From Raw Corpora to Domain Benchmarks: Automated Evaluation of LLM Domain Expertise

Nitin Sharma, Thomas Wolfers, Çağatay Yıldız · Jun 9, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Expert Verification Law

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Accurate domain-specific benchmarking of LLMs is essential, specifically in domains with direct implications for humans, such as law, healthcare, and education. However, existing benchmarks are documented to be contaminated and are based on multiple choice questions, which suffer from inherent biases. To measure domain-specific knowledge in LLMs, we present a deterministic pipeline that transforms raw domain corpora into completion-style benchmarks without relying on other LLMs or costly human annotation. Our approach first extracts domain-specific keywords and related target vocabulary from an input corpus. It then constructs prompt-target pairs where domain-specific words serve as prediction targets. By measuring LLMs' ability to complete these prompts, we provide a direct assessment of domain knowledge at low computational cost. Our pipeline avoids benchmark contamination, enables automated updates with new domain data, and facilitates fair comparisons between base and instruction-tuned (chat) models. We validate our approach by showing that model performances on our benchmark significantly correlate with those on an expert-curated benchmark. We then demonstrate how our benchmark provides insights into knowledge acquisition in domain-adaptive, continual, and general pretraining. Finally, we examine the effects of instruction fine-tuning by comparing base and chat models within our unified evaluation framework. In conclusion, our pipeline enables scalable, domain-specific, LLM-independent, and unbiased evaluation of both base and chat models.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

55/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.