arXiv subjects

Mubashara Akhtar

Publications and source records attributed to Mubashara Akhtar.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Not All Misalignment Is Alike: A Decomposed Benchmark for Emergent Misalignment

Emergent misalignment (EM), in which fine-tuning on a narrow task induces misaligned behaviour on unrelated prompts, has been demonstrated across a wide range of datasets, model families, and training setups. Yet, most studies continue to rely on the evaluation approach introduced in the original EM paper, producing rates that are sensitive to the small set of evaluation questions used, the choice of judge, and the thresholds applied. These evaluations can also conflate misalignment with capability loss and offer little insight into the specific ways misalignment manifests. Differences in datasets, models, and fine-tuning configurations further make findings difficult to compare across studies. We introduce EMERGE, a decomposed benchmark that tracks changes in eight distinct misaligned behaviours from base to fine-tuned models. It evaluates these behaviours on out-of-domain prompts against matched benign controls and tracks capability, coherence, and refusal to account for potential confounders. Applying EMERGE to 8 open-weight models and 13 fine-tuning datasets, we find that models with similar broad misalignment rates can exhibit very different behavioural profiles that a single score cannot capture. We hope EMERGE can help establish a shared and robust standard for measuring EM, making findings more comparable and helping move research from detecting the phenomenon towards understanding it.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

SkillEval: Learning Interpretable Ability Profiles of LLMs via Cognitive Diagnosis Models

Current evaluation of LLMs on benchmarks typically aggregates performance over individual examples into a single scalar score. This approach is overly coarse and ignores the diverse scope of skills covered by benchmark datasets. To address this limitation and better exploit benchmark data, we propose SkillEval, a new evaluation framework that performs cross-model, skill-level analysis. The framework integrates advances from two areas: (1) it leverages the meta-cognitive capabilities of LLMs to automatically discover interpretable skills from questions, and (2) it applies cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) from psychometrics to estimate per-skill abilities of LLMs. We conduct experiments on 3,811 LLMs evaluated on 9,523 items across five benchmarks spanning diverse domains (MATH, BBH, GPQA, MuSR, IFEval). Compared to the traditional average-based evaluation paradigm, SkillEval produces reliable, more calibrated and informative yet concise model profiles that more accurately predict model behavior on unseen items. We also demonstrate the utility of SkillEval in two downstream tasks: (1) LLM routing, which dynamically assigns each query to a capable but efficient model, reducing inference cost by over 60% while achieving improved performance, and (2) Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT), where an unseen model can be efficiently evaluated using a trained CDM. Furthermore, we show that these skill profiles provide useful insights, for example, how benchmarks share skills and how instruction-tuned models differ from their base models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

CroissantMiner: Automated Extraction and Validation of Croissant Metadata for ML Datasets

Croissant has emerged as a standard for machine-readable dataset metadata, yet populating its fields remains labor-intensive and requires careful reading of accompanying dataset documentation. We present the first benchmark enabling end-to-end evaluation of metadata extraction aligned with a community-standard schema. The benchmark comprises 602 papers, including 102 with human-validated gold annotations and 500 with LLM-generated silver annotations, covering the full Croissant schema with both core and Responsible AI (RAI) fields. Using this benchmark, we evaluate a range of extraction systems spanning frontier models, open-weight models, and agentic architectures, under a two-tier evaluation framework that combines rule-based scoring with an LLM judge selected via human audit. We find that single-pass extraction consistently outperforms the four agentic architectures we evaluate: across backbones, these decomposed variants achieve lower accuracy than a single full-context pass. The largest gap appears on long-form RAI fields, which require synthesizing and interpreting information scattered across a paper rather than copying it from a single location, a setting where current systems remain far from reliable. We release the benchmark, evaluation code, judge audit, a live demo, and a leaderboard open to new systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism to measure model progress and guide deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor remain uneven. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of social impact evaluation reporting, examining 186 first-party release reports and 248 third-party evaluation sources, supplemented by developer interviews. We find a stark division of labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and declining in areas like environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators provide broader, more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, only developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, costs, and infrastructure, yet interviews reveal these disclosures are deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or compliance. Current practices leave major gaps in assessing societal impacts, underscoring the need for policies that mandate developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure for aggregating third-party evaluations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking and Enhancing Text-to-Image Models for Generating Visual Representations in Early Arithmetic Education

