EuroExec: Frontier Language Models Fall Short of Expert Judgment on European Executive Decision Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04549v2
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 11:12:23 GMT
• Title: EuroExec: Frontier Language Models Fall Short of Expert Judgment on European Executive Decision Tasks
• Abstract summary: We dedicate more than 4,000 human expert hours to evaluate a selection of six frontier LLMs on a member of this class of problems.<n>We see that the best way to extract this kind of conclusion is by employing human evaluators, carefully checking their consistency through rigorous statistical analysis, and observe that automatic measurements also fall short when evaluating on this case of real-world open-ended problems with a subjective ground truth.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Frontier LLMs are increasingly put to use on open-ended complex questions, different in nature from the ones they are typically evaluated on. We dedicate more than 4,000 human expert hours to evaluate a selection of six frontier LLMs on a member of this class of problems: EuroExec, our introduced human expert-based benchmark composed of 413 open-ended long-form European executive tasks authored by 47 vetted domain experts, each question drawn from experience in a real case. Every response is manually evaluated through a multi-attribute rubric, an item-specific checklist of requirements, and a preference rank ordering, extracting an aggregate metric "Solve Rate". The strongest model solves only 56.9% of tasks, while expert-written reference answers judged blindly are solved at near-ceiling levels and are preferred over every model response in 74% of direct rankings, placing frontier generative systems well below the professional standard of work they are already used for. We see that the best way to extract this kind of conclusion is by employing human evaluators, carefully checking their consistency through rigorous statistical analysis, and observe that automatic measurements also fall short when evaluating on this case of real-world open-ended problems with a subjective ground truth.

Related papers

• SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents [56.400332595452966]
  We introduce SearchAuditBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures.<n>SearchAuditBench comprises 1,243 failed trajectories, averaging 73.1 messages and 65.1K tokens, collected from eight open-weight models on five deep-search benchmarks.<n>We propose SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T09:09:00Z)
• SemEval-2026 Task 7: Everyday Knowledge Across Diverse Languages and Cultures [93.36078244548077]
  The task data consist of an extended version of our manually constructed BLEnD benchmark (Myung et al. 2024), covering more than 30 language-culture pairs.<n>As the task is designed strictly for evaluation, participants were not permitted to use the data for training, fine-tuning, few-shot learning, or any other form of model modification.<n>We report the results and present an analysis of the best-performing systems and the most commonly adopted approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T13:49:44Z)
• OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation [57.505743202759646]
  OccuBench is a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains.<n>Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T00:27:32Z)
• 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)
• DEER: A Comprehensive and Reliable Benchmark for Deep-Research Expert Reports [49.217247659479476]
  deep research systems can generate expert-level reports via multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis.<n>Existing benchmarks often lack systematic criteria for expert reporting.<n>We introduce DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T16:46:20Z)
• PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional Reasoning [18.32501228579171]
  Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench) is a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law.<n>We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-14T18:55:12Z)
• OutboundEval: A Dual-Dimensional Benchmark for Expert-Level Intelligent Outbound Evaluation of Xbench's Professional-Aligned Series [36.88936933010042]
  OutboundEval is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in intelligent outbound calling scenarios.<n>We design a benchmark spanning six major business domains and 30 representative sub-scenarios, each with scenario-specific process decomposition, weighted scoring, and domain-adaptive metrics.<n>We introduce a dynamic evaluation method that adapts to task variations, integrating automated and human-in-the-loop assessment to measure task execution accuracy, professional knowledge application, adaptability, and user experience quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T08:27:58Z)
• LiveOIBench: Can Large Language Models Outperform Human Contestants in Informatics Olympiads? [5.835205320809048]
  LiveOIBench is a benchmark featuring 403 Olympiad-level competitive programming problems with an average of 60 expert-designed test cases.<n>The problems are sourced directly from 72 official Informatics Olympiads in different regions conducted between 2023 and 2025.<n>LiveOIBench distinguishes itself through four key features: meticulously curated high-quality tasks with detailed subtasks and extensive private test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T17:54:24Z)
• SUPER: Evaluating Agents on Setting Up and Executing Tasks from Research Repositories [55.161075901665946]
  Super aims to capture the realistic challenges faced by researchers working with Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) research repositories. Our benchmark comprises three distinct problem sets: 45 end-to-end problems with annotated expert solutions, 152 sub problems derived from the expert set that focus on specific challenges, and 602 automatically generated problems for larger-scale development. We show that state-of-the-art approaches struggle to solve these problems with the best model (GPT-4o) solving only 16.3% of the end-to-end set, and 46.1% of the scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:37:48Z)
• Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models [92.66784679667441]
  Prometheus 2 is a more powerful evaluator LM that closely mirrors human and GPT-4 judgements.<n>It is capable of processing both direct assessment and pairwise ranking formats grouped with a user-defined evaluation criteria.<n>On four direct assessment benchmarks and four pairwise ranking benchmarks, Prometheus 2 scores the highest correlation and agreement with humans and proprietary LM judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T17:59:35Z)
• ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers [51.68314045809179]
  We conduct human evaluation of responses from a few representative systems along various axes of attribution and factuality. We collect expert-curated questions from 484 participants across 32 fields of study, and then ask the same experts to evaluate generated responses to their own questions. The output of our analysis is ExpertQA, a high-quality long-form QA dataset with 2177 questions spanning 32 fields, along with verified answers and attributions for claims in the answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T16:54:34Z)

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.