Evaluating Ill-Defined Tasks in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17067v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 18:52:47 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Ill-Defined Tasks in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We analyze why evaluation benchmarks and metrics fail to provide reliable or diagnostic signals of model capability for ill-defined tasks.<n>We show how multi-faceted evaluation criteria can yield actionable insights beyond aggregate scores.
• Score: 4.241892359077409
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) target tasks that are inherently ill-defined, with unclear input and output spaces and ambiguous success criteria. We analyze why existing evaluation benchmarks and metrics fail to provide reliable or diagnostic signals of model capability for such tasks. We examine two case studies: Complex Instruction Following (CIF), where we identify recurring issues including limited coverage of real-world instruction complexity, sensitivity to instruction phrasing, inconsistent and non-comparable metrics, and instability introduced by LLM-based judges; and Natural Language to Mermaid Sequence Diagrams (NL2Mermaid), where we show how multi-faceted evaluation criteria can yield actionable insights beyond aggregate scores. Together, these case studies show that current evaluations frequently conflate distinct failure modes, yielding scores that are unstable, non-diagnostic, and difficult to act upon. Our findings expose fundamental limitations in existing evaluation practices for ill-defined tasks and motivate more robust, interpretable evaluation designs.

Related papers

• Deconstructing Instruction-Following: A New Benchmark for Granular Evaluation of Large Language Model Instruction Compliance Abilities [2.9203730377983654]
  Existing benchmarks fail to reflect real-world use or isolate compliance from task success.<n>We introduce MOSAIC, a modular framework that uses a dynamically generated dataset with up to 20 application-oriented generation constraints.<n>We show that compliance is not a monolithic capability but varies significantly with constraint type, quantity, and position.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T15:02:15Z)
• Demystifying deep search: a holistic evaluation with hint-free multi-hop questions and factorised metrics [89.1999907891494]
  We present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox.<n>Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures.<n>We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:59:03Z)
• When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions [23.5858385520752]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in code generation tasks under idealized conditions.<n>In practice, task descriptions frequently exhibit ambiguity, incompleteness, or internal contradictions.<n>We present the first empirical study examining the robustness of state-of-the-art code generation models when faced with such unclear task descriptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-27T23:16:14Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks [18.613353004764885]
  This study reveals novel insights into the limitations of existing methods.<n>We propose a refined set of evaluation standards, including inspection of reasoning paths, diversified assessment metrics, and comparative analyses with human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T15:17:34Z)
• Meta-Evaluating Local LLMs: Rethinking Performance Metrics for Serious Games [3.725822359130832]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as evaluators in serious games.<n>This study investigates the reliability of five small-scale LLMs when assessing player responses in textitEn-join, a game that simulates decision-making within energy communities.<n>Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of each model, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T10:46:13Z)
• 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)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability.<n>Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum.<n>We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• A Framework for Evaluating LLMs Under Task Indeterminacy [49.298107503257036]
  Large language model (LLM) evaluations often assume there is a single correct response -- a gold label -- for each item in the evaluation corpus. We develop a framework for evaluating LLMs under task indeterminacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T00:15:44Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)

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.