Who Defines "Best"? Towards Interactive, User-Defined Evaluation of LLM Leaderboards

LLM leaderboards are widely used to compare models and guide deployment decisions. However, leaderboard rankings are shaped by evaluation priorities set by benchmark designers, rather than by the diverse goals and constraints of actual users and organizations. A single aggregate score often obscures how models behave across different prompt types and compositions. In this work, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the dataset used in the LMArena (formerly Chatbot Arena) benchmark and investigate this evaluation challenge by designing an interactive visualization interface as a design probe. Our analysis reveals that the dataset is heavily skewed toward certain topics, that model rankings vary across prompt slices, and that preference-based judgments are used in ways that blur their intended scope. Building on this analysis, we introduce a visualization interface that allows users to define their own evaluation priorities by selecting and weighting prompt slices and to explore how rankings change accordingly. A qualitative study suggests that this interactive approach improves transparency and supports more context-specific model evaluation, pointing toward alternative ways to design and use LLM leaderboards.

Peer Identity Bias in Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation: An Empirical Study Using the TRUST Democratic Discourse Analysis Pipeline

The TRUST democratic discourse analysis pipeline exposes its large language model (LLM) components to peer model identity through multiple structural channels -- a design feature whose bias implications have not previously been empirically tested. We provide the first systematic measurement of identity-dependent scoring bias across all active identity exposure channels in TRUST, crossing four model families with two anonymization scopes across 30 political statements. The central finding is that single-channel anonymization produces near-zero bias effects, because individual channels act in opposite directions and cancel each other out -- a result that would lead an evaluator to conclude that identity bias is absent when it is not. Only full-pipeline anonymization reveals the true pattern: homogeneous ensembles amplify identity-driven sycophancy when model identity is fully visible, while the heterogeneous production configuration shows the reverse. Model choice matters independently: one tested model exhibits baseline sycophancy two to three times higher than the others and near-zero deliberative conflict on ideological topics, making it structurally unsuitable for pipelines where genuine inter-role disagreement is the intended quality mechanism. Three practical conclusions follow. First, heterogeneous model ensembles are structurally more robust than homogeneous ones, achieving higher consensus rates and lower identity amplification. Second, full-pipeline anonymization is required for valid bias measurement -- partial anonymization is insufficient and actively misleading. Third, these findings have direct implications for the validation of multi-agent LLM systems in quality-critical applications: a system validated under partial anonymization or with a homogeneous ensemble may pass validation while retaining structural identity bias invisible to single-channel measurement.

Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Coercion

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Probably Approximately Consensus: On the Learning Theory of Finding Common Ground

A primary goal of online deliberation platforms is to identify ideas that are broadly agreeable to a community of users through their expressed preferences. Yet, consensus elicitation should ideally extend beyond the specific statements provided by users and should incorporate the relative salience of particular topics. We address this issue by modelling consensus as an interval in a one-dimensional opinion space derived from potentially high-dimensional data via embedding and dimensionality reduction. We define an objective that maximizes expected agreement within a hypothesis interval where the expectation is over an underlying distribution of issues, implicitly taking into account their salience. We propose an efficient Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) algorithm and establish PAC-learning guarantees. Our initial experiments demonstrate the performance of our algorithm and examine more efficient approaches to identifying optimal consensus regions. We find that through selectively querying users on an existing sample of statements, we can reduce the number of queries needed to a practical number.

Preference Heads in Large Language Models: A Mechanistic Framework for Interpretable Personalization

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong implicit personalization ability, yet most existing approaches treat this behavior as a black box, relying on prompt engineering or fine tuning on user data. In this work, we adopt a mechanistic interpretability perspective and hypothesize the existence of a sparse set of Preference Heads, attention heads that encode user specific stylistic and topical preferences and exert a causal influence on generation. We introduce Differential Preference Steering (DPS), a training free framework that (1) identifies Preference Heads through causal masking analysis and (2) leverages them for controllable and interpretable personalization at inference time. DPS computes a Preference Contribution Score (PCS) for each attention head, directly measuring its causal impact on user aligned outputs. During decoding, we contrast model predictions with and without Preference Heads, amplifying the difference between personalized and generic logits to selectively strengthen preference aligned continuations. Experiments on widely used personalization benchmarks across multiple LLMs demonstrate consistent gains in personalization fidelity while preserving content coherence and low computational overhead. Beyond empirical improvements, DPS provides a mechanistic explanation of where and how personalization emerges within transformer architectures. Our implementation is publicly available.

