fail to provide users and developers with a comprehensive and fine-grained understanding of a specific model's capabilities. To fill this gap, we propose \textbf{SCAN} (Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation), a practical framework that enables detailed characterization of LLM capabilities through comprehensive and fine-grained evaluation. SCAN incorporates four key components: (1) TaxBuilder, which extracts capability-indicating tags from extensive queries to construct a hierarchical taxonomy automatically; (2) RealMix, a query synthesis and filtering mechanism that ensures sufficient evaluation data for each capability tag; (3) a suite of visualization and analysis tools that facilitate efficient navigation and analysis of model capabilities; and (4) a PC$^2$-based (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) LLM-as-a-Judge approach that achieves significantly higher accuracy compared to classic LLM-as-a-Judge method. Using SCAN, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 21 mainstream LLMs. Our detailed analysis of the GPT-OSS family reveals substantial performance variations, even within sub-capabilities belonging to the same category of capability. This finding highlights the importance of fine-grained evaluation in accurately understanding LLM behavior. Project homepage and resources are available at \href{https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker/}{https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker/}.

Related papers

• Towards a Holistic and Automated Evaluation Framework for Multi-Level Comprehension of LLMs in Book-Length Contexts [19.640586886024952]
  HAMLET is a framework for evaluating the long-context comprehension of large language models.<n>It structures texts into a three-level key-fact hierarchy at root, branch, and leaf-levels.<n>It employs query-focused summarization to evaluate how well models recall and faithfully represent information at each level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T05:23:22Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• LLM-Driven Usefulness Judgment for Web Search Evaluation [12.10711284043516]
  Evaluation is fundamental in optimizing search experiences and supporting diverse user intents in Information Retrieval (IR)<n>Traditional search evaluation methods primarily rely on relevance labels, which assess how well retrieved documents match a user's query.<n>In this paper, we explore an alternative approach: LLM-generated usefulness labels, which incorporate both implicit and explicit user behavior signals to evaluate document usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T20:38:09Z)
• Utility-Focused LLM Annotation for Retrieval and Retrieval-Augmented Generation [96.18720164390699]
  This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) for annotating document utility in training retrieval and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems.<n>Our results show that LLM-generated annotations enhance out-of-domain retrieval performance and improve RAG outcomes compared to models trained solely on human annotations or downstream QA metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T16:05:52Z)
• Where is this coming from? Making groundedness count in the evaluation of Document VQA models [12.951716701565019]
  We argue that common evaluation metrics do not account for the semantic and multimodal groundedness of a model's outputs.<n>We propose a new evaluation methodology that accounts for the groundedness of predictions.<n>Our proposed methodology is parameterized in such a way that users can configure the score according to their preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T20:14:46Z)
• Latent Factor Models Meets Instructions: Goal-conditioned Latent Factor Discovery without Task Supervision [50.45597801390757]
  Instruct-LF is a goal-oriented latent factor discovery system.<n>It integrates instruction-following ability with statistical models to handle noisy datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:03:08Z)
• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models by Meta Probing Agents [44.20074234421295]
  We propose meta probing agents (MPA) to evaluate large language models (LLMs) MPA is the key component of DyVal 2, which naturally extends the previous DyValcitepzhu2023dyval. MPA designs the probing and judging agents to automatically transform an original evaluation problem into a new one following psychometric theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T06:46:34Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [48.48819141999387]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically.<n>We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores.<n>We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• SEED-Bench-2: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models [67.28089415198338]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated exceptional capabilities in generating not only texts but also images given interleaved multimodal inputs. SEED-Bench-2 comprises 24K multiple-choice questions with accurate human annotations, which spans 27 dimensions. We evaluate the performance of 23 prominent open-source MLLMs and summarize valuable observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T05:53:55Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Gradient-Boosted Decision Tree for Listwise Context Model in Multimodal Review Helpfulness Prediction [40.09991896766369]
  Multimodal Review Helpfulness Prediction aims to rank product reviews based on predicted helpfulness scores. We propose a listwise attention network that clearly captures the MRHP ranking context. We also propose gradient-boosted decision tree as the score predictor to efficaciously partition product reviews' representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T03:31:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.