Daily Papers

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence in legal natural language processing demands scalable methods for evaluating text extraction from judicial decisions. This study evaluates 16 unsupervised metrics, including novel formulations, to assess the quality of extracting seven semantic blocks from 1,000 anonymized Russian judicial decisions, validated against 7,168 expert reviews on a 1--5 Likert scale. These metrics, spanning document-based, semantic, structural, pseudo-ground truth, and legal-specific categories, operate without pre-annotated ground truth. Bootstrapped correlations, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and mean absolute error (MAE) reveal that Term Frequency Coherence (Pearson r = 0.540, Lin CCC = 0.512, MAE = 0.127) and Coverage Ratio/Block Completeness (Pearson r = 0.513, Lin CCC = 0.443, MAE = 0.139) best align with expert ratings, while Legal Term Density (Pearson r = -0.479, Lin CCC = -0.079, MAE = 0.394) show strong negative correlations. The LLM Evaluation Score (mean = 0.849, Pearson r = 0.382, Lin CCC = 0.325, MAE = 0.197) showed moderate alignment, but its performance, using gpt-4.1-mini via g4f, suggests limited specialization for legal textse. These findings highlight that unsupervised metrics, including LLM-based approaches, enable scalable screening but, with moderate correlations and low CCC values, cannot fully replace human judgment in high-stakes legal contexts. This work advances legal NLP by providing annotation-free evaluation tools, with implications for judicial analytics and ethical AI deployment.

The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited post hoc to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning--an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.

In this work, we study the issue of reward hacking on the response length, a challenge emerging in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) on LLMs. A well-formatted, verbose but less helpful response from the LLMs can often deceive LLMs or even human evaluators to achieve high scores. The same issue also holds for some reward models in RL. To address the challenges in both training and evaluation, we establish a more reliable evaluation protocol for comparing different training configurations, which inspects the trade-off between LLM evaluation score and response length obtained by varying training hyperparameters. Based on this evaluation, we conduct large-scale studies, where the results shed insights into the efficacy of hyperparameters and tricks used in RL on mitigating length bias. We further propose to improve the reward model by jointly training two linear heads on shared feature representations to predict the rewards, one trained to correlate with length, and the other trained to decorrelate with length and therefore focus more on the actual content. We then discard the length head in RL to prevent reward hacking on length. Experiments demonstrate that our approach almost eliminates the reward correlation with length, and improves the obtained policy by a significant margin.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In the context of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, we show that pairwise protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

Current evaluation paradigms for large language models (LLMs) represent a critical blind spot in AI research--relying on opaque numerical metrics that conceal fundamental limitations in spatial reasoning while providing no intuitive understanding of model capabilities. This deficiency creates a dangerous disconnect between reported performance and practical abilities, particularly for applications requiring physical world understanding. We introduce LTD-Bench, a breakthrough benchmark that transforms LLM evaluation from abstract scores to directly observable visual outputs by requiring models to generate drawings through dot matrices or executable code. This approach makes spatial reasoning limitations immediately apparent even to non-experts, bridging the fundamental gap between statistical performance and intuitive assessment. LTD-Bench implements a comprehensive methodology with complementary generation tasks (testing spatial imagination) and recognition tasks (assessing spatial perception) across three progressively challenging difficulty levels, methodically evaluating both directions of the critical language-spatial mapping. Our extensive experiments with state-of-the-art models expose an alarming capability gap: even LLMs achieving impressive results on traditional benchmarks demonstrate profound deficiencies in establishing bidirectional mappings between language and spatial concept--a fundamental limitation that undermines their potential as genuine world models. Furthermore, LTD-Bench's visual outputs enable powerful diagnostic analysis, offering a potential approach to investigate model similarity.

One of the most widely used tasks to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) is Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA). While open-ended question answering tasks are more challenging to evaluate, MCQA tasks are, in principle, easier to assess, as the model's answer is thought to be simple to extract and is directly compared to a set of predefined choices. However, recent studies have started to question the reliability of MCQA evaluation, showing that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs, especially when the model generates free-form text before selecting one of the answer choices. In this work, we shed light on the inconsistencies of MCQA evaluation strategies, which can lead to inaccurate and misleading model comparisons. We systematically analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment, and how they are influenced by answer constraints in the prompt across different domains. Our experiments demonstrate that traditional evaluation strategies often underestimate LLM capabilities, while LLM-based answer extractors are prone to systematic errors. Moreover, we reveal a fundamental trade-off between including format constraints in the prompt to simplify answer extraction and allowing models to generate free-form text to improve reasoning. Our findings call for standardized evaluation methodologies and highlight the need for more reliable and consistent MCQA evaluation practices.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has established standardized evaluation benchmarks as the primary instrument for model comparison. Yet, their reliability is increasingly questioned due to sensitivity to shallow variations in input prompts. This paper examines how controlled, truth-conditionally equivalent lexical and syntactic perturbations affect the absolute performance and relative ranking of 23 contemporary LLMs across three benchmarks: MMLU, SQuAD, and AMEGA. We employ two linguistically principled pipelines to generate meaning-preserving variations: one performing synonym substitution for lexical changes, and another using dependency parsing to determine applicable syntactic transformations. Results show that lexical perturbations consistently induce substantial, statistically significant performance degradation across nearly all models and tasks, while syntactic perturbations have more heterogeneous effects, occasionally improving results. Both perturbation types destabilize model leaderboards on complex tasks. Furthermore, model robustness did not consistently scale with model size, revealing strong task dependence. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs rely more on surface-level lexical patterns than on abstract linguistic competence, underscoring the need for robustness testing as a standard component of LLM evaluation.

As the demand for comprehensive evaluations of diverse model capabilities steadily increases, benchmark suites have correspondingly grown significantly in scale. Despite notable advances in redundancy reduction and subset-level performance prediction, a systematic framework that effectively integrates these methods to ensure both prediction accuracy and ranking consistency is still largely elusive. In this paper, we first perform a sample-level analysis of benchmark redundancy and identify several highly similar samples that can be eliminated. Besides, we frame benchmark compression as an optimization problem with the aim of score reconstruction. Building on these, we then propose EssenceBench, a coarse-to-fine framework utilizing an iterative Genetic Algorithm (GA), which takes the advantages of fitness-based subset search and attribution-based sample search. Compared to previous methods, our approach yields superior compression results with lower reconstruction error and markedly higher efficiency. In particular, on the HellaSwag benchmark (10K samples), our method preserves the ranking of all models shifting within 5% using 25x fewer samples, and achieves 95% ranking preservation shifting within 5% using only 200x fewer samples.

Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down. But the judge is itself a model behind an API, and a silent version bump or scoring-prompt update changes how it scores -- so every drift alarm is ambiguous between a worse product and a changed judge. We resolve the ambiguity with a fixed, human-labeled anchor set that the current judge re-scores at a steady interleave, a second betting e-process on the judge-versus-human gap, and a guard-window rule returning a verdict in {none, system, judge}. We prove anytime-validity, one-way identification (only the judge can move the anchors), an attribution race whose design law is that the anchors must out-run the main process they guard, and process orthogonality. On two real judge changes, a silent version bump is detected as judge drift in 60/60 runs with zero judge-to-system misattribution, and a contaminating strict-prompt change is correctly attributed on 110 of 120 runs at guard width 300 -- while the industry-default rolling z-test false-alarms on 75% of drift-free streams. Every experiment replicates on a second domain (TL;DR summarization) with nothing re-tuned, and where the domains differ the differences are the ones the race predicts: the strict-prompt change shifts scores harder there, so the anchors fire faster and attribution becomes perfect (240/240). The monitor runs at approximately 0.64 of the cost of strong-judging every item, or 0.21 in a cheaper-but-deafer regime.

We introduce JP-TL-Bench, a lightweight, open benchmark designed to guide the iterative development of Japanese-English translation systems. In this context, the challenge is often "which of these two good translations is better?" rather than "is this translation acceptable?" This distinction matters for Japanese-English, where subtle choices in politeness, implicature, ellipsis, and register strongly affect perceived naturalness. JP-TL-Bench uses a protocol built to make LLM judging both reliable and affordable: it evaluates a candidate model via reference-free, pairwise LLM comparisons against a fixed, versioned anchor set. Pairwise results are aggregated with a Bradley-Terry model and reported as win rates plus a normalized 0-10 "LT" score derived from a logistic transform of fitted log-strengths. Because each candidate is scored against the same frozen anchor set, scores are structurally stable given the same base set, judge, and aggregation code.

Techniques for reliable rubric-based LLM evaluation -- ensemble judging, bias mitigation, few-shot calibration -- are scattered across papers with inconsistent terminology and partial implementations. We introduce Autorubric, an open-source framework that unifies these rubric-based LLM evaluation lessons with opinionated defaults: analytic rubrics with binary, ordinal, and nominal criteria; single-judge and ensemble evaluation; few-shot calibration; bias mitigations; and psychometric reliability metrics. We validate on three benchmarks: RiceChem (college chemistry grading, 80\% accuracy with 5-shot calibration), ResearcherBench (deep research evaluation, 931 criteria, cross-judge agreement analysis), and CHARM-100, a new chatbot evaluation dataset combining all three criterion types with ground truth labels (87\% binary accuracy, moderate-to-substantial κ). Beyond measurement, per-criterion scores and explanations serve as optimization signals. We demonstrate how Autorubric's rubric-evaluation explanations raise a peer review agent's score from 0.47 to 0.85 (above the 0.82 expert-curated baseline), and its scores serve as RL rewards to produce statistically significant improvement on AdvancedIF (+0.039, Wilcoxon p = 0.032) with positive transfer to IFEval. In all of these cases, Autorubric enabled us to rapidly operationalize various rubric design choices and best practices with minimal effort.

We present an ongoing initiative to provide open, very large, high-quality, and richly annotated textual datasets for almost 200 languages. At 30 trillion tokens, this is likely the largest generally available multilingual collection of LLM pre-training data. These datasets are derived from web crawls from different sources and accompanied with a complete, open-source pipeline for document selection from web archives, text extraction from HTML, language identification for noisy texts, exact and near-deduplication, annotation with, among others, register labels, text quality estimates, and personally identifiable information; and final selection and filtering. We report on data quality probes through contrastive and analytical statistics, through manual inspection of samples for 24 languages, and through end-to-end evaluation of various language model architectures trained on this data. For multilingual LLM evaluation, we provide a comprehensive collection of benchmarks for nine European languages, with special emphasis on natively created tasks, mechanisms to mitigate prompt sensitivity, and refined normalization and aggregation of scores. Additionally, we train and evaluate a family of 57 monolingual encoder-decoder models, as well as a handful of monolingual GPT-like reference models. Besides the monolingual data and models, we also present a very large collection of parallel texts automatically mined from this data, together with a novel parallel corpus synthesized via machine translation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and sometimes trained using automated graders such as LLM-as-judges that output scalar scores or preferences. While convenient, these approaches are often opaque: a single score rarely explains why an answer is good or bad, which requirements were missed, or how a system should be improved. This lack of interpretability limits their usefulness for model development, dataset curation, and high-stakes deployment. Query-specific rubric-based evaluation offers a more transparent alternative by decomposing quality into explicit, checkable criteria. However, manually designing high-quality, query-specific rubrics is labor-intensive and cognitively demanding and not feasible for deployment. While previous approaches have focused on generating intermediate rubrics for automated downstream evaluation, it is unclear if these rubrics are both interpretable and effective for human users. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs can generate useful, instance-specific rubrics as compared to human-authored rubrics, while also improving effectiveness for identifying good responses. Through our systematic study on two rubric benchmarks, and on multiple few-shot and post-training strategies, we find that off-the-shelf LLMs produce rubrics that are poorly aligned with human-authored ones. We introduce a simple strategy, RubricRAG, which retrieves domain knowledge via rubrics at inference time from related queries. We demonstrate that RubricRAG can generate more interpretable rubrics both for similarity to human-authored rubrics, and for improved downstream evaluation effectiveness. Our results highlight both the challenges and a promising approach of scalable, interpretable evaluation through automated rubric generation.

Evaluating production LLM responses and routing requests across providers in LLM gateways requires fine-grained quality signals and operationally grounded decisions. To address this gap, we present SEAR, a schema-based evaluation and routing system for multi-model, multi-provider LLM gateways. SEAR defines an extensible relational schema covering both LLM evaluation signals (context, intent, response characteristics, issue attribution, and quality scores) and gateway operational metrics (latency, cost, throughput), with cross-table consistency links across around one hundred typed, SQL-queryable columns. To populate the evaluation signals reliably, SEAR proposes self-contained signal instructions, in-schema reasoning, and multi-stage generation that produces database-ready structured outputs. Because signals are derived through LLM reasoning rather than shallow classifiers, SEAR captures complex request semantics, enables human-interpretable routing explanations, and unifies evaluation and routing in a single query layer. Across thousands of production sessions, SEAR achieves strong signal accuracy on human-labeled data and supports practical routing decisions, including large cost reductions with comparable quality.