AI systems are increasingly used to support educational content creation, yet it remains unclear whether they can generate outputs that faithfully represent the pedagogical concepts they are intended to teach. Thus, we introduce equation-to-visual generation, a task that, in contrast to conventional image generation, requires producing pedagogically meaningful visuals from arithmetic equations while precisely preserving their numerical and relational structure. Informed by interviews with teachers and an analysis of educational materials, we construct E2V-Bench, a benchmark spanning four pedagogically grounded visual types, along with automatic metrics for evaluating visual correctness. Our evaluation reveals that recent text-to-image (T2I) models frequently fail on this task, with errors dominated by incorrect object counts and broken relational structure. Building on this, we explore benchmark-guided enhancement strategies. These strategies improve representative models, while the remaining gap calls for stronger numerical and relational grounding in future T2I models.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Compose and Fuse: Revisiting the Foundational Bottlenecks in Multimodal Reasoning

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) promise enhanced reasoning by integrating diverse inputs such as text, vision, and audio. Yet cross-modal reasoning remains underexplored, with conflicting reports on whether added modalities help or harm performance. These inconsistencies stem from a lack of controlled evaluation frameworks and analysis of models' internals to isolate when and why modality interactions support or undermine reasoning. We address this gap through a logic-grounded evaluation framework that categorizes multimodal reasoning into six interaction patterns, varying how facts are distributed across modalities and logically combined. Empirically, additional modalities enhance reasoning only when they provide independent and sufficient reasoning paths, while redundant or chained entailment support often hurts performance. Moreover, reasoning degrades in three systematic ways: weaker modalities drag down overall performance, conflicts bias preference toward certain modalities, and joint signals from different modalities fail to be integrated effectively. Therefore, we identify two core failures: task-composition bottleneck, where recognition and reasoning cannot be jointly executed in one pass, and fusion bottleneck, where early integration introduces bias. For further investigation, we find that attention patterns fail to encode fact usefulness, but a simple two-step prompting (recognize then reason) restores performance, confirming the task-composition bottleneck. Moreover, modality identity remains recoverable in early layers, and softening attention in early fusion improves reasoning, highlighting biased fusion as another failure mode. Overall, our findings show that integration, not perception, is the main barrier to multimodal reasoning, suggesting composition-aware training and early fusion control as promising directions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ReProbe: Efficient Test-Time Scaling of Multi-Step Reasoning by Probing Internal States of Large Language Models

LLMs can solve complex tasks by generating long, multi-step reasoning chains. Test-time scaling (TTS) can further improve performance by sampling multiple variants of intermediate reasoning steps, verifying their correctness, and selecting the best steps for continuation. However, existing verification approaches, such as Process Reward Models (PRMs), are computationally expensive and require large-scale human or model-generated annotations. We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on probing the internal states of LLMs. We train a transformer-based probe that uses the internal states of a frozen LLM to estimate the credibility of its reasoning steps during generation. Annotation can be provided either by a larger LLM (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) or in a self-supervised manner by the original model itself. The probes are lightweight, containing fewer than 10M parameters. Across multiple domains, including mathematics, planning, and general knowledge question answering, our probes match or exceed the performance of PRMs that are up to 810x larger. These results suggest that LLM internal states encode confidence in their reasoning processes and can serve as reliable signals for step verification, offering a promising path toward scalable, generalizable TTS and more introspective LLMs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams

Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. To address this, we introduce LEXam, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 7,537 law exam questions in English and German. It includes both long-form, open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions with varying numbers of options. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Deploying an ensemble LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately, closely aligning with human expert assessments. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Chimera: Diagnosing Shortcut Learning in Visual-Language Understanding

Diagrams convey symbolic information in a visual format rather than a linear stream of words, making them especially challenging for AI models to process. While recent evaluations suggest that vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on diagram-related benchmarks, their reliance on knowledge, reasoning, or modality shortcuts raises concerns about whether they genuinely understand and reason over diagrams. To address this gap, we introduce Chimera, a comprehensive test suite comprising 7,500 high-quality diagrams sourced from Wikipedia; each diagram is annotated with its symbolic content represented by semantic triples along with multi-level questions designed to assess four fundamental aspects of diagram comprehension: entity recognition, relation understanding, knowledge grounding, and visual reasoning. We use Chimera to measure the presence of three types of shortcuts in visual question answering: (1) the visual-memorization shortcut, where VLMs rely on memorized visual patterns; (2) the knowledge-recall shortcut, where models leverage memorized factual knowledge instead of interpreting the diagram; and (3) the Clever-Hans shortcut, where models exploit superficial language patterns or priors without true comprehension. We evaluate 15 open-source VLMs from 7 model families on Chimera and find that their seemingly strong performance largely stems from shortcut behaviors: visual-memorization shortcuts have slight impact, knowledge-recall shortcuts play a moderate role, and Clever-Hans shortcuts contribute significantly. These findings expose critical limitations in current VLMs and underscore the need for more robust evaluation protocols that benchmark genuine comprehension of complex visual inputs (e.g., diagrams) rather than question-answering shortcuts.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Ev2R: Evaluating Evidence Retrieval in Automated Fact-Checking

