aiqbench analysis
This study introduces a framework prioritizing subjective human experience over standard objective benchmarks, revealing critical gaps in how current foundation models are evaluated within collaborative research workflows. By demonstrating that even advanced LLMs fail to accurately replicate nuanced human judgment, the work underscores the necessity of direct human assessment for measuring true model utility and interaction quality.
Research-Oriented Human-Centric Evaluation for Foundation Models
arXiv:2506.01793v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Most current evaluations of foundation models focus on objective benchmarks, such as knowledge coverage and reasoning accuracy, often overlooking users' subjective experiences in human-AI collaboration. To address this gap, we propose a research-oriented Human-Centric Evaluation framework. It captures user perceptions across three core dimensions: problem-solving ability, information quality, and interaction experience, providing a structured, fine-grained approach to understanding how users evaluate and respond to model behavior in multi-modal research contexts. We conduct 604 human evaluation sessions across various disciplines, involving recent advanced foundation models. Through open-ended, time-limited collaborative tasks, we gather rich subjective assessments that highlight model capabilities and user preferences. Additionally, we perform an LLM-as-a-judge experiment and find that even sophisticated models struggle to accurately replicate human subjective judgment, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of first-person human assessment. Our project link is https://github.com/yijinguo/Human-Centric-Evaluation.
Abstract:Most current evaluations of foundation models focus on objective benchmarks, such as knowledge coverage and reasoning accuracy, often overlooking users' subjective experiences in human-AI collaboration. To address this gap, we propose a research-oriented Human-Centric Evaluation framework. It captures user perceptions across three core dimensions: problem-solving ability, information quality, and interaction experience, providing a structured, fine-grained approach to understanding how users evaluate and respond to model behavior in multi-modal research contexts. We conduct 604 human evaluation sessions across various disciplines, involving recent advanced foundation models. Through open-ended, time-limited collaborative tasks, we gather rich subjective assessments that highlight model capabilities and user preferences. Additionally, we perform an LLM-as-a-judge experiment and find that even sophisticated models struggle to accurately replicate human subjective judgment, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of first-person human assessment. Our project link is this https URL.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2506.01793 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2506.01793v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.01793 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 228 words
Related coverage

2026 BAIR Graduate Showcase
BAIR Blog · Jul 1, 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026

[AINews] AEF-1 standard emerges for Third Party Evaluators, as Xai, OpenAI, and Anthropic all cosign
Latent Space · Sep 15, 2026

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026