Turkish decision-making benchmark HakemBench released with 2,346 items across seven tracks
HakemBench evaluates models on Turkish decision-making tasks including fact-check triage, legal routing, and moderation, with open-source data and a scoring harness under CC BY 4.0.
1 source · cross-referenced
- HakemBench is a new Turkish benchmark for evaluating models on typed decision-making tasks, released under CC BY 4.0.
- The benchmark includes 2,346 items and 4,275 questions across seven tracks: fact-check triage, education, guardrails, legal routing, moderation, spam and phishing, and customer support.
- A scoring harness evaluates decision quality, calibration, and selective automation, reporting composite scores and bootstrap intervals.
- Gold labels were generated via blind passes of one AI model family compared to votes from a panel of LLMs, not human-verified.
- The top composite score on the leaderboard is 0.888; the releasing lab’s model ranks 7th at 0.660.
HakemBench is a Turkish benchmark designed to evaluate models on typed decision-making tasks, where a model reads a text, a question, and a fixed set of options, then returns a probability for each option. The benchmark’s first release, version 1.0, is fully open under the CC BY 4.0 license and includes 2,346 items and 4,275 questions distributed across seven tracks: fact-check triage, education, guardrails, legal routing, moderation, spam and phishing, and customer support.
A scoring harness accompanies the benchmark to evaluate three metrics: decision quality (macro F1), calibration (via normalized Brier score), and selective automation (via normalized area under the generalized risk-coverage curve). These metrics are combined using a geometric mean, and the harness reports intervals derived from 2,000 bootstrap draws. Additional probes assess sensitivity to option order, paraphrase, English translation, and substituted names.
Gold labels for the benchmark were generated through blind passes of one AI model family, compared against the aggregated votes of a panel of large language models from other model families. The authors note that these labels are not human-verified.
The public leaderboard includes 16 entries, with the top composite score at 0.888. The releasing lab’s own model ranks 7th with a composite score of 0.660; however, the authors flag that this model’s training data was shaped by earlier runs’ test results, particularly affecting its performance in guardrail, moderation, and customer support tracks. When scored only on the other four tracks, the lab’s model achieves a composite score of 0.678, placing it 6th of 16.
- Oct 5, 2026 · arXiv cs.CL
XiangqiBench shows frontier LLMs fail in closed-loop agent evaluations despite strong static metrics
Trust79 - Oct 5, 2026 · arXiv cs.CL
Paper proposes Calibrated User Embeddings to improve multi-turn AI agent benchmarking
Trust79 - Oct 1, 2026 · Hamel Husain — applied AI engineering
Review finds Anthropic’s new auto-eval plugin pushes users to create evals before inspecting data
Trust79