An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21059v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:16:44 GMT
• Title: An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming scholarly tasks like search and summarization, but their reliability remains uncertain.<n>We developed a schema for evaluating LLM errors in question-answering systems that reflects the assessment strategies of practicing scientists.
• Score: 1.9138416746729587
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming scholarly tasks like search and summarization, but their reliability remains uncertain. Current evaluation metrics for testing LLM reliability are primarily automated approaches that prioritize efficiency and scalability, but lack contextual nuance and fail to reflect how scientific domain experts assess LLM outputs in practice. We developed and validated a schema for evaluating LLM errors in scholarly question-answering systems that reflects the assessment strategies of practicing scientists. In collaboration with domain experts, we identified 20 error patterns across seven categories through thematic analysis of 68 question-answer pairs. We validated this schema through contextual inquiries with 10 additional scientists, which showed not only which errors experts naturally identify but also how structured evaluation schemas can help them detect previously overlooked issues. Domain experts use systematic assessment strategies, including technical precision testing, value-based evaluation, and meta-evaluation of their own practices. We discuss implications for supporting expert evaluation of LLM outputs, including opportunities for personalized, schema-driven tools that adapt to individual evaluation patterns and expertise levels.

Related papers

• LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges [4.655159257282136]
  This survey offers a systems-level analysis of large language models (LLMs)-based scientific peer review.<n>We focus on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction.<n>We identify emerging risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T18:12:39Z)
• Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation [32.5154721488471]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks.<n>Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases.<n>We present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-27T11:28:15Z)
• Assessment Design in the AI Era: A Method for Identifying Items Functioning Differentially for Humans and Chatbots [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design.<n>We introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences.<n>The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T19:39:39Z)
• Pitfalls in Evaluating Interpretability Agents [91.49742416116635]
  We build an agentic system in which a research agent iteratively designs experiments and refines hypotheses.<n>Our work demonstrates fundamental challenges in evaluating complex automated interpretability systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T16:27:17Z)
• Reward Modeling for Scientific Writing Evaluation [50.33952894976367]
  It is critical to develop models that can be reliably deployed for evaluating diverse open-ended scientific writing tasks.<n>We propose cost-efficient, open-source reward models tailored for scientific writing evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T15:32:58Z)
• Expert Evaluation of LLM World Models: A High-$T_c$ Superconductivity Case Study [8.574376236521958]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise as a powerful tool for scientific literature exploration.<n>We evaluate the ability of LLM systems to understand the literature at the level of an expert.<n>We construct an expert-curated database of 1,726 scientific papers that covers the history of the field, and a set of 67 expert-formulated questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T19:00:01Z)
• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• JudgeAgent: Knowledge-wise and Dynamic LLM Evaluation with Agent-as-Interviewer [19.09571232466437]
  We propose Agent-as-Interviewer, a dynamic evaluation paradigm for large language models (LLMs)<n>Unlike current benchmarking or dynamic interaction paradigms, Agent-as-Interviewer utilizes agents to invoke knowledge tools for wider and deeper knowledge in the dynamic multi-turn question generation.<n>We develop JudgeAgent, a knowledge-wise dynamic evaluation framework that employs knowledge-driven synthesis as the agent's tool and uses difficulty scoring as strategy guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T08:52:16Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• AbGen: Evaluating Large Language Models in Ablation Study Design and Evaluation for Scientific Research [33.79419161415481]
  AbGen is the first benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in designing ablation studies for scientific research.<n>To better investigate this, we develop AbGen-Eval, a meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of commonly used automated evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T17:09:22Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• 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)
• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Evaluating General-Purpose AI with Psychometrics [43.85432514910491]
  We discuss the need for a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of general-purpose AI systems such as large language models. Current evaluation methodology, mostly based on benchmarks of specific tasks, falls short of adequately assessing these versatile AI systems. To tackle these challenges, we suggest transitioning from task-oriented evaluation to construct-oriented evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T05:38:38Z)

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.