We introduce Office Comprehension Bench (OCB), the first public benchmark to jointly evaluate LLM systems on Word, Excel, and PowerPoint comprehension over native file formats (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) and their variants. OCB consists of two tracks. File Fidelity Q A tests structural and visual perception of office artifacts — tables, charts, embedded images, formulas, and app-specific elements such as headers, speaker notes, and named ranges. Domain Q A tests expert-level reasoning grounded in real-world industry documents across 12 professional domains, with queries requiring multi-step analysis and synthesis across documents. Each reference answer is decomposed into atomic, binary-gradable claims, and an ensemble of LLM judges scores responses against each claim independently. Even the strongest frontier system in its default reasoning mode reaches only ~59.3% on Domain Q A; increasing thinking depth within a tier does not move performance materially, while moving to a higher product tier yields modest gains. We release the dataset, evaluation tooling, judge prompt, and a public leaderboard.

As researchers increasingly adopt LLMs as writing assistants, generating high-quality research paper introductions remains both challenging and essential. In this work, we benchmark Scientific Introduction Generation (SciIG), evaluating how well LLMs can produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works in the machine learning domain. Curating new datasets from NAACL 2025 and ICLR 2025 papers, we assess five state-of-the-art models, including both open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA-4 Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems across multiple dimensions: lexical overlap, semantic similarity, content coverage, faithfulness, consistency, citation correctness, and narrative quality. Our comprehensive framework combines automated metrics with LLM-as-a-judge evaluations. Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick’s superior performance on most metrics, particularly in lexical overlap, content coverage, citation quality, and perplexity. Moreover, three-shot prompting outperforms fewer-shot approaches more than 50% of the time on formula-based automated metrics and performs consistently better on all human evaluation metrics. These findings provide practical insights into developing effective research writing assistants and set realistic expectations for LLM-assisted academic writing. To foster reproducibility and future research, we publicly release all code and datasets.[Project page, code, and datasets: <https://kgarg8.github.io/emnlp26-sciig/>]

Scientific Natural Language Inference (NLI) is the task of predicting the semantic relation between a pair of sentences extracted from research articles. Existing datasets for this task are derived from various computer science (CS) domains, whereas non-CS domains are completely ignored. In this paper, we introduce a novel evaluation benchmark for scientific NLI, called MisMatched. The new MisMatched benchmark covers three non-CS domains–Psychology, Engineering, and Public Health, and contains 2,700 human annotated sentence pairs. We establish strong baselines on MisMatched using both Pre-trained Small Language Models (SLMs) and Large Language Models (LLMs). Our best performing baseline shows a Macro F1 of only 78.17% illustrating the substantial headroom for future improvements. In addition to introducing the MisMatched benchmark, we show that incorporating sentence pairs having an implicit scientific NLI relation between them in model training improves their performance on scientific NLI. We make our dataset and code publicly available on GitHub.