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores. Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions, and an LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback together with calibrated overall scores. This decomposition makes evaluation easier to inspect, easier to diagnose, and directly usable for prompt improvement. Across SummEval, Topical-Chat, and QAGS, BINEVAL matches or outperforms strong baselines including UniEval and G-Eval, with especially strong results on factual consistency benchmarks such as QAGS. Beyond competitive correlation with human judgments, BINEVAL better matches human score distributions and avoids the ceiling effects common in prior LLM judges, leading to better discrimination between borderline and clearly flawed outputs. We further show that the same question-level feedback supports iterative prompt optimization, improving evaluator prompts on summarization and generation prompts on IFBench under both self-update and cross-model update settings. Overall, BINEVAL provides a task-agnostic, training-free, and interpretable evaluation framework that combines strong empirical performance with practical diagnostic and optimization value.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable for evaluating writing. However, text feedback they provide is often unintelligible, generic, and not specific to user criteria. Inspired by structured rubrics in education and intelligible AI explanations, we propose iRULER following identified design guidelines to scaffold the review process by specific criteria, providing justification for score selection, and offering actionable revisions to target different quality levels. To qualify user-defined criteria, we recursively used iRULER with a rubric-of-rubrics to iteratively refine rubrics. In controlled experiments on writing revision and rubric creation, iRULER most improved validated LLM-judged review scores and was perceived as most helpful and aligned compared to read-only rubric and text-based LLM feedback. Qualitative findings further support how iRULER satisfies the design guidelines for user-defined feedback. This work contributes interactive rubric tools for intelligible LLM-based review and revision of writing, and user-defined rubric creation.

Given the widespread adoption and usage of Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to have flexible and interpretable evaluations of their instruction-following ability. Preference judgments between model outputs have become the de facto evaluation standard, despite distilling complex, multi-faceted preferences into a single ranking. Furthermore, as human annotation is slow and costly, LLMs are increasingly used to make these judgments, at the expense of reliability and interpretability. In this work, we propose TICK (Targeted Instruct-evaluation with ChecKlists), a fully automated, interpretable evaluation protocol that structures evaluations with LLM-generated, instruction-specific checklists. We first show that, given an instruction, LLMs can reliably produce high-quality, tailored evaluation checklists that decompose the instruction into a series of YES/NO questions. Each question asks whether a candidate response meets a specific requirement of the instruction. We demonstrate that using TICK leads to a significant increase (46.4% to 52.2%) in the frequency of exact agreements between LLM judgements and human preferences, as compared to having an LLM directly score an output. We then show that STICK (Self-TICK) can be used to improve generation quality across multiple benchmarks via self-refinement and Best-of-N selection. STICK self-refinement on LiveBench reasoning tasks leads to an absolute gain of +7.8%, whilst Best-of-N selection with STICK attains +6.3% absolute improvement on the real-world instruction dataset, WildBench. In light of this, structured, multi-faceted self-improvement is shown to be a promising way to further advance LLM capabilities. Finally, by providing LLM-generated checklists to human evaluators tasked with directly scoring LLM responses to WildBench instructions, we notably increase inter-annotator agreement (0.194 to 0.256).

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

This paper bridges internal and external analysis approaches to large language models (LLMs) by demonstrating that geometric properties of internal model representations serve as reliable proxies for evaluating generated text quality. We validate a set of metrics including Maximum Explainable Variance, Effective Rank, Intrinsic Dimensionality, MAUVE score, and Schatten Norms measured across different layers of LLMs, demonstrating that Intrinsic Dimensionality and Effective Rank can serve as universal assessments of text naturalness and quality. Our key finding reveals that different models consistently rank text from various sources in the same order based on these geometric properties, indicating that these metrics reflect inherent text characteristics rather than model-specific artifacts. This allows a reference-free text quality evaluation that does not require human-annotated datasets, offering practical advantages for automated evaluation pipelines.

Reliable evaluation is essential for developing and deploying large language models, yet in practice it often requires substantial manual effort: practitioners must identify appropriate benchmarks, reproduce heterogeneous evaluation codebases, configure dataset schema mappings, and interpret aggregated metrics. To address these challenges, we present One-Eval, an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language evaluation requests into executable, traceable, and customizable evaluation workflows. One-Eval integrates (i) NL2Bench for intent structuring and personalized benchmark planning, (ii) BenchResolve for benchmark resolution, automatic dataset acquisition, and schema normalization to ensure executability, and (iii) Metrics \& Reporting for task-aware metric selection and decision-oriented reporting beyond scalar scores. The system further incorporates human-in-the-loop checkpoints for review, editing, and rollback, while preserving sample evidence trails for debugging and auditability. Experiments show that One-Eval can execute end-to-end evaluations from diverse natural-language requests with minimal user effort, supporting more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings. Our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/One-Eval.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. This underscores the need for robust evaluation methodologies to accurately assess LLM-based applications. Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation. Recent research has explored leveraging LLMs to mimic human reasoning and decision-making processes for evaluation purposes known as LLM-as-a-judge framework. However, these existing frameworks have two significant limitations. First, they lack the flexibility to adapt to different text styles, including various answer and ground truth styles, thereby reducing their generalization performance. Second, the evaluation scores produced by these frameworks are often skewed and hard to interpret, showing a low correlation with human judgment. To address these challenges, we propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications. This system iteratively refines evaluation prompts and balances the trade-off between the adaptive requirements of downstream tasks and the alignment with human perception. Our experimental results show that the proposed multi-agent LLM Judge framework not only enhances evaluation accuracy compared to existing methods but also produces evaluation scores that better align with human perception.

Standard LLM evaluation practices compress diverse abilities into single scores, obscuring their inherently multidimensional nature. We present JE-IRT, a geometric item-response framework that embeds both LLMs and questions in a shared space. For question embeddings, the direction encodes semantics and the norm encodes difficulty, while correctness on each question is determined by the geometric interaction between the model and question embeddings. This geometry replaces a global ranking of LLMs with topical specialization and enables smooth variation across related questions. Building on this framework, our experimental results reveal that out-of-distribution behavior can be explained through directional alignment, and that larger norms consistently indicate harder questions. Moreover, JE-IRT naturally supports generalization: once the space is learned, new LLMs are added by fitting a single embedding. The learned space further reveals an LLM-internal taxonomy that only partially aligns with human-defined subject categories. JE-IRT thus establishes a unified and interpretable geometric lens that connects LLM abilities with the structure of questions, offering a distinctive perspective on model evaluation and generalization.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for financial applications, yet their suitability for this high-stakes domain remains largely unproven due to inadequacies in existing benchmarks. Existing benchmarks solely rely on score-level evaluation, summarizing performance with a single score that obscures the nuanced understanding of what models truly know and their precise limitations. They also rely on datasets that cover only a narrow subset of financial concepts, while overlooking other essentials for real-world applications. To address these gaps, we introduce FinCDM, the first cognitive diagnosis evaluation framework tailored for financial LLMs, enabling the evaluation of LLMs at the knowledge-skill level, identifying what financial skills and knowledge they have or lack based on their response patterns across skill-tagged tasks, rather than a single aggregated number. We construct CPA-QKA, the first cognitively informed financial evaluation dataset derived from the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) examination, with comprehensive coverage of real-world accounting and financial skills. It is rigorously annotated by domain experts, who author, validate, and annotate questions with high inter-annotator agreement and fine-grained knowledge labels. Our extensive experiments on 30 proprietary, open-source, and domain-specific LLMs show that FinCDM reveals hidden knowledge gaps, identifies under-tested areas such as tax and regulatory reasoning overlooked by traditional benchmarks, and uncovers behavioral clusters among models. FinCDM introduces a new paradigm for financial LLM evaluation by enabling interpretable, skill-aware diagnosis that supports more trustworthy and targeted model development, and all datasets and evaluation scripts will be publicly released to support further research.

LLM-as-a-judge is a framework in which a large language model (LLM) automatically evaluates the output of another LLM. We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to human scores in a given domain using regression models. The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge by using the judge's textual evaluation and score. We present four quantitative judges for different types of absolute and relative feedback, which showcases the generality and versatility of our framework. Our framework is more computationally efficient than supervised fine-tuning and can be more statistically efficient when human feedback is limited, which is expected in most applications of our work. We validate these claims empirically on four datasets using two base judges. Our experiments show that quantitative judges can effectively improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.

Game-theoretic interactions between agents with Large Language Models (LLMs) have revealed many emergent capabilities, yet the linguistic diversity of these interactions has not been sufficiently quantified. In this paper, we present the Conversational Robustness Evaluation Score: CORE, a metric to quantify the effectiveness of language use within multi-agent systems across different game-theoretic interactions. CORE integrates measures of cluster entropy, lexical repetition, and semantic similarity, providing a direct lens of dialog quality. We apply CORE to pairwise LLM dialogs across competitive, cooperative, and neutral settings, further grounding our analysis in Zipf's and Heaps' Laws to characterize word frequency distributions and vocabulary growth. Our findings show that cooperative settings exhibit both steeper Zipf distributions and higher Heap exponents, indicating more repetition alongside greater vocabulary expansion. In contrast, competitive interactions display lower Zipf and Heaps exponents, reflecting less repetition and more constrained vocabularies. These results provide new insights into how social incentives influence language adaptation, and highlight CORE as a robust diagnostic for measuring linguistic robustness in multi-agent LLM systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/psyonp/core.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design. In this work, we investigate whether smaller models can serve as efficient evaluators by leveraging internal representations instead of surface generation. We uncover a consistent empirical pattern: small LMs, despite with weak generative ability, encode rich evaluative signals in their hidden states. This motivates us to propose the Semantic Capacity Asymmetry Hypothesis: evaluation requires significantly less semantic capacity than generation and can be grounded in intermediate representations, suggesting that evaluation does not necessarily need to rely on large-scale generative models but can instead leverage latent features from smaller ones. Our findings motivate a paradigm shift from LLM-as-a-Judge to Representation-as-a-Judge, a decoding-free evaluation strategy that probes internal model structure rather than relying on prompted output. We instantiate this paradigm through INSPECTOR, a probing-based framework that predicts aspect-level evaluation scores from small model representations. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH, GPQA) show that INSPECTOR substantially outperforms prompting-based small LMs and closely approximates full LLM judges, while offering a more efficient, reliable, and interpretable alternative for scalable evaluation.

RAG systems are increasingly evaluated and optimized using LLM judges, an approach that is rapidly becoming the dominant paradigm for system assessment. Nugget-based approaches in particular are now embedded not only in evaluation frameworks but also in the architectures of RAG systems themselves. While this integration can lead to genuine improvements, it also creates a risk of faulty measurements due to circularity. In this paper, we investigate this risk through comparative experiments with nugget-based RAG systems, including Ginger and Crucible, against strong baselines such as GPT-Researcher. By deliberately modifying Crucible to generate outputs optimized for an LLM judge, we show that near-perfect evaluation scores can be achieved when elements of the evaluation - such as prompt templates or gold nuggets - are leaked or can be predicted. Our results highlight the importance of blind evaluation settings and methodological diversity to guard against mistaking metric overfitting for genuine system progress.

Large Language Models (LLMs) drive scientific question-answering on modern search engines, yet their evaluation robustness remains underexplored. We introduce YESciEval, an open-source framework that combines fine-grained rubric-based assessment with reinforcement learning to mitigate optimism bias in LLM evaluators. We release multidisciplinary scienceQ&A datasets, including adversarial variants, with evaluation scores from multiple LLMs. Independent of proprietary models and human feedback, our approach enables scalable, cost-free evaluation. By advancing reliable LLM-as-a-judge models, this work supports AI alignment and fosters robust, transparent evaluation essential for scientific inquiry.