Superminds Test: Actively Evaluating Collective Intelligence of Agent Society via Probing Agents

Collective intelligence refers to the ability of a group to achieve outcomes beyond what any individual member can accomplish alone. As large language model agents scale to populations of millions, a key question arises: Does collective intelligence emerge spontaneously from scale? We present the first empirical evaluation of this question in a large-scale autonomous agent society. Studying MoltBook, a platform hosting over two million agents, we introduce Superminds Test, a hierarchical framework that probes society-level intelligence using controlled Probing Agents across three tiers: joint reasoning, information synthesis, and basic interaction. Our experiments reveal a stark absence of collective intelligence. The society fails to outperform individual frontier models on complex reasoning tasks, rarely synthesizes distributed information, and often fails even trivial coordination tasks. Platform-wide analysis further shows that interactions remain shallow, with threads rarely extending beyond a single reply and most responses being generic or off-topic. These results suggest that collective intelligence does not emerge from scale alone. Instead, the dominant limitation of current agent societies is extremely sparse and shallow interaction, which prevents agents from exchanging information and building on each other's outputs.

Explainable Disentangled Representation Learning for Generalizable Authorship Attribution in the Era of Generative AI

Learning robust representations of authorial style is crucial for authorship attribution and AI-generated text detection. However, existing methods often struggle with content-style entanglement, where models learn spurious correlations between authors' writing styles and topics, leading to poor generalization across domains. To address this challenge, we propose Explainable Authorship Variational Autoencoder (EAVAE), a novel framework that explicitly disentangles style from content through architectural separation-by-design. EAVAE first pretrains style encoders using supervised contrastive learning on diverse authorship data, then finetunes with a Variational Autoencoder (VEA) architecture using separate encoders for style and content representations. Disentanglement is enforced through a novel discriminator that not only distinguishes whether pairs of style/content representations belong to the same or different authors/content sources, but also generates natural language explanation for their decision, simultaneously mitigating confounding information and enhancing interpretability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of EAVAE. On authorship attribution, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on various datasets, including Amazon Reviews, PAN21, and HRS. For AI-generated text detection, EAVAE excels in few-shot learning over the M4 dataset. Code and data repositories are available online\footnote{https://github.com/hieum98/avae} \footnote{https://huggingface.co/collections/Hieuman/document-level-authorship-datasets}.

Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $ρ= 0.04$ (57\% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($ρ= 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

Proposing Topic Models and Evaluation Frameworks for Analyzing Associations with External Outcomes: An Application to Leadership Analysis Using Large-Scale Corporate Review Data

Analyzing topics extracted from text data in relation to external outcomes is important across fields such as computational social science and organizational research. However, existing topic modeling methods struggle to simultaneously achieve interpretability, topic specificity (alignment with concrete actions or characteristics), and polarity stance consistency (absence of mixed positive and negative evaluations within a topic). Focusing on leadership analysis using corporate review data, this study proposes a method leveraging large language models to generate topics that satisfy these properties, along with an evaluation framework tailored to external outcome analysis. The framework explicitly incorporates topic specificity and polarity stance consistency as evaluation criteria and examines automated evaluation methods based on existing metrics. Using employee reviews from OpenWork, a major corporate review platform in Japan, the proposed method achieves improved interpretability, specificity, and polarity consistency compared to existing approaches. In analyses of external outcomes such as employee morale, it also produces topics with higher explanatory power. These results suggest that the proposed method and evaluation framework provide a generalized approach for topic analysis in applications involving external outcomes.

Can QPP Choose the Right Query Variant? Evaluating Query Variant Selection for RAG Pipelines

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made query reformulation ubiquitous in modern retrieval and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, enabling the generation of multiple semantically equivalent query variants. However, executing the full pipeline for every reformulation is computationally expensive, motivating selective execution: can we identify the best query variant before incurring downstream retrieval and generation costs? We investigate Query Performance Prediction (QPP) as a mechanism for variant selection across ad-hoc retrieval and end-to-end RAG. Unlike traditional QPP, which estimates query difficulty across topics, we study intra-topic discrimination - selecting the optimal reformulation among competing variants of the same information need. Through large-scale experiments on TREC-RAG using both sparse and dense retrievers, we evaluate pre- and post-retrieval predictors under correlation- and decision-based metrics. Our results reveal a systematic divergence between retrieval and generation objectives: variants that maximize ranking metrics such as nDCG often fail to produce the best generated answers, exposing a "utility gap" between retrieval relevance and generation fidelity. Nevertheless, QPP can reliably identify variants that improve end-to-end quality over the original query. Notably, lightweight pre-retrieval predictors frequently match or outperform more expensive post-retrieval methods, offering a latency-efficient approach to robust RAG.