Current automated fact-checking (AFC) approaches typically evaluate evidence either implicitly via the predicted verdicts or through exact matches with predefined closed knowledge sources, such as Wikipedia. However, these methods are limited due to their reliance on evaluation metrics originally designed for other purposes and constraints from closed knowledge sources. In this work, we introduce \textbf{\textcolor{skyblue}{Ev\textsuperscript{2}}\textcolor{orangebrown}{R}} which combines the strengths of reference-based evaluation and verdict-level proxy scoring. Ev\textsuperscript{2}R jointly assesses how well the evidence aligns with the gold references and how reliably it supports the verdict, addressing the shortcomings of prior methods. We evaluate Ev\textsuperscript{2}R against three types of evidence evaluation approaches: reference-based, proxy-reference, and reference-less baselines. Assessments against human ratings and adversarial tests demonstrate that Ev\textsuperscript{2}R consistently outperforms existing scoring approaches in accuracy and robustness. It achieves stronger correlation with human judgments and greater robustness to adversarial perturbations, establishing it as a reliable metric for evidence evaluation in AFC.\footnote{Code is available at \href{https://github.com/mubasharaak/fc-evidence-evaluation}{https://github.com/mubasharaak/fc-evidence-evaluation}.}

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

TANQ: An open domain dataset of table answered questions

Language models, potentially augmented with tool usage such as retrieval are becoming the go-to means of answering questions. Understanding and answering questions in real-world settings often requires retrieving information from different sources, processing and aggregating data to extract insights, and presenting complex findings in form of structured artifacts such as novel tables, charts, or infographics. In this paper, we introduce TANQ, the first open domain question answering dataset where the answers require building tables from information across multiple sources. We release the full source attribution for every cell in the resulting table and benchmark state-of-the-art language models in open, oracle, and closed book setups. Our best-performing baseline, Gemini Flash reaches an overall F1 score of 60.7, lagging behind human performance by 12.3 points. We analyse baselines' performance across different dataset attributes such as different skills required for this task, including multi-hop reasoning, math operations, and unit conversions. We further discuss common failures in model-generated answers, suggesting that TANQ is a complex task with many challenges ahead.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Croissant: A Metadata Format for ML-Ready Datasets

Data is a critical resource for machine learning (ML), yet working with data remains a key friction point. This paper introduces Croissant, a metadata format for datasets that creates a shared representation across ML tools, frameworks, and platforms. Croissant makes datasets more discoverable, portable, and interoperable, thereby addressing significant challenges in ML data management. Croissant is already supported by several popular dataset repositories, spanning hundreds of thousands of datasets, enabling easy loading into the most commonly-used ML frameworks, regardless of where the data is stored. Our initial evaluation by human raters shows that Croissant metadata is readable, understandable, complete, yet concise.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

The Automated Verification of Textual Claims (AVeriTeC) Shared Task

The Automated Verification of Textual Claims (AVeriTeC) shared task asks participants to retrieve evidence and predict veracity for real-world claims checked by fact-checkers. Evidence can be found either via a search engine, or via a knowledge store provided by the organisers. Submissions are evaluated using AVeriTeC score, which considers a claim to be accurately verified if and only if both the verdict is correct and retrieved evidence is considered to meet a certain quality threshold. The shared task received 21 submissions, 18 of which surpassed our baseline. The winning team was TUDA_MAI with an AVeriTeC score of 63%. In this paper we describe the shared task, present the full results, and highlight key takeaways from the shared task.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Standardized Machine-readable Dataset Documentation Format for Responsible AI

Data is critical to advancing AI technologies, yet its quality and documentation remain significant challenges, leading to adverse downstream effects (e.g., potential biases) in AI applications. This paper addresses these issues by introducing Croissant-RAI, a machine-readable metadata format designed to enhance the discoverability, interoperability, and trustworthiness of AI datasets. Croissant-RAI extends the Croissant metadata format and builds upon existing responsible AI (RAI) documentation frameworks, offering a standardized set of attributes and practices to facilitate community-wide adoption. Leveraging established web-publishing practices, such as Schema.org, Croissant-RAI enables dataset users to easily find and utilize RAI metadata regardless of the platform on which the datasets are published. Furthermore, it is seamlessly integrated into major data search engines, repositories, and machine learning frameworks, streamlining the reading and writing of responsible AI metadata within practitioners' existing workflows. Croissant-RAI was developed through a community-led effort. It has been designed to be adaptable to evolving documentation requirements and is supported by a Python library and a visual editor.

cs.IR↗