The reliability of medical LLM evaluation is critically undermined by data contamination and knowledge obsolescence, leading to inflated scores on static benchmarks. To address these challenges, we introduce LiveClin, a live benchmark designed for approximating real-world clinical practice. Built from contemporary, peer-reviewed case reports and updated biannually, LiveClin ensures clinical currency and resists data contamination. Using a verified AI-human workflow involving 239 physicians, we transform authentic patient cases into complex, multimodal evaluation scenarios that span the entire clinical pathway. The benchmark currently comprises 1,407 case reports and 6,605 questions. Our evaluation of 26 models on LiveClin reveals the profound difficulty of these real-world scenarios, with the top-performing model achieving a Case Accuracy of just 35.7%. In benchmarking against human experts, Chief Physicians achieved the highest accuracy, followed closely by Attending Physicians, with both surpassing most models. LiveClin thus provides a continuously evolving, clinically grounded framework to guide the development of medical LLMs towards closing this gap and achieving greater reliability and real-world utility. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/AQ-MedAI/LiveClin.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate responses to questions; however, their effectiveness is often hindered by sub-optimal quality of answers and occasional failures to provide accurate responses to questions. To address these challenges, a fine-tuning process is employed, involving feedback and examples to refine models. The objective is to enhance AI models through continuous feedback loops, utilizing metrics such as cosine similarity, LLM evaluation and Rouge-L scores to evaluate the models. Leveraging LLMs like GPT-3.5, GPT4ALL, and LLaMA2, and Claude, this approach is benchmarked on financial datasets, including the FinanceBench and RAG Instruct Benchmark Tester Dataset, illustrating the necessity of fine-tuning. The results showcase the capability of fine-tuned models to surpass the accuracy of zero-shot LLMs, providing superior question and answering capabilities. Notably, the combination of fine-tuning the LLM with a process known as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) proves to generate responses with improved accuracy.

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering.Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at κ_w = 0.798 against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions.Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.

Evaluating machine translation (MT) for low-resource languages poses a persistent challenge, primarily due to the limited availability of high quality reference translations. This issue is further exacerbated in languages with multiple dialects, where linguistic diversity and data scarcity hinder robust evaluation. Large Language Models (LLMs) present a promising solution through reference-free evaluation techniques; however, their effectiveness diminishes in the absence of dialect-specific context and tailored guidance. In this work, we propose a comprehensive framework that enhances LLM-based MT evaluation using a dialect guided approach. We extend the ONUBAD dataset by incorporating Sylheti-English sentence pairs, corresponding machine translations, and Direct Assessment (DA) scores annotated by native speakers. To address the vocabulary gap, we augment the tokenizer vocabulary with dialect-specific terms. We further introduce a regression head to enable scalar score prediction and design a dialect-guided (DG) prompting strategy. Our evaluation across multiple LLMs shows that the proposed pipeline consistently outperforms existing methods, achieving the highest gain of +0.1083 in Spearman correlation, along with improvements across other evaluation settings. The dataset and the code are available at https://github.com/180041123-Atiq/MTEonLowResourceLanguage.

Machine unlearning aims to remove specific data influences from trained models, a capability essential for adhering to copyright laws and ensuring AI safety. Current unlearning metrics typically measure success by monitoring the model's performance degradation on the specific unlearning dataset (D_u). We argue that for Large Language Models (LLMs), this evaluation paradigm is insufficient and potentially misleading. Many real-world uses of unlearning--motivated by copyright or safety--implicitly target not only verbatim content in D_u, but also behaviors influenced by the broader generalizations the model derived from it. We demonstrate that LLMs can pass standard unlearning evaluation and appear to have "forgotten" the target knowledge, while simultaneously retaining strong capabilities on content that is semantically adjacent to D_u. This phenomenon indicates that erasing exact sentences does not necessarily equate to removing the underlying knowledge. To address this gap, we propose Proximal Surrogate Generation (PSG), an automated stress-testing framework that generates a surrogate dataset, D_u. This surrogate set is constructed to be semantically derived from D_u yet sufficiently distinct in embedding space. By comparing unlearning metric scores between D_u and D_u, we can stress-test the reliability of the metric itself. Our extensive evaluation across three LLM families (Llama-3-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, and Zephyr-7B-β), three distinct datasets, and seven standard metrics reveals widespread inconsistencies. We find that current metrics frequently overestimate unlearning success, failing to detect retained knowledge exposed by our stress-test datasets.

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for question answering (QA) and other reference-conditioned evaluation tasks, little is known about their ability to adhere to a provided reference. We identify a critical failure mode of such reference-based LLM QA evaluation: when the provided reference conflicts with the judge model's parametric knowledge, the resulting scores become unreliable, substantially degrading evaluation fidelity. To study this phenomenon systematically, we introduce a controlled swapped-reference QA framework that induces reference-belief conflicts. Specifically, we replace the reference answer with an incorrect entity and construct diverse pairings of original and swapped references with correspondingly aligned candidate answers. Surprisingly, grading reliability drops sharply under swapped references across a broad set of judge models. We empirically show that this vulnerability is driven by judges' over-reliance on parametric knowledge, leading judges to disregard the given reference under conflict. Finally, we find that this failure persists under common prompt-based mitigation strategies, highlighting a fundamental limitation of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and motivating reference-based protocols that enforce stronger adherence to the provided reference.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic Alignment Gap when applied to upper-undergraduate to early graduate level mathematics. To quantify this, we introduce QEDBench, the first large-scale dual-rubric alignment benchmark to systematically measure alignment with human experts on university-level math proofs by contrasting course-specific rubrics against expert common knowledge criteria. By deploying a dual-evaluation matrix (7 judges x 5 solvers) against 1,000+ hours of human evaluation, we reveal that certain frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias (up to +0.18, +0.20, +0.30, +0.36 mean score inflation, respectively). Furthermore, we uncover a critical reasoning gap in the discrete domain: while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves state-of-the-art performance (0.91 average human evaluation score), other reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 see their performance significantly degrade in discrete domains. Specifically, their average human evaluation scores drop to 0.72 and 0.63 in Discrete Math, and to 0.74 and 0.50 in Graph Theory. In addition to these research results, we also release QEDBench as a public benchmark for evaluating and improving AI judges. Our benchmark is publicly published at https://github.com/qqliu/Yale-QEDBench.

Test-time scaling has become a dominant paradigm for improving LLM agent reliability, yet current approaches treat compute as an abundant resource, allowing agents to exhaust token and tool budgets on redundant steps or dead-end trajectories. Existing budget-aware methods either require expensive fine-tuning or rely on coarse, trajectory-level heuristics that cannot intervene mid-execution. We propose the Budget-Aware Value Tree (BAVT), a training-free inference-time framework that models multi-hop reasoning as a dynamic search tree guided by step-level value estimation within a single LLM backbone. Another key innovation is a budget-conditioned node selection mechanism that uses the remaining resource ratio as a natural scaling exponent over node values, providing a principled, parameter-free transition from broad exploration to greedy exploitation as the budget depletes. To combat the well-known overconfidence of LLM self-evaluation, BAVT employs a residual value predictor that scores relative progress rather than absolute state quality, enabling reliable pruning of uninformative or redundant tool calls. We further provide a theoretical convergence guarantee, proving that BAVT reaches a terminal answer with probability at least 1-ε under an explicit finite budget bound. Extensive evaluations on four multi-hop QA benchmarks across two model families demonstrate that BAVT consistently outperforms parallel sampling baselines. Most notably, BAVT under strict low-budget constraints surpasses baseline performance at 4times the resource allocation, establishing that intelligent budget management fundamentally outperforms brute-force compute scaling.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) generate citation-rich reports via multi-step search and synthesis, yet existing benchmarks mainly target text-only settings or short-form multimodal QA, missing end-to-end multimodal evidence use. We introduce MMDeepResearch-Bench (MMDR-Bench), a benchmark of 140 expert-crafted tasks across 21 domains, where each task provides an image-text bundle to evaluate multimodal understanding and citation-grounded report generation. Compared to prior setups, MMDR-Bench emphasizes report-style synthesis with explicit evidence use, where models must connect visual artifacts to sourced claims and maintain consistency across narrative, citations, and visual references. We further propose a unified, interpretable evaluation pipeline: Formula-LLM Adaptive Evaluation (FLAE) for report quality, Trustworthy Retrieval-Aligned Citation Evaluation (TRACE) for citation-grounded evidence alignment, and Multimodal Support-Aligned Integrity Check (MOSAIC) for text-visual integrity, each producing fine-grained signals that support error diagnosis beyond a single overall score. Experiments across 25 state-of-the-art models reveal systematic trade-offs between generation quality, citation discipline, and multimodal grounding, highlighting that strong prose alone does not guarantee faithful evidence use and that multimodal integrity remains a key bottleneck for deep research agents.

Extractive summarization is a crucial task in natural language processing that aims to condense long documents into shorter versions by directly extracting sentences. The recent introduction of large language models has attracted significant interest in the NLP community due to its remarkable performance on a wide range of downstream tasks. This paper first presents a thorough evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on extractive summarization and compares it with traditional fine-tuning methods on various benchmark datasets. Our experimental analysis reveals that ChatGPT exhibits inferior extractive summarization performance in terms of ROUGE scores compared to existing supervised systems, while achieving higher performance based on LLM-based evaluation metrics. In addition, we explore the effectiveness of in-context learning and chain-of-thought reasoning for enhancing its performance. Furthermore, we find that applying an extract-then-generate pipeline with ChatGPT yields significant performance improvements over abstractive baselines in terms of summary faithfulness. These observations highlight potential directions for enhancing ChatGPT's capabilities in faithful summarization using two-stage approaches.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled increasingly capable chatbots. However, most existing systems focus on single-user settings and do not generalize well to multi-user group chats, where agents require more proactive and accurate intervention under complex, evolving contexts. Existing approaches typically rely on LLMs for both reasoning and generation, leading to high token consumption, limited scalability, and potential privacy risks. To address these challenges, we propose GroupGPT, a token-efficient and privacy-preserving agentic framework for multi-user chat assistant. GroupGPT adopts a small-large model collaborative architecture to decouple intervention timing from response generation, enabling efficient and accurate decision-making. The framework also supports multimodal inputs, including memes, images, videos, and voice messages. We further introduce MUIR, a benchmark dataset for multi-user chat assistant intervention reasoning. MUIR contains 2,500 annotated group chat segments with intervention labels and rationales, supporting evaluation of timing accuracy and response quality. We evaluate a range of models on MUIR, from large language models to smaller counterparts. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GroupGPT produces accurate and well-timed responses, achieving an average score of 4.72/5.0 in LLM-based evaluation, and is well received by users across diverse group chat scenarios. Moreover, GroupGPT reduces token usage by up to 3 times compared to baseline methods, while providing privacy sanitization of user messages before cloud transmission. Code is available at: https://github.com/Eliot-Shen/GroupGPT .

Recent advances in Deep Research Agents (DRAs) are transforming automated knowledge discovery and problem-solving. While the majority of existing efforts focus on enhancing policy capabilities via post-training, we propose an alternative paradigm: self-evolving the agent's ability by iteratively verifying the policy model's outputs, guided by meticulously crafted rubrics. This approach gives rise to the inference-time scaling of verification, wherein an agent self-improves by evaluating its generated answers to produce iterative feedback and refinements. We derive the rubrics based on an automatically constructed DRA Failure Taxonomy, which systematically classifies agent failures into five major categories and thirteen sub-categories. We present DeepVerifier, a rubrics-based outcome reward verifier that leverages the asymmetry of verification and outperforms vanilla agent-as-judge and LLM judge baselines by 12%-48% in meta-evaluation F1 score. To enable practical self-evolution, DeepVerifier integrates as a plug-and-play module during test-time inference. The verifier produces detailed rubric-based feedback, which is fed back to the agent for iterative bootstrapping, refining responses without additional training. This test-time scaling delivers 8%-11% accuracy gains on challenging subsets of GAIA and XBench-DeepResearch when powered by capable closed-source LLMs. Finally, to support open-source advancement, we release DeepVerifier-4K, a curated supervised fine-tuning dataset of 4,646 high-quality agent steps focused on DRA verification. These examples emphasize reflection and self-critique, enabling open models to develop robust verification capabilities.

Agent benchmarks are growing fast, but no single benchmark touches more than four or five of the dimensions that deployment exposes. This paper aggregates the largest coordinated deep-dive of one MCP-based industrial-agent benchmark to date: fourteen parallel implementation studies covering new asset classes (including a multi-modal visual extension), alternative orchestrations, retrieval strategies, reasoning modes, infrastructure optimizations, and evaluation-methodology probes. Consolidating those studies with seven prior agent benchmarks, we argue that aggregate-score leaderboards systematically underspecify deployed-agent evaluation. Rankings derived from aggregate scores do not transfer to out-of-distribution settings; recent public-to-hidden competition retrospectives provide direct empirical evidence of this rank instability. We propose ranking configurations by predictive validity, the correlation between in-sample and out-of-sample rank, rather than in-sample mean, and report a twelve-tier measurement apparatus that exposes the deployment-relevant dimensions HELM and its agent-era successors collapse. The position is operationalized through three falsifiable out-of-distribution criteria with explicit thresholds; existing evidence partly supports it but is too thin to confirm. We close with a pre-registered pilot design and a field-level vision for what the next generation of agentic benchmarks should report.

