LivingArena: Do LLMs Know What Other LLMs Don't? Peer-Probing as Scalable Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24780v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 06:20:58 GMT
• Title: LivingArena: Do LLMs Know What Other LLMs Don't? Peer-Probing as Scalable Evaluation
• Abstract summary: LivingArena is an automated, contamination-resistant evaluation framework.<n>Models take turns proposing questions, aiming to pose items that opponents cannot answer correctly.<n>Questioners are encouraged to actively identify and exploit opponents' knowledge boundaries.
• Score: 79.03892269184145
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating frontier LLMs is challenging: static benchmarks suffer from contamination and saturation -- leaving users unable to distinguish top models and developers blind to specific failure modes -- while human preference is subjective. In this paper, our question is: \emph{Do LLMs know what other LLMs don't? And can we leverage this dynamic for evaluation?} We present \textbf{LivingArena}, an automated, contamination-resistant evaluation framework. In this framework, models take turns proposing questions, aiming to pose items that opponents cannot answer correctly. Questioners are encouraged to actively identify and exploit opponents' knowledge boundaries, receiving rewards when the answerer fails, while the answerer is rewarded otherwise. To ensure questions contain objectively verifiable answers, a judge panel of strong models validates them, penalizing questioners if validation fails. Evaluating ten frontier LLMs, LivingArena yields a stable Elo leaderboard. Our behavioral analyses show that models identify and exploit their peers' cognitive boundaries: self-play and tournament logs indicate that they localize and double down on opponents' weak dimensions. Beyond static knowledge recall, peer probing measures factual rigor and the higher-order ability to probe an opponent's weaknesses, correlating only weakly with human preference and offering a scalable, low-cost approach to continuous evaluation.

Related papers

• Turning Bias into Bugs: Bandit-Guided Style Manipulation Attacks on LLM Judges [65.92623263645139]
  We introduce BITE, a black-box adversarial framework that learns semantics-preserving edits to mislead an LLM judge.<n>BITE achieves an attack success rate exceeding 65% and raises scores by 1-2 points on a 9-point scale.<n>Our findings expose a fundamental weakness in the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm and motivate robust, attack-aware evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T05:24:09Z)
• Benchmarking at the Edge of Comprehension [38.43582342860192]
  If benchmarking becomes infeasible, our ability to measure any progress in AI is at stake.<n>We propose Critique-Resilient Benchmarking, an adversarial framework designed to compare models even when full human understanding is infeasible.<n>Unlike standard benchmarking, humans serve as bounded verifiers and focus on localized claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T20:51:29Z)
• Are LLM Evaluators Really Narcissists? Sanity Checking Self-Preference Evaluations [3.262230127283452]
  We show that evaluators may deliver self-preferring verdicts when the judge responds to queries which they completed incorrectly themselves.<n>We introduce an Evaluator Quality Baseline, which compares the probability that a judge incorrectly votes for itself against the probability that it votes for an incorrect response from another model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T04:38:18Z)
• Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation [56.84819098277464]
  CoNL is a framework that unifies generation, evaluation, and meta-evaluation through multi-agent self-play.<n>CoNL achieves consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T09:41:14Z)
• Can LLMs Evaluate What They Cannot Annotate? Revisiting LLM Reliability in Hate Speech Detection [5.731621080995591]
  Hate speech spreads widely online, harming individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation.<n>Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T14:00:48Z)
• Evaluating from Benign to Dynamic Adversarial: A Squid Game for Large Language Models [57.33350664910483]
  We introduce Squid Game, a dynamic and adversarial evaluation environment with resource-constrained and asymmetric information settings.<n>We evaluate over 50 LLMs on Squid Game, presenting the largest behavioral evaluation study of general LLMs on dynamic adversarial scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T06:06:29Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• WakenLLM: Evaluating Reasoning Potential and Stability in LLMs via Fine-Grained Benchmarking [34.350505059394536]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently output the label Unknown in reasoning tasks.<n>We introduce WakenLLM, a framework that quantifies the portion of Unknown output attributable to model incapacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:21:48Z)
• AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions [32.871820908561936]
  AbstentionBench is a benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets.<n>We find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention even for math and science domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T17:57:30Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge [35.067234242461545]
  Large language models (LLMs) express uncertainty in situations where they lack sufficient parametric knowledge to generate reasonable responses. This work aims to systematically investigate LLMs' behaviors in such situations, emphasizing the trade-off between honesty and helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:40Z)
• Probing the Multi-turn Planning Capabilities of LLMs via 20 Question Games [14.063311955315077]
  Large language models (LLMs) are effective at answering questions that are clearly asked. When faced with ambiguous queries they can act unpredictably and produce incorrect outputs. This underscores the need for the development of intelligent agents capable of asking clarification questions to resolve ambiguities effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:55:37Z)

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.