翻訳待ち：Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary
AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。ソース概要：arXiv:2608.04240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness.
AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。
--> [Submitted on 4 Aug 2026] Title:Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary View a PDF of the paper titled Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary, by S. Ashwin Hebbar and 3 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness. Comments: 23 pages, 6 figures Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2608.04240 [cs.CL] (or arXiv:2608.04240v1 [cs.CL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.04240 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) Submission history From: S Ashwin Hebbar [view email] [v1] Tue, 4 Aug 2026 21:31:01 UTC (1,272 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary, by S. Ashwin Hebbar and 3 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.CL new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: 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 Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators 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. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)