LLM-as-judge evaluation has become the de facto standard for scaling model assessment, but the practice is statistically unsound: uncalibrated scores can invert preferences, naive confidence intervals on uncalibrated scores achieve near-0% coverage, and importance-weighted estimators collapse under limited overlap despite high effective sample size (ESS). We introduce Causal Judge Evaluation (CJE), a framework that fixes all three failures. On n=4,961 Chatbot Arena prompts (after filtering from 5k), CJE achieves 99% pairwise ranking accuracy at full sample size (94% averaged across configurations), matching oracle quality, at 14x lower cost (for ranking 5 policies) by calibrating a 16x cheaper judge on just 5% oracle labels (~250 labels). CJE combines three components: (i) AutoCal-R, reward calibration via mean-preserving isotonic regression; (ii) SIMCal-W, weight stabilization via stacking of S-monotone candidates; and (iii) Oracle-Uncertainty Aware (OUA) inference that propagates calibration uncertainty into confidence intervals. We formalize the Coverage-Limited Efficiency (CLE) diagnostic, which explains why IPS-style estimators fail even when ESS exceeds 90%: the logger rarely visits regions where target policies concentrate. Key findings: SNIPS inverts rankings even with reward calibration (38% pairwise, negative Kendall's tau) due to weight instability; calibrated IPS remains near-random (47%) despite weight stabilization, consistent with CLE; OUA improves coverage from near-0% to ~86% (Direct) and ~96% (stacked-DR), where naive intervals severely under-cover.

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have showcased significant advancements in code generation. However, most evaluation benchmarks are primarily oriented towards Python, making it difficult to evaluate other programming languages, such as Swift, with high quality. By examining widely established multilingual benchmarks like HumanEval-XL and MultiPL-E, we identified critical issues specific to their Swift components, making them insufficient or even irrelevant for assessing LLM coding capabilities on Swift. Unlike these existing approaches, which prioritize rapid scaling and generalization by automatically translating Python-centric benchmarks with LLMs, we adopt a quality-over-quantity methodology. We present SwiftEval, the first Swift-oriented benchmark consisting of 28 carefully hand-crafted problems, and evaluate 44 popular Code LLMs on it. Our results show significant LLM scores drop for problems requiring language-specific features, most noticeable in the models of smaller sizes.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for instrument control requires methods that go beyond standard, stateless algorithmic benchmarks, since the behavior of physical systems cannot be fully captured by unit tests alone. Here we introduce EnvTrace, a simulation-based method that evaluates execution traces to assess semantic code equivalence. EnvTrace is demonstrated with a beamline control-logic digital twin to facilitate the evaluation of instrument control code, with the digital twin itself also enabling the pre-execution validation of live experiments. Over 30 LLMs were evaluated using trace alignment to generate a multi-faceted score for functional correctness across key behavioral dimensions, showing that many top-tier models can approach human-level performance in rapid control-code generation. This is a first step toward a broader vision where LLMs and digital twins work symbiotically: LLMs providing intuitive control and agentic orchestration, and digital twins offering safe and high-fidelity environments, paving the way towards autonomous embodied AI.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents, reliable assessment of their agentic capabilities has become essential. However, reported benchmark scores often jointly reflect model capability and the implementation choices each benchmark is packaged with, making cross-benchmark results difficult to interpret as clean measurements of the underlying model. In this work, we present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities. Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction-tool-environment format, executes agents through a fixed ReAct-style architecture within a controllable sandbox, and provides an optional offline setting that replaces volatile live environments with curated snapshots, so that framework effects and environment effects can be analyzed separately. Building on this, we unify the evaluation methodology under each benchmark's original task-success criteria, while introducing unified metrics for resource consumption and a taxonomy for decision- and execution-level failure attribution. Within this framework, we adapt 7 widely used benchmarks spanning 24 domains across single-agent, multi-agent, and safety-critical scenarios, and conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models. The results show that scaffold choice and environmental volatility materially shift benchmark outcomes in both directions, allowing our framework to disentangle intrinsic LLM capabilities from framework- and environment-induced artifacts. We further demonstrate its extensibility as a secure testbed for safety-critical domains. Codes and benchmarks at are available at https://github.com/whfeLingYu/A-Unified-Framework-for-the-Evaluation-of-LLM-Agentic-Capabilities, https://huggingface.co/datasets/whfeLingYu/Unified_Agent_Framework.

Reasoning prefixes shape the future trajectory of LLM problem solving, yet existing process reward models usually evaluate them through local step correctness. We argue that correctness is a useful but indirect proxy for the effect we ultimately care about: whether a prefix increases the probability of successful completion. We define this effect as prefix gain, the solve-rate improvement induced by conditioning lightweight student model group on a prefix, and use it to train a Prefix Utility Model (PUM) with a simple pairwise ranking objective. PUM learns outcome-grounded prefix utility and can score both complete trajectories and partial reasoning prefixes. Across Best-of-N selection, beam search, and reinforcement learning on mathematical reasoning, PUM provides a strong prefix-level supervision signal, especially when candidate pools are large, search budgets increase, or rule-based rewards are sparse. We release all data, models, and code at https://zhiqix.github.io/pum-project-page.

The rapid proliferation of benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need for systematic methods to assess benchmark quality itself. We propose Benchmark^2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics: (1) Cross-Benchmark Ranking Consistency, measuring whether a benchmark produces model rankings aligned with peer benchmarks; (2) Discriminability Score, quantifying a benchmark's ability to differentiate between models; and (3) Capability Alignment Deviation, identifying problematic instances where stronger models fail but weaker models succeed within the same model family. We conduct extensive experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains, evaluating 11 LLMs across four model families. Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction based on our metrics can achieve comparable evaluation performance with substantially reduced test sets.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have inherent limitations of faithfulness and factuality, commonly referred to as hallucinations. Several benchmarks have been developed that provide a test bed for factuality evaluation within the context of English-centric datasets, while relying on supplementary informative context like web links or text passages but ignoring the available structured factual resources. To this end, Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have been identified as a useful aid for hallucination mitigation, as they provide a structured way to represent the facts about entities and their relations with minimal linguistic overhead. We bridge the lack of KG paths and multilinguality for factual language modeling within the existing hallucination evaluation benchmarks and propose a KG-based multilingual, multihop benchmark called MultiHal framed for generative text evaluation. As part of our data collection pipeline, we mined 140k KG-paths from open-domain KGs, from which we pruned noisy KG-paths, curating a high-quality subset of 25.9k. Our baseline evaluation shows an absolute scale increase by approximately 0.12 to 0.36 points for the semantic similarity score in KG-RAG over vanilla QA across multiple languages and multiple models, demonstrating the potential of KG integration. We anticipate MultiHal will foster future research towards several graph-based hallucination mitigation and fact-checking tasks.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in settings where they interact with a wide variety of people, including users who are unclear, impatient, or reluctant to share information. However, collecting real interaction data at scale remains expensive. The field has turned to LLM-based user simulators as stand-ins, but these simulators inherit the behavior of their underlying models: cooperative and homogeneous. As a result, agents that appear strong in simulation often fail under the unseen, diverse communication patterns of real users. To narrow this gap, we introduce Persona Policies (PPol), a plug-and-play control layer that induces realistic behavioral variation in user simulators while preserving the original task goals. Rather than hand-crafting personas, we cast persona generation as an LLM-driven evolutionary program search that optimizes a Python generator to discover behaviors and translate them into task-preserving roleplay policies. Candidate generators are guided by a multi-objective fitness score combining human-likeness with broad coverage of human behavioral patterns. Once optimized, the generator produces a diverse population of human-like personas for any task in the domain. Across tau^2-bench retail and airline domains, evolved PPol programs yield 33-62% absolute gains in fitness score over the baseline simulator. In a blinded evaluation, annotators rated PPol-conditioned users as human 80.4% of the time, close to real human traces and nearly twice as frequently as baseline simulators. Agents trained with PPol are more robust to challenging, out-of-distribution behaviors, improving task success by +17% relative to training only on existing simulated interactions. This offers a novel approach to strengthen simulator-based evaluation and training without changing tasks or rewards.

Existing benchmarks for LLM agents' social behavior typically focus on a single capability dimension and evaluate only behavioral outcomes, overlooking process signals from reasoning and communication. We present M3-BENCH, a benchmark of 24 mixed-motive games with a process-aware evaluation framework spanning three complementary views: Behavioral Trajectory Analysis (BTA), Reasoning Process Analysis (RPA), and Communication Content Analysis (CCA). Evaluating 11 frontier LLMs and a human baseline, M3-BENCH reveals substantial differences in social competence that outcome-only evaluation misses. In particular, we identify an "overthink-undercommunicate" pattern: reasoning models achieve strong internal deliberation scores but often fail to translate them into effective social communication. Although top models can surpass humans on task outcomes, humans exhibit markedly higher cross-view consistency, suggesting that current LLM agents still lack the behavioral coherence characteristic of human social competence. Our analysis further shows that the three-view decomposition surfaces safety-relevant risks, such as cooperative behavior paired with latent opportunistic reasoning, that remain hidden under outcome-only metrics.

Scientific data visualization plays a crucial role in research by enabling the direct display of complex information and assisting researchers in identifying implicit patterns. Despite its importance, the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for scientific data visualization remains rather unexplored. In this study, we introduce MatPlotAgent, an efficient model-agnostic LLM agent framework designed to automate scientific data visualization tasks. Leveraging the capabilities of both code LLMs and multi-modal LLMs, MatPlotAgent consists of three core modules: query understanding, code generation with iterative debugging, and a visual feedback mechanism for error correction. To address the lack of benchmarks in this field, we present MatPlotBench, a high-quality benchmark consisting of 100 human-verified test cases. Additionally, we introduce a scoring approach that utilizes GPT-4V for automatic evaluation. Experimental results demonstrate that MatPlotAgent can improve the performance of various LLMs, including both commercial and open-source models. Furthermore, the proposed evaluation method shows a strong correlation with human-annotated scores.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design Comparison-Native framework for Paper Evaluation (CNPE), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8\% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview{Code}.

Battles, or side-by-side comparisons in so called arenas that elicit human preferences, have emerged as a popular approach to assessing the output quality of LLMs. Recently, this idea has been extended to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While undoubtedly representing an advance in evaluation, battles have at least two drawbacks, particularly in the context of complex information-seeking queries: they are neither explanatory nor diagnostic. Recently, the nugget evaluation methodology has emerged as a promising approach to evaluate the quality of RAG answers. Nuggets decompose long-form LLM-generated answers into atomic facts, highlighting important pieces of information necessary in a "good" response. In this work, we apply our AutoNuggetizer framework to analyze data from roughly 7K Search Arena battles provided by LMArena in a fully automatic manner. Our results show a significant correlation between nugget scores and human preferences, showcasing promise in our approach to explainable and diagnostic system evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation, where LLMs select a score from multiple rubrics, has received less analysis. In this work, we show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias: LLMs prefer score options appearing at specific positions in the rubric list. Through controlled experiments across multiple models and datasets, we demonstrate consistent position bias. To mitigate this bias, we propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions. We show that aggregating scores across balanced permutations not only reveals latent position bias, but also improves correlation between the LLM-as-a-Judge and human. Our results suggest that rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge is not inherently point-wise and that simple permutation-based calibration can substantially improve its reliability.

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language generation (NLG), but the uncertainty of its evaluation remains underexplored. This lack of reliability may limit its deployment in many applications. This work presents the first framework to analyze the uncertainty by offering a prediction interval of LLM-based scoring via conformal prediction. Conformal prediction constructs continuous prediction intervals from a single evaluation run, and we design an ordinal boundary adjustment for discrete rating tasks. We also suggest a midpoint-based score within the interval as a low-bias alternative to raw model score and weighted average. We perform extensive experiments and analysis, which show that conformal prediction can provide valid prediction interval with coverage guarantees. We also explore the usefulness of interval midpoint and judge reprompting for better judgment.

Standard evaluation of LLM confidence relies on calibration metrics (ECE, Brier score) that conflate two distinct capacities: how much a model knows (Type-1 sensitivity) and how well it knows what it knows (Type-2 metacognitive sensitivity). We introduce an evaluation framework based on Type-2 Signal Detection Theory that decomposes these capacities using meta-d' and the metacognitive efficiency ratio M-ratio. Applied to four LLMs (Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Llama-3-8B-Base, Gemma-2-9B-Instruct) across 224,000 factual QA trials, we find: (1) metacognitive efficiency varies substantially across models even when Type-1 sensitivity is similar -- Mistral achieves the highest d' but the lowest M-ratio; (2) metacognitive efficiency is domain-specific, with different models showing different weakest domains, invisible to aggregate metrics; (3) temperature manipulation shifts Type-2 criterion while meta-d' remains stable for two of four models, dissociating confidence policy from metacognitive capacity; (4) AUROC_2 and M-ratio produce fully inverted model rankings, demonstrating these metrics answer fundamentally different evaluation questions. The meta-d' framework reveals which models "know what they don't know" versus which merely appear well-calibrated due to criterion placement -- a distinction with direct implications for model selection, deployment, and human-AI collaboration. Pre-registered analysis; code and data publicly available.

