Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 27 Mar 2026] Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation Xue Liu, Xin Ma, Yuxin Ma, Yongchang Peng, Duo Wang, Zhoufutu Wen, Ge Zhang, Kaiyuan Zhang, Xinyu Chen, Tianci He, Jiani Hou, Liang Hu, Ziyun Huang, Yongzhe Hui, Jianpeng Jiao, Chennan Ju, Yingru Kong, Yiran Li, Mengyun Liu, Luyao Ma, Fei Ni, Yiqing Ni, Yueyan Qiu, Yanle Ren, Zilin Shi, Zaiyuan Wang, Wenjie Yue, Shiyu Zhang, Xinyi Zhang, Kaiwen Zhao, Zhenwei Zhu As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2604.02368 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.02368v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.02368 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yuxin Ma [view email] [v1] Fri, 27 Mar 2026 11:28:15 UTC (1,172 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)