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.

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.

From Similarity to Structure: Training-free LLM Context Compression with Hybrid Graph Priors

Long-context large language models remain computationally expensive to run and often fail to reliably process very long inputs, which makes context compression an important component of many systems. Existing compression approaches typically rely on trained compressors, dense retrieval-style selection, or heuristic trimming, and they often struggle to jointly preserve task relevance, topic coverage, and cross-sentence coherence under a strict token budget. To address this, we propose a training-free and model-agnostic compression framework that selects a compact set of sentences guided by structural graph priors. Our method constructs a sparse hybrid sentence graph that combines mutual k-NN semantic edges with short-range sequential edges, extracts a topic skeleton via clustering, and ranks sentences using an interpretable score that integrates task relevance, cluster representativeness, bridge centrality, and a cycle coverage cue. A budgeted greedy selection with redundancy suppression then produces a readable compressed context in original order. Experimental results on four datasets show that our approach is competitive with strong extractive and abstractive baselines, demonstrating larger gains on long-document benchmarks.

Automating Categorization of Scientific Texts with In-Context Learning and Prompt-Chaining in Large Language Models

The relentless expansion of scientific literature presents significant challenges for navigation and knowledge discovery. Within Research Information Retrieval, established tasks such as text summarization and classification remain crucial for enabling researchers and practitioners to effectively navigate this vast landscape, so that efforts have increasingly been focused on developing advanced research information systems. These systems aim not only to provide standard keyword-based search functionalities but also to incorporate capabilities for automatic content categorization within knowledge-intensive organizations across academia and industry. This study systematically evaluates the performance of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) in analyzing scientific texts according to a given classification scheme. We utilized the hierarchical ORKG taxonomy as a classification framework, employing the FORC dataset as ground truth. We investigated the effectiveness of advanced prompt engineering strategies, namely In-Context Learning (ICL) and Prompt Chaining, and experimentally explored the influence of the LLMs' temperature hyperparameter on classification accuracy. Our experiments demonstrate that Prompt Chaining yields superior classification accuracy compared to pure ICL, particularly when applied to the nested structure of the ORKG taxonomy. LLMs with prompt chaining outperform the state-of-the-art models for domain (1st level) prediction and show even better performance for subject (2nd level) prediction compared to the older BERT model. However, LLMs are not yet able to perform well in classifying the topic (3rd level) of research areas based on this specific hierarchical taxonomy, as they only reach about 50% accuracy even with prompt chaining.

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.

Sparse Personalized Text Generation with Multi-Trajectory Reasoning

As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance, personalization has become a key mechanism for tailoring outputs to individual user needs. However, most existing methods rely heavily on dense interaction histories, making them ineffective in cold-start scenarios where such data is sparse or unavailable. While external signals (e.g., content of similar users) can offer a potential remedy, leveraging them effectively remains challenging: raw context is often noisy, and existing methods struggle to reason over heterogeneous data sources. To address these issues, we introduce PAT (Personalization with Aligned Trajectories), a reasoning framework for cold-start LLM personalization. PAT first retrieves information along two complementary trajectories: writing-style cues from stylistically similar users and topic-specific context from preference-aligned users. It then employs a reinforcement learning-based, iterative dual-reasoning mechanism that enables the LLM to jointly refine and integrate these signals. Experimental results across real-world personalization benchmarks show that PAT consistently improves generation quality and alignment under sparse-data conditions, establishing a strong solution to the cold-start personalization problem.

Mix and Match: Context Pairing for Scalable Topic-Controlled Educational Summarisation

Topic-controlled summarisation enables users to generate summaries focused on specific aspects of source documents. This paper investigates a data augmentation strategy for training small language models (sLMs) to perform topic-controlled summarisation. We propose a pairwise data augmentation method that combines contexts from different documents to create contrastive training examples, enabling models to learn the relationship between topics and summaries more effectively. Using the SciTLDR dataset enriched with Wikipedia-derived topics, we systematically evaluate how augmentation scale affects model performance. Results show consistent improvements in win rate and semantic alignment as the augmentation scale increases, while the amount of real training data remains fixed. Consequently, a T5-base model trained with our augmentation approach achieves competitive performance relative to larger models, despite using significantly fewer parameters and substantially fewer real training examples.

CobwebTM: Probabilistic Concept Formation for Lifelong and Hierarchical Topic Modeling

Topic modeling seeks to uncover latent semantic structure in text corpora with minimal supervision. Neural approaches achieve strong performance but require extensive tuning and struggle with lifelong learning due to catastrophic forgetting and fixed capacity, while classical probabilistic models lack flexibility and adaptability to streaming data. We introduce \textsc{CobwebTM}, a low-parameter lifelong hierarchical topic model based on incremental probabilistic concept formation. By adapting the Cobweb algorithm to continuous document embeddings, \textsc{CobwebTM} constructs semantic hierarchies online, enabling unsupervised topic discovery, dynamic topic creation, and hierarchical organization without predefining the number of topics. Across diverse datasets, \textsc{CobwebTM} achieves strong topic coherence, stable topics over time, and high-quality hierarchies, demonstrating that incremental symbolic concept formation combined with pretrained representations is an efficient approach to topic modeling.

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.