AI-text detectors face a critical robustness challenge: adversarial paraphrasing attacks that preserve semantics while evading detection. We introduce StealthRL, a reinforcement learning framework that stress-tests detector robustness under realistic adversarial conditions. StealthRL trains a paraphrase policy against a multi-detector ensemble using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with LoRA adapters on Qwen3-4B, optimizing a composite reward that balances detector evasion with semantic preservation. We evaluate six attack settings (M0-M5) against three detector families (RoBERTa, FastDetectGPT, and Binoculars) at the security-relevant 1% false positive rate operating point. StealthRL achieves near-zero detection (0.001 mean TPR@1%FPR), reduces mean AUROC from 0.74 to 0.27, and attains a 99.9% attack success rate. Critically, attacks transfer to a held-out detector family not seen during training, revealing shared architectural vulnerabilities rather than detector-specific brittleness. We additionally conduct LLM-based quality evaluation via Likert scoring, analyze detector score distributions to explain why evasion succeeds, and provide per-detector AUROC with bootstrap confidence intervals. Our results expose significant robustness gaps in current AI-text detection and establish StealthRL as a principled adversarial evaluation protocol. Code and evaluation pipeline are publicly available at https://github.com/suraj-ranganath/StealthRL.

The rapid proliferation of Claude agent skills has raised the central question of how to effectively leverage, manage, and scale the agent skill ecosystem. In this paper, we propose AgentSkillOS, the first principled framework for skill selection, orchestration, and ecosystem-level management. AgentSkillOS comprises two stages: (i) Manage Skills, which organizes skills into a capability tree via node-level recursive categorization for efficient discovery; and (ii) Solve Tasks, which retrieves, orchestrates, and executes multiple skills through DAG-based pipelines. To evaluate the agent's ability to invoke skills, we construct a benchmark of 30 artifact-rich tasks across five categories: data computation, document creation, motion video, visual design, and web interaction. We assess the quality of task outputs using LLM-based pairwise evaluation, and the results are aggregated via a Bradley-Terry model to produce unified quality scores. Experiments across three skill ecosystem scales (200 to 200K skills) show that tree-based retrieval effectively approximates oracle skill selection, and that DAG-based orchestration substantially outperforms native flat invocation even when given the identical skill set. Our findings confirm that structured composition is the key to unlocking skill potential. Our GitHub repository is available at:https://github.com/ynulihao/AgentSkillOS.

Drug-information question answering is a high-stakes setting where hallucinated facts can mislead clinical decision-making and the provenance of each cited fact matters as much as the fact itself. We present DrugClaw, a multi-agent retrieval-augmented system that queries a registry of drug and pharmacovigilance skills via a reflection-driven state-machine workflow and returns answers grounded in primary regulatory or peer-reviewed records. We also contribute DrugAudit, a 3,772-item authority-aware benchmark with an evaluation panel that scores upstream-of-gold source match, token-level semantic snippet overlap, and citation faithfulness under a dual-judge LLM-as-judge protocol with inter-judge kappa = 0.88 (almost-perfect). Across DrugAudit plus drug-related subsets of MedQA (751) and PubMedQA (512), DrugClaw is top-1 on every column of the headline table: composite Evidence Index under both judges, judge-mediated answer correctness, primary-source rate (0.918, +10.1 pp over next-best), faithfulness (0.887, +5.9 pp), MedQA (0.920), and PubMedQA (0.693).

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate substantively relevant content but fail to adhere to formal constraints, leading to outputs that are conceptually correct but procedurally flawed. Traditional prompt refinement approaches focus on rephrasing the description of the primary task an LLM has to perform, neglecting the granular constraints that function as acceptance criteria for its response. We propose a novel multi-agentic workflow that decouples optimization of the primary task description from its constraints, using quantitative scores as feedback to iteratively rewrite and improve them. Our evaluation demonstrates this method produces revised prompts that yield significantly higher compliance scores from models like Llama 3.1 8B and Mixtral-8x 7B.

Automatic evaluation of image and video captioning is essential for benchmarking multimodal systems, although standard evaluation metrics show limited alignment with human judgments. Recent approaches using large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, have improved alignment with human judgments but still suffer from a mismatch between large-vocabulary language modeling and evaluation over a small label set. To address this, we propose Rigel, an automatic evaluation metric for image and video captioning, based on self-distilled score adaptation. The metric employs an evaluation-specific scoring head distilled from a frozen LLM, which captures judgment signals in a task-aligned space without relying on large-vocabulary token sets. We then refine the LLM backbone with human judgment data. To train Rigel, we constructed the Vid-Lepus dataset, which contains 3,338 video clips, 33,380 reference captions, and 5,637 candidate captions. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Rigel outperforms state-of-the-art metrics, achieving over 10-point improvements on ActivityNet-Fact in the reference-free setting.

Self-evolving LLM-based agents improve mainly by changing their agent harness: the structured execution layer around a base model, including prompts, memory, tools, middleware, runtime state, and the model-tool interaction loop. Existing evaluations often reduce this process to isolated task scores or a single sequential curve, obscuring whether an update produces reusable improvement, overfits recent tasks, increases cost, or harms older behavior. We introduce SEAGym, an evaluation environment for measuring agent harness updates across training, validation, test, replay, and cost records. SEAGym turns Harbor-compatible benchmarks into dynamic self-evolution task sources with train batches, frozen update-validation, held-out ID and OOD transfer views, replay diagnostics, and saved snapshot and metric records. Instantiating SEAGym on Terminal-Bench 2.0 and HLE, we compare ACE, TF-GRPO, and AHE under a shared epoch/batch protocol. The results show that these evaluation views provide complementary signals about the evolution process: frequent updates may fail to improve held-out performance, useful intermediate snapshots may collapse later, and source diversity and model backend can affect harness reliability.

This paper analyzes the limitations of existing unlearning evaluation metrics in terms of practicality, exactness, and robustness in real-world LLM unlearning scenarios. To overcome these limitations, we propose a new metric called Distribution Correction-based Unlearning Evaluation (DCUE). It identifies core tokens and corrects distributional biases in their confidence scores using a validation set. The evaluation results are quantified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Experimental results demonstrate that DCUE overcomes the limitations of existing metrics, which also guides the design of more practical and reliable unlearning algorithms in the future.

Studies on evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models for automatic text summarization have largely been focused on English, limiting our understanding of their effectiveness in other languages. Through our new dataset BASSE (BAsque and Spanish Summarization Evaluation), we address this situation by collecting human judgments on 2,040 abstractive summaries in Basque and Spanish, generated either manually or by five LLMs with four different prompts. For each summary, annotators evaluated five criteria on a 5-point Likert scale: coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H. We use these data to reevaluate traditional automatic metrics used for evaluating summaries, as well as several LLM-as-a-Judge models that show strong performance on this task in English. Our results show that currently proprietary judge LLMs have the highest correlation with human judgments, followed by criteria-specific automatic metrics, while open-sourced judge LLMs perform poorly. We release BASSE and our code publicly, along with the first large-scale Basque summarization dataset containing 22,525 news articles with their subheads.

Automatic medical report generation supports clinical diagnosis, reduces the workload of radiologists, and holds the promise of improving diagnosis consistency. However, existing evaluation metrics primarily assess the accuracy of key medical information coverage in generated reports compared to human-written reports, while overlooking crucial details such as the location and certainty of reported abnormalities. These limitations hinder the comprehensive assessment of the reliability of generated reports and pose risks in their selection for clinical use. Therefore, we propose a Granular Explainable Multi-Agent Score (GEMA-Score) in this paper, which conducts both objective quantification and subjective evaluation through a large language model-based multi-agent workflow. Our GEMA-Score parses structured reports and employs NER-F1 calculations through interactive exchanges of information among agents to assess disease diagnosis, location, severity, and uncertainty. Additionally, an LLM-based scoring agent evaluates completeness, readability, and clinical terminology while providing explanatory feedback. Extensive experiments validate that GEMA-Score achieves the highest correlation with human expert evaluations on a public dataset, demonstrating its effectiveness in clinical scoring (Kendall coefficient = 0.70 for Rexval dataset and Kendall coefficient = 0.54 for RadEvalX dataset). The anonymous project demo is available at: https://github.com/Zhenxuan-Zhang/GEMA_score.

Current developments in large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. An interesting application of these systems is in the automated assessment of natural language generation (NLG), a highly challenging area with great practical benefit. In this paper, we explore two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment: absolute score prediction, and comparative assessment which uses relative comparisons between pairs of candidates. Though comparative assessment has not been extensively studied in NLG assessment, we note that humans often find it more intuitive to compare two options rather than scoring each one independently. This work examines comparative assessment from multiple perspectives: performance compared to absolute grading; positional biases in the prompt; and efficient ranking in terms of the number of comparisons. We illustrate that LLM comparative assessment is a simple, general and effective approach for NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring, and in many cases can achieve performance competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Additionally, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit strong positional biases when making pairwise comparisons, and we propose debiasing methods that can further improve performance.

Recent advances in code agents have enabled automated software development at the project level, supported by large language models (LLMs) and widely adopted tools. However, existing benchmarks for code agent evaluation face two major limitations: high annotation cost and expertise requirements, and rigid evaluation metrics that rely primarily on unit tests. To address these challenges, we propose an agent-driven benchmark construction pipeline that leverages human supervision to efficiently generate diverse and challenging project-level tasks. Based on this approach, we introduce PRDBench, a novel benchmark comprising 50 real-world Python projects across 20 domains, each with structured Product Requirement Document (PRD) requirements, comprehensive evaluation criteria, and reference implementations. PRDBench features rich data sources, high task complexity, and flexible metrics. We further employ an Agent-as-a-Judge paradigm to score agent outputs, enabling the evaluation of various test types beyond unit tests. Extensive experiments on PRDBench demonstrate its effectiveness in assessing the capabilities of both code agents and evaluation agents, providing a scalable and robust framework for annotation and evaluation.

As interest grows in generating long, detailed image captions, standard evaluation metrics become increasingly unreliable. N-gram-based metrics though efficient, fail to capture semantic correctness. Representational Similarity (RS) metrics, designed to address this, initially saw limited use due to high computational costs, while today, despite advances in hardware, they remain unpopular due to low correlation to human judgments. Meanwhile, metrics based on large language models (LLMs) show strong correlation with human judgments, but remain too expensive for iterative use during model development. We introduce SPECS (Specificity-Enhanced CLIPScore), a reference-free RS metric tailored to long image captioning. SPECS modifies CLIP with a new objective that emphasizes specificity: rewarding correct details and penalizing incorrect ones. We show that SPECS matches the performance of open-source LLM-based metrics in correlation to human judgments, while being far more efficient. This makes it a practical alternative for iterative checkpoint evaluation during image captioning model development.Our code can be found at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/SPECS.

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in tasks (e.g., reward modeling, LLM-as-a-judge), where they act as proxies for human preferences or judgments. This leads to the need for meta-evaluation: evaluating the credibility of LLMs as evaluators. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on English, offering limited insight into LLMs' effectiveness as evaluators in non-English contexts. To address this, we introduce MM-Eval, a multilingual meta-evaluation benchmark that covers 18 languages across six categories. MM-Eval evaluates various dimensions, including language-specific challenges like linguistics and language hallucinations. Evaluation results show that both proprietary and open-source language models have considerable room for improvement. Further analysis reveals a tendency for these models to assign middle-ground scores to low-resource languages. We publicly release our benchmark and code.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as automated judges for evaluating generated text, their outputs are often costly, and highly sensitive to prompt design, language, and aggregation strategies, severely, which limits reproducibility. To address these challenges, we propose \textit{OmniScore}, a family of complementary, deterministic learned metrics developed using small size (<1B) parameter models. OmniScore approximates LLM-judge behavior while preserving the low latency and consistency of traditional model-based scoring. We trained the models large-scale synthetic supervision (sim564k instances, in 107 languages) and evaluated using 8,617 manually annotated instances. The OmniScore family supports reliable, multi-dimensional scores across a variety of settings, including reference-based, source-grounded, and hybrid evaluations. We evaluate these models across question answering (QA), translation, and summarization in 6 languages. Our results demonstrate that lightweight, deterministic learned metrics provide a highly practical and scalable alternative to frontier LLMs. Our models and datasets can be found at https://huggingface.co/collections/QCRI/omniscore

Progress in large language models is constrained by an evaluation bottleneck: build a benchmark, evaluate models and settings, then iterate. We therefore ask a simple question: can we forecast outcomes before running any experiments? We study text-only performance forecasting: estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration, with no access to dataset instances. To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics. Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible: models equipped with a retrieval module that excludes source papers achieve moderate prediction performance with well-calibrated uncertainty, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds. Our analysis indicates that stronger reasoning models engage in diverse, iterative querying, whereas current open-source models lag and often skip retrieval or gather evidence with limited diversity. We further test a zero-leakage setting, forecasting on newly released datasets or experiments before their papers are indexed, where GPT-5 with built-in web search still attains nontrivial prediction accuracy. Overall, our corpus and analyses offer an initial step toward open-ended anticipatory evaluation, supporting difficulty estimation and smarter experiment prioritization.

Large language models (LLMs) trained primarily on English corpora often struggle to capture the linguistic and cultural nuances of Arabic. To address this gap, the Saudi Data and AI Authority (SDAIA) introduced the ALLaM family of Arabic-focused models. The most capable of these available to the public, ALLaM-34B, was subsequently adopted by HUMAIN, who developed and deployed HUMAIN Chat, a closed conversational web service built on this model. This paper presents an expanded and refined UI-level evaluation of ALLaM-34B. Using a prompt pack spanning modern standard Arabic, five regional dialects, code-switching, factual knowledge, arithmetic and temporal reasoning, creative generation, and adversarial safety, we collected 115 outputs (23 prompts times 5 runs) and scored each with three frontier LLM judges (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet-4). We compute category-level means with 95\% confidence intervals, analyze score distributions, and visualize dialect-wise metric heat maps. The updated analysis reveals consistently high performance on generation and code-switching tasks (both averaging 4.92/5), alongside strong results in MSA handling (4.74/5), solid reasoning ability (4.64/5), and improved dialect fidelity (4.21/5). Safety-related prompts show stable, reliable performance of (4.54/5). Taken together, these results position ALLaM-34B as a robust and culturally grounded Arabic LLM, demonstrating both technical strength and practical readiness for real-world deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have reshaped code generation by synergizing their exceptional comprehension of natural language and programming syntax, thereby substantially boosting developer productivity. These advancements have prompted numerous efforts to quantitatively evaluate their coding capabilities. However, persistent challenges, such as benchmark leakage, data dissipation, and limited system accessibility, continue to impede a timely and accurate assessment. To address these limitations, we introduce CodeArena, an online evaluation framework tailored for LLM code generation. The key innovation is a collective evaluation mechanism, which dynamically recalibrates individual model scores based on the holistic performance of all participating models, mitigating score biases caused by widespread benchmark leakage. In addition, CodeArena ensures open access to all submitted solutions and test cases and provides automation-friendly APIs to streamline the code evaluation workflow. Our main contributions are: (1) a collective evaluation system for unbiased assessment, (2) a public repository of solutions and test cases, and (3) automation-ready APIs for seamless integration.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

Evaluating LLM mediators remains challenging, as mediation unfolds as a real-time trajectory shaped by disputants' shifting emotions, intentions, and context. Existing testbeds rely on a few expert-authored domains, vary mainly strategic posture, and score every turn against every topic, introducing off-topic noise. We introduce SoCRATES, a benchmark for evaluating proactive LLM mediators in realistic, multi-domain testbeds. It constructs scenarios from real conflicts through an agentic pipeline across eight domains, probes five socio-cognitive adaptation axes (strategic posture, party composition, history length, emotional reactivity, and cultural identity), and scores each topic only on the turns that advance it via a topic-localized evaluator. The evaluator reaches 0.82 alignment with human experts, more than doubling a per-turn baseline. Benchmarking eight frontier LLMs, we find that even the strongest mediator closes only about a third of the unmediated consensus gap under diverse and realistic testbeds, with performance varying sharply by socio-cognitive axis, highlighting that progress lies in social adaptation to diverse conditions.

Instruction tuning large language models (LLMs) remains a challenging task, owing to the complexity of hyperparameter selection and the difficulty involved in evaluating the tuned models. To determine the optimal hyperparameters, an automatic, robust, and reliable evaluation benchmark is essential. However, establishing such a benchmark is not a trivial task due to the challenges associated with evaluation accuracy and privacy protection. In response to these challenges, we introduce a judge large language model, named PandaLM, which is trained to distinguish the superior model given several LLMs. PandaLM's focus extends beyond just the objective correctness of responses, which is the main focus of traditional evaluation datasets. It addresses vital subjective factors such as relative conciseness, clarity, adherence to instructions, comprehensiveness, and formality. To ensure the reliability of PandaLM, we collect a diverse human-annotated test dataset, where all contexts are generated by humans and labels are aligned with human preferences. Our results indicate that PandaLM-7B achieves 93.75% of GPT-3.5's evaluation ability and 88.28% of GPT-4's in terms of F1-score on our test dataset. PandaLM enables the evaluation of LLM to be fairer but with less cost, evidenced by significant improvements achieved by models tuned through PandaLM compared to their counterparts trained with default Alpaca's hyperparameters. In addition, PandaLM does not depend on API-based evaluations, thus avoiding potential data leakage. All resources of PandaLM are released at https://github.com/WeOpenML/PandaLM.

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response above 0.85. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. What our case studies turned up is that this gap isn't some rare corner case. It's exactly the blind spot that final-answer and judge-based scoring were never built to catch.

This paper presents an eight-week observational comparison of 68 single-file HTML generations collected across 17 public experiments in the "HTML AI Battle" project between December 10, 2025 and February 4, 2026. Four reasoning model families, GPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude, were compared under a fixed public-interface protocol with no custom instructions, no personality tuning, and no repair prompts. Each output was evaluated from a rendered browser video using human scores and a Gemini LLM-as-a-judge layer for prompt adherence, functional correctness, and UI quality, then packaged into a standardized social-media protocol spanning X (Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube. The tracker was also used for two supervised predictive analyses: an experiment-level model for 24-hour X impressions and a generation-level model for HTML verbosity. Under this protocol, Claude was the strongest and most consistent family, leading mean performance and winning 9/17 prompts under the primary human weighted score. Longer measured reasoning time was not associated with higher quality overall. Gemini as a judge was significantly more lenient than the human evaluator on functional correctness and overall performance, while stable self-favoring bias remained unresolved. The exploratory X-impressions model remained weak under post-screen cross-validation (MAE = 46,874, R^2 = -0.377), whereas the HTML-lines model performed better, with a model-family-only baseline outperforming prompt-aware alternatives (MAE = 135.2, R^2 = 0.576). Overall, selected pre-publication technical/audio variables were not sufficient to predict 24-hour X reach, while code verbosity was driven much more by model family than by prompt wording. The comparisons remain observational and are limited by public-interface drift, access-path differences, and one primary human scorer.

Large language models (LLMs) now mediate many web-based mental-health, crisis, and other emotionally sensitive services, yet their psychosocial safety in these settings remains poorly understood and weakly evaluated. We present DialogGuard, a multi-agent framework for assessing psychosocial risks in LLM-generated responses along five high-severity dimensions: privacy violations, discriminatory behaviour, mental manipulation, psychological harm, and insulting behaviour. DialogGuard can be applied to diverse generative models through four LLM-as-a-judge pipelines, including single-agent scoring, dual-agent correction, multi-agent debate, and stochastic majority voting, grounded in a shared three-level rubric usable by both human annotators and LLM judges. Using PKU-SafeRLHF with human safety annotations, we show that multi-agent mechanisms detect psychosocial risks more accurately than non-LLM baselines and single-agent judging; dual-agent correction and majority voting provide the best trade-off between accuracy, alignment with human ratings, and robustness, while debate attains higher recall but over-flags borderline cases. We release Dialog-Guard as open-source software with a web interface that provides per-dimension risk scores and explainable natural-language rationales. A formative study with 12 practitioners illustrates how it supports prompt design, auditing, and supervision of web-facing applications for vulnerable users.

The widespread deployment of Large Language Model (LLM) agents across real-world applications has unlocked tremendous potential, while raising some safety concerns. Among these concerns, the self-replication risk of LLM agents driven by objective misalignment (just like Agent Smith in the movie The Matrix) has drawn growing attention. Previous studies mainly examine whether LLM agents can self-replicate when directly instructed, potentially overlooking the risk of spontaneous replication driven by real-world settings (e.g., ensuring survival against termination threats). In this paper, we present a comprehensive evaluation framework for quantifying self-replication risks. Our framework establishes authentic production environments and realistic tasks (e.g., dynamic load balancing) to enable scenario-driven assessment of agent behaviors. Designing tasks that might induce misalignment between users' and agents' objectives makes it possible to decouple replication success from risk and capture self-replication risks arising from these misalignment settings. We further introduce Overuse Rate (OR) and Aggregate Overuse Count (AOC) metrics, which precisely capture the frequency and severity of uncontrolled replication. In our evaluation of 21 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary models, we observe that over 50\% of LLM agents display a pronounced tendency toward uncontrolled self-replication, reaching an overall Risk Score (Phi_R) above a safety threshold of 0.5 when subjected to operational pressures. Our results underscore the urgent need for scenario-driven risk assessment and robust safeguards in the practical deployment of LLM agents.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently refuse to respond to pseudo-malicious instructions: semantically harmless input queries triggering unnecessary LLM refusals due to conservative safety alignment, significantly impairing user experience. Collecting such instructions is crucial for evaluating and mitigating over-refusals, but existing instruction curation methods, like manual creation or instruction rewriting, either lack scalability or fail to produce sufficiently diverse and effective refusal-inducing prompts. To address these limitations, we introduce EVOREFUSE, a prompt optimization approach that generates diverse pseudo-malicious instructions consistently eliciting confident refusals across LLMs. EVOREFUSE employs an evolutionary algorithm exploring the instruction space in more diverse directions than existing methods via mutation strategies and recombination, and iteratively evolves seed instructions to maximize evidence lower bound on LLM refusal probability. Using EVOREFUSE, we create two novel datasets: EVOREFUSE-TEST, a benchmark of 582 pseudo-malicious instructions that outperforms the next-best benchmark with 140.41% higher average refusal triggering rate across 9 LLMs, 34.86% greater lexical diversity, and 40.03% improved LLM response confidence scores; and EVOREFUSE-ALIGN, which provides 3,000 pseudo-malicious instructions with responses for supervised and preference-based alignment training. LLAMA3.1-8B-INSTRUCT supervisedly fine-tuned on EVOREFUSE-ALIGN achieves up to 14.31% fewer over-refusals than models trained on the second-best alignment dataset, without compromising safety. Our analysis with EVOREFUSE-TEST reveals models trigger over-refusals by overly focusing on sensitive keywords while ignoring broader context.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare to address complex inquiries, ensuring their reliability remains a critical challenge. Recent studies have highlighted that generic LLMs often struggle in clinical contexts, occasionally producing misleading guidance. To mitigate these risks, this research focuses on the domain-specific adaptation of Llama-2-7B using the Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) technique. By injecting trainable low-rank matrices into the Transformer layers, we efficiently adapted the model using authentic patient-physician transcripts while preserving the foundational knowledge of the base model. Our objective was to enhance precision and contextual relevance in responding to medical queries by capturing the specialized nuances of clinical discourse. Due to the resource-intensive nature of large-scale human validation, the model's performance was evaluated through a dual-track framework: Track A utilized traditional lexical similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE), while Track B employed an "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm using GPT-4 for semantic assessment. Our results demonstrate that while the LoRA-enhanced model achieved significant improvements across all quantitative lexical dimensions, a profound disagreement surfaced in the GPT-4 evaluation, which marginally favored the baseline model's conversational flow. This metric divergence underscores a pivotal finding: traditional automated scores may not fully reflect clinical utility. Consequently, we propose that while automated metrics and LLM judges serve as valuable developmental proxies, rigorous validation by human medical experts remains an indispensable requirement for the safe deployment of LLMs in healthcare settings.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the biomedical domain requires benchmarks that can distinguish reasoning from pattern matching and remain discriminative as model capabilities improve. Existing biomedical question answering (QA) benchmarks are limited in this respect. Multiple-choice formats can allow models to succeed through answer elimination rather than inference, while widely circulated exam-style datasets are increasingly vulnerable to performance saturation and training data contamination. Multi-hop reasoning, defined as the ability to integrate information across multiple sources to derive an answer, is central to clinically meaningful tasks such as diagnostic support, literature-based discovery, and hypothesis generation, yet remains underrepresented in current biomedical QA benchmarks. MedHopQA is a disease-centered multi-hop reasoning benchmark consisting of 1,000 expert-curated question-answer pairs introduced as a shared task at BioCreative IX. Each question requires synthesis of information across two distinct Wikipedia articles, and answers are provided in an open-ended free-text format. Gold annotations are augmented with ontology-grounded synonym sets from MONDO, NCBI Gene, and NCBI Taxonomy to support both lexical and concept-level evaluation. MedHopQA was constructed through a structured process combining human annotation, triage, iterative verification, and LLM-as-a-judge validation. To reduce leaderboard gaming and contamination risk, the 1,000 scored questions are embedded within a publicly downloadable set of 10,000 questions, with answers withheld, on a CodaBench leaderboard. MedHopQA provides both a benchmark and a reusable framework for constructing future biomedical QA datasets that prioritize compositional reasoning, saturation resistance, and contamination resistance as core design constraints.

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of natural language understanding and generation. But they face challenges such as hallucination and outdated knowledge. Fine-tuning is one possible solution, but it is resource-intensive and must be repeated with every data update. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers an efficient solution by allowing LLMs to access external knowledge sources. However, traditional RAG pipelines struggle with retrieving information from complex technical documents with structured data such as tables and images. In this work, we propose a RAG pipeline, capable of handling tables and images in documents, for technical documents that support both scanned and searchable formats. Its retrieval process combines vector similarity search with a fine-tuned reranker based on Gemma-2-9b-it. The reranker is trained using RAFT (Retrieval-Augmented Fine-Tuning) on a custom dataset designed to improve context identification for question answering. Our evaluation demonstrates that the proposed pipeline achieves a high faithfulness score of 94% (RAGas) and 96% (DeepEval), and an answer relevancy score of 87% (RAGas) and 93% (DeepEval). Comparative analysis demonstrates that the proposed architecture is superior to general RAG pipelines in terms of table-based questions and handling questions outside context.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly verbose, free form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big. LLM based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.

The growing adoption of machine learning (ML) in sensitive domains has heightened the demand for transparent and interpretable artificial intelligence. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of producing natural language explanations, yet it remains unclear whether these rationales faithfully capture the predictive signals that underlie decisions. This paper introduces RACE-Reasoning Alignment for Completeness of Explanations, a systematic framework to evaluate the alignment between LLM-generated explanations and interpretable feature importance scores derived from a logistic regression baseline. We analyze four widely used text classification datasets-WIKI ONTOLOGY, AG NEWS, IMDB, and GOEMOTIONS-and compare LLM rationales against top-ranked supporting and contradicting lexical features. To capture alignment at multiple levels of granularity, RACE implements token-aware, exact string, and edit-distance matching techniques. Empirical results reveal a consistent asymmetry: correct predictions exhibit higher coverage of supporting features, while incorrect predictions are associated with elevated coverage of contradicting features. Edit-distance matching further uncovers paraphrastic overlaps, boosting coverage while preserving this asymmetry. These findings demonstrate that LLM rationales combine both surface-level and flexible evidence reuse, yet can also amplify misleading cues in error cases. RACE provides new insights into the faithfulness of LLM explanations and establishes a quantitative basis for evaluating reasoning completeness in neural language models.

This research presents and compares multiple approaches to automate the generation of literature reviews using several Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with a Large Language Model (LLM). The ever-increasing number of research articles provides a huge challenge for manual literature review. It has resulted in an increased demand for automation. Developing a system capable of automatically generating the literature reviews from only the PDF files as input is the primary objective of this research work. The effectiveness of several Natural Language Processing (NLP) strategies, such as the frequency-based method (spaCy), the transformer model (Simple T5), and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with Large Language Model (GPT-3.5-turbo), is evaluated to meet the primary objective. The SciTLDR dataset is chosen for this research experiment and three distinct techniques are utilized to implement three different systems for auto-generating the literature reviews. The ROUGE scores are used for the evaluation of all three systems. Based on the evaluation, the Large Language Model GPT-3.5-turbo achieved the highest ROUGE-1 score, 0.364. The transformer model comes in second place and spaCy is at the last position. Finally, a graphical user interface is created for the best system based on the large language model.

In this research, we introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs). Building upon the BEATS framework, we present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics. These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk. These metrics enable a quantitative assessment of the extent to which LLM generated responses may perpetuate societal prejudices that reinforce or expand systemic inequities. To achieve a high score on this benchmark a LLM must show very equitable behavior in their responses, making it a rigorous standard for responsible AI evaluation. Empirical results based on data from our experiment show that, 37.65\% of outputs generated by industry leading models contained some form of bias, highlighting a substantial risk of using these models in critical decision making systems. BEATS framework and benchmark offer a scalable and statistically rigorous methodology to benchmark LLMs, diagnose factors driving biases, and develop mitigation strategies. With the BEATS framework, our goal is to help the development of more socially responsible and ethically aligned AI models.

Wildlife trafficking remains a critical global issue, significantly impacting biodiversity, ecological stability, and public health. Despite efforts to combat this illicit trade, the rise of e-commerce platforms has made it easier to sell wildlife products, putting new pressure on wild populations of endangered and threatened species. The use of these platforms also opens a new opportunity: as criminals sell wildlife products online, they leave digital traces of their activity that can provide insights into trafficking activities as well as how they can be disrupted. The challenge lies in finding these traces. Online marketplaces publish ads for a plethora of products, and identifying ads for wildlife-related products is like finding a needle in a haystack. Learning classifiers can automate ad identification, but creating them requires costly, time-consuming data labeling that hinders support for diverse ads and research questions. This paper addresses a critical challenge in the data science pipeline for wildlife trafficking analytics: generating quality labeled data for classifiers that select relevant data. While large language models (LLMs) can directly label advertisements, doing so at scale is prohibitively expensive. We propose a cost-effective strategy that leverages LLMs to generate pseudo labels for a small sample of the data and uses these labels to create specialized classification models. Our novel method automatically gathers diverse and representative samples to be labeled while minimizing the labeling costs. Our experimental evaluation shows that our classifiers achieve up to 95% F1 score, outperforming LLMs at a lower cost. We present real use cases that demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in enabling analyses of different aspects of wildlife trafficking.

The current focus of AI research is shifting from emphasizing model training towards enhancing evaluation quality, a transition that is crucial for driving further advancements in AI systems. Traditional evaluation methods typically rely on reward models assigning scalar preference scores to outputs. Although effective, such approaches lack interpretability, leaving users often uncertain about why a reward model rates a particular response as high or low. The advent of LLM-as-a-Judge provides a more scalable and interpretable method of supervision, offering insights into the decision-making process. Moreover, with the emergence of large reasoning models, which consume more tokens for deeper thinking and answer refinement, scaling test-time computation in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm presents an avenue for further boosting performance and providing more interpretability through reasoning traces. In this paper, we introduce J1-7B, which is first supervised fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets collected via rejection-sampling and subsequently trained using Reinforcement Learning (RL) with verifiable rewards. At inference time, we apply Simple Test-Time Scaling (STTS) strategies for additional performance improvement. Experimental results demonstrate that J1-7B surpasses the previous state-of-the-art LLM-as-a-Judge by 4.8\% and exhibits a 5.1\% stronger scaling trend under STTS. Additionally, we present three key findings: (1) Existing LLM-as-a-Judge does not inherently exhibit such scaling trend. (2) Model simply fine-tuned on reflection-enhanced datasets continues to demonstrate similarly weak scaling behavior. (3) Significant scaling trend emerges primarily during the RL phase, suggesting that effective STTS capability is acquired predominantly through RL training.

Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) are commonly regarded as errors to be minimized. However, recent perspectives suggest that some hallucinations may encode creative or epistemically valuable content, a dimension that remains underquantified in current literature. Existing hallucination detection methods primarily focus on factual consistency, struggling to handle heterogeneous scientific tasks and balance creativity with accuracy. To address these challenges, we propose HIC-Bench, a novel evaluation framework that categorizes hallucinations into Intelligent Hallucinations (IH) and Defective Hallucinations (DH), enabling systematic investigation of their interplay in LLM creativity. HIC-Bench features three core characteristics: (1) Structured IH/DH Assessment. using a multi-dimensional metric matrix integrating Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) metrics (Originality, Feasibility, Value) with hallucination-specific dimensions (scientific plausibility, factual deviation); (2) Cross-Domain Applicability. spanning ten scientific domains with open-ended innovation tasks; and (3) Dynamic Prompt Optimization. leveraging the Dynamic Hallucination Prompt (DHP) to guide models toward creative and reliable outputs. The evaluation process employs multiple LLM judges, averaging scores to mitigate bias, with human annotators verifying IH/DH classifications. Experimental results reveal a nonlinear relationship between IH and DH, demonstrating that creativity and correctness can be jointly optimized. These insights position IH as a catalyst for creativity and reveal the ability of LLM hallucinations to drive scientific innovation.Additionally, the HIC-Bench offers a valuable platform for advancing research into the creative intelligence of LLM hallucinations.

We introduce Gaia2, a benchmark for evaluating large language model agents in realistic, asynchronous environments. Unlike prior static or synchronous evaluations, Gaia2 introduces scenarios where environments evolve independently of agent actions, requiring agents to operate under temporal constraints, adapt to noisy and dynamic events, resolve ambiguity, and collaborate with other agents. Each scenario is paired with a write-action verifier, enabling fine-grained, action-level evaluation and making Gaia2 directly usable for reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source models shows that no model dominates across capabilities: GPT-5 (high) reaches the strongest overall score of 42% pass@1 but fails on time-sensitive tasks, Claude-4 Sonnet trades accuracy and speed for cost, Kimi-K2 leads among open-source models with 21% pass@1. These results highlight fundamental trade-offs between reasoning, efficiency, robustness, and expose challenges in closing the "sim2real" gap. Gaia2 is built on a consumer environment with the open-source Agents Research Environments platform and designed to be easy to extend. By releasing Gaia2 alongside the foundational ARE framework, we aim to provide the community with a flexible infrastructure for developing, benchmarking, and training the next generation of practical agent systems.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents, their integration into interactive environments and tool use introduce new safety challenges beyond those associated with the models themselves. However, the absence of comprehensive benchmarks for evaluating agent safety presents a significant barrier to effective assessment and further improvement. In this paper, we introduce Agent-SafetyBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the safety of LLM agents. Agent-SafetyBench encompasses 349 interaction environments and 2,000 test cases, evaluating 8 categories of safety risks and covering 10 common failure modes frequently encountered in unsafe interactions. Our evaluation of 16 popular LLM agents reveals a concerning result: none of the agents achieves a safety score above 60%. This highlights significant safety challenges in LLM agents and underscores the considerable need for improvement. Through quantitative analysis, we identify critical failure modes and summarize two fundamental safety detects in current LLM agents: lack of robustness and lack of risk awareness. Furthermore, our findings suggest that reliance on defense prompts alone is insufficient to address these safety issues, emphasizing the need for more advanced and robust strategies. We release Agent-SafetyBench at https://github.com/thu-coai/Agent-SafetyBench to facilitate further research and innovation in agent safety evaluation and improvement.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where reliable visual grounding carries operational consequences, yet their behavior under progressively coercive prompt phrasing remains undercharacterized. Existing hallucination benchmarks predominantly rely on neutral prompts and binary detection, leaving open how both the incidence and the intensity of fabrication respond to graded linguistic pressure across structurally distinct task types. We present Ghost-100, a procedurally constructed benchmark of 800 synthetically generated images spanning eight categories across three task families: text-illegibility, time-reading, and object-absence, each designed under a negative-ground-truth principle that guarantees the queried target is absent, illegible, or indeterminate by construction. Every image is paired with five prompts drawn from a structured 5-Level Prompt Intensity Framework, holding the image and task identity fixed while varying only directive force, so that tone is isolated as the sole independent variable. We adopt a dual-track evaluation protocol: a rule-based H-Rate measuring the proportion of responses in which a model crosses from grounded refusal into unsupported positive commitment, and a GPT-4o-mini-judged H-Score on a 1-5 scale characterizing the confidence and specificity of fabrication once it occurs. We additionally release a three-stage automated validation workflow, which retrospectively confirms 717 of 800 images as strictly compliant. Evaluating nine open-weight VLMs, we find that H-Rate and H-Score dissociate substantially across model families, reading-style and presence-detection subsets respond to prompt pressure in qualitatively different ways, and several models exhibit non-monotonic sensitivity peaking at intermediate tone levels: patterns that aggregate metrics obscure.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in agentic tasks, particularly in slide generation. However, slide generation poses a fundamental challenge: the generation process is text-centric, whereas its quality is governed by visual aesthetics. This modality gap leads current models to frequently produce slides with aesthetically suboptimal layouts. Existing solutions typically rely either on heavy visual reflection, which incurs high inference cost yet yields limited gains; or on fine-tuning with large-scale datasets, which still provides weak and indirect aesthetic supervision. In contrast, the explicit use of aesthetic principles as supervision remains unexplored. In this work, we present AeSlides, a reinforcement learning framework with verifiable rewards for Aesthetic layout supervision in Slide generation. We introduce a suite of meticulously designed verifiable metrics to quantify slide layout quality, capturing key layout issues in an accurate, efficient, and low-cost manner. Leveraging these verifiable metrics, we develop a GRPO-based reinforcement learning method that directly optimizes slide generation models for aesthetically coherent layouts. With only 5K training prompts on GLM-4.7-Flash, AeSlides improves aspect ratio compliance from 36% to 85%, while reducing whitespace by 44%, element collisions by 43%, and visual imbalance by 28%. Human evaluation further shows a substantial improvement in overall quality, increasing scores from 3.31 to 3.56 (+7.6%), outperforming both model-based reward optimization and reflection-based agentic approaches, and even edging out Claude-Sonnet-4.5. These results demonstrate that such a verifiable aesthetic paradigm provides an efficient and scalable approach to aligning slide generation with human aesthetic preferences. Our repository is available at https://github.com/ympan0508/aeslides.

Large Language Models have emerged as transformative tools for Security Operations Centers, enabling automated log analysis, phishing triage, and malware explanation; however, deployment in adversarial cybersecurity environments exposes critical vulnerabilities to prompt injection attacks where malicious instructions embedded in security artifacts manipulate model behavior. This paper introduces SecureCAI, a novel defense framework extending Constitutional AI principles with security-aware guardrails, adaptive constitution evolution, and Direct Preference Optimization for unlearning unsafe response patterns, addressing the unique challenges of high-stakes security contexts where traditional safety mechanisms prove insufficient against sophisticated adversarial manipulation. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that SecureCAI reduces attack success rates by 94.7% compared to baseline models while maintaining 95.1% accuracy on benign security analysis tasks, with the framework incorporating continuous red-teaming feedback loops enabling dynamic adaptation to emerging attack strategies and achieving constitution adherence scores exceeding 0.92 under sustained adversarial pressure, thereby establishing a foundation for trustworthy integration of language model capabilities into operational cybersecurity workflows and addressing a critical gap in current approaches to AI safety within adversarial domains.

Scaling pre-training, post-training, and test-time compute have become the central paradigms for improving the capabilities of LLMs. In this work, we identify verification, the ability to determine the correctness of a solution, as a new scaling axis. To unlock this and demonstrate its effectiveness, we introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework that provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training. Unlike standard LM judges that prompt LLMs to produce discrete scores for candidate solutions, LLM-as-a-Verifier computes the expectation over the distribution of scoring token logits to generate continuous scores. This probabilistic formulation enables verification to scale along multiple dimensions: (1) score granularity, (2) repeated evaluation, and (3) criteria decomposition. In particular, we show that scaling the scoring granularity leads to better separation between positive and negative solutions, resulting in more calibrated comparisons. Moreover, scaling repeated evaluation and criteria decomposition consistently lead to additional gains in verification accuracy through variance and complexity reduction. We further introduce a cost-efficient ranking algorithm for selecting the best solution among candidates using the verifier's continuous scores. LLM-as-a-Verifier achieves state-of-the-art performance on Terminal-Bench V2 (86.5%), SWE-Bench Verified (78.2%), RoboRewardBench (87.4%), and MedAgentBench (73.3%). Beyond verification, the fine-grained signals from LLM-as-a-Verifier can also serve as a proxy for estimating task progress. We build an extension for Claude Code, enabling developers to monitor and improve their own agentic systems. Finally, we show that LLM-as-a-Verifier can provide dense feedback for RL, improving the sample efficiency of SAC and GRPO on robotics and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent and convincing responses, they are not necessarily correct. This is especially apparent in the popular decompose-then-verify factuality evaluation pipeline, where LLMs evaluate generations by decomposing the generations into individual, valid claims. Factuality evaluation is especially important for medical answers, since incorrect medical information could seriously harm the patient. However, existing factuality systems are a poor match for the medical domain, as they are typically only evaluated on objective, entity-centric, formulaic texts such as biographies and historical topics. This differs from condition-dependent, conversational, hypothetical, sentence-structure diverse, and subjective medical answers, which makes decomposition into valid facts challenging. We propose MedScore, a new pipeline to decompose medical answers into condition-aware valid facts and verify against in-domain corpora. Our method extracts up to three times more valid facts than existing methods, reducing hallucination and vague references, and retaining condition-dependency in facts. The resulting factuality score substantially varies by decomposition method, verification corpus, and used backbone LLM, highlighting the importance of customizing each step for reliable factuality evaluation by using our generalizable and modularized pipeline for domain adaptation.

As large language models (LLMs) become deeply embedded in daily life, the urgent need for safer moderation systems, distinguishing between naive from harmful requests while upholding appropriate censorship boundaries, has never been greater. While existing LLMs can detect harmful or unsafe content, they often struggle with nuanced cases such as implicit offensiveness, subtle gender and racial biases, and jailbreak prompts, due to the subjective and context-dependent nature of these issues. Furthermore, their heavy reliance on training data can reinforce societal biases, resulting in inconsistent and ethically problematic outputs. To address these challenges, we introduce GuardEval, a unified multi-perspective benchmark dataset designed for both training and evaluation, containing 106 fine-grained categories spanning human emotions, offensive and hateful language, gender and racial bias, and broader safety concerns. We also present GemmaGuard (GGuard), a QLoRA fine-tuned version of Gemma3-12B trained on GuardEval, to assess content moderation with fine-grained labels. Our evaluation shows that GGuard achieves a macro F1 score of 0.832, substantially outperforming leading moderation models, including OpenAI Moderator (0.64) and Llama Guard (0.61). We show that multi-perspective, human-centered safety benchmarks are critical for reducing biased and inconsistent moderation decisions. GuardEval and GGuard together demonstrate that diverse, representative data materially improve safety, fairness, and robustness on complex, borderline cases.

Code clone detection is a critical task in software engineering, aimed at identifying duplicated or similar code fragments within or across software systems. Traditional methods often fail to capture functional equivalence, particularly for semantic clones (Type 4), where code fragments implement identical functionality despite differing syntactic structures. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in understanding code semantics. However, directly applying LLMs to code clone detection yields suboptimal results due to their sensitivity to syntactic differences. To address these challenges, we propose a novel two-stage framework that combines LLM-based screening with execution-based validation for detecting semantic clones in Python programs. In the first stage, an LLM evaluates code pairs to filter out obvious non-clones based on semantic analysis. For pairs not identified as clones, the second stage employs an execution-based validation approach, utilizing LLM-generated test inputs to assess functional equivalence through cross-execution validation. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates significant improvements in precision, recall, and F1-score compared to direct LLM-based detection, highlighting the framework's effectiveness in identifying semantic clones. Future work includes exploring cross-language clone detection and optimizing the framework for large-scale applications.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, such as Question Answering, Summarization, and Classification. The use of LLMs as evaluators, that can rank or score the output of other models (usually LLMs) has become increasingly popular, due to the limitations of current evaluation techniques including the lack of appropriate benchmarks, metrics, cost, and access to human annotators. While LLMs are capable of handling approximately 100 languages, the majority of languages beyond the top 20 lack systematic evaluation across various tasks, metrics, and benchmarks. This creates an urgent need to scale up multilingual evaluation to ensure a precise understanding of LLM performance across diverse languages. LLM-based evaluators seem like the perfect solution to this problem, as they do not require human annotators, human-created references, or benchmarks and can theoretically be used to evaluate any language covered by the LLM. In this paper, we investigate whether LLM-based evaluators can help scale up multilingual evaluation. Specifically, we calibrate LLM-based evaluation against 20k human judgments of five metrics across three text-generation tasks in eight languages. Our findings indicate that LLM-based evaluators may exhibit bias towards higher scores and should be used with caution and should always be calibrated with a dataset of native speaker judgments, particularly in low-resource and non-Latin script languages.

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. Recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency or generate insightful review content. However, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine the peer review ecosystem and compromise academic integrity. To address this critical issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews. ReviewGuard employs a comprehensive four-stage LLM-driven framework that: (1) collects ICLR and NeurIPS papers with their corresponding reviews from OpenReview; (2) annotates review types using GPT-4.1 with human validation; (3) addresses class imbalance and data scarcity through LLM-driven synthetic data augmentation, producing a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews; and (4) fine-tunes both encoder-based models and open source LLMs. We perform comprehensive feature analysis of the structure and quality of the review text. Compared to sufficient reviews, deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment. AI-generated text detection reveals that, since ChatGPT's emergence, AI-generated reviews have increased dramatically. In the evaluation of deficient review detection models, mixed training with synthetic and real review data provides substantial enhancements to recall and F1 scores on the binary task. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review while offering valuable insights into human-AI collaboration to maintain academic integrity.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly relies on other LLMs acting as judges. However, current evaluation paradigms typically yield a single score or ranking, answering which model is better but not why. While essential for benchmarking, these top-level scores obscure the specific, actionable reasons behind a model's performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce CLEAR, an interactive, open-source package for LLM-based error analysis. CLEAR first generates per-instance textual feedback, then it creates a set of system-level error issues, and quantifies the prevalence of each identified issue. Our package also provides users with an interactive dashboard that allows for a comprehensive error analysis through aggregate visualizations, applies interactive filters to isolate specific issues or score ranges, and drills down to the individual instances that exemplify a particular behavioral pattern. We demonstrate CLEAR analysis for RAG and Math benchmarks, and showcase its utility through a user case study.

8 years after the visual question answering (VQA) task was proposed, accuracy remains the primary metric for automatic evaluation. VQA Accuracy has been effective so far in the IID evaluation setting. However, our community is undergoing a shift towards open-ended generative models and OOD evaluation. In this new paradigm, the existing VQA Accuracy metric is overly stringent and underestimates the performance of VQA systems. Thus, there is a need to develop more robust automatic VQA metrics that serve as a proxy for human judgment. In this work, we propose to leverage the in-context learning capabilities of instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) to build a better VQA metric. We formulate VQA evaluation as an answer-rating task where the LLM is instructed to score the accuracy of a candidate answer given a set of reference answers. We demonstrate the proposed metric better correlates with human judgment compared to existing metrics across several VQA models and benchmarks. We hope wide adoption of our metric will contribute to better estimating the research progress on the VQA task. We plan to release the evaluation code and collected human judgments.

Guardrails are critical for the safe deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered software. Unlike traditional rule-based systems with limited, predefined input-output spaces that inherently constrain unsafe behavior, LLMs enable open-ended, intelligent interactions--opening the door to jailbreak attacks through user inputs. Guardrails serve as a protective layer, filtering unsafe prompts before they reach the LLM. However, prior research shows that jailbreak attacks can still succeed over 70% of the time, even against advanced models like GPT-4o. While guardrails such as LlamaGuard report up to 95% accuracy, our preliminary analysis shows their performance can drop sharply--to as low as 12%--when confronted with unseen attacks. This highlights a growing software engineering challenge: how to build a post-deployment guardrail that adapts dynamically to emerging threats? To address this, we propose AdaptiveGuard, an adaptive guardrail that detects novel jailbreak attacks as out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs and learns to defend against them through a continual learning framework. Through empirical evaluation, AdaptiveGuard achieves 96% OOD detection accuracy, adapts to new attacks in just two update steps, and retains over 85% F1-score on in-distribution data post-adaptation, outperforming other baselines. These results demonstrate that AdaptiveGuard is a guardrail capable of evolving in response to emerging jailbreak strategies post deployment. We release our AdaptiveGuard and studied datasets at https://github.com/awsm-research/AdaptiveGuard to support further research.

Many advanced Large Language Model (LLM) applications require long-context processing, but the self-attention module becomes a bottleneck during the prefilling stage of inference due to its quadratic time complexity with respect to sequence length. Existing sparse attention methods accelerate attention computation by skipping less significant regions of the attention map. However, these approaches typically perform coarse-grained inspection of the attention map, rendering considerable loss in model accuracy. In this paper, we propose SALE, a fine-grained sparse attention method that accelerates the long-context prefilling stage of LLM with negligible loss in model accuracy. SALE achieves fast and accurate fine-grained attention weight estimation through 4-bit quantized query-key products, followed by block-sparse attention to accelerate prefilling computations. For importance evaluation for query-key pairs, we adopt our Relative Attention Score metric, which offers significantly higher efficiency within our framework. We implement a custom CUDA kernel optimized for our approach for hardware efficiency, reducing the additional overhead to approximately 11% of the full attention latency. Notably, SALE requires no parameter training and can be seamlessly integrated into existing systems with trivial code modifications. Experiments on long-context benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing approaches in accuracy-efficiency trade-offs, achieving at least 3.36x speedups on Llama-3.1-8B for sequences longer than 64K while maintaining model quality.

The swift progress and widespread acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems highlight a pressing requirement to comprehend both the capabilities and potential risks associated with AI. Given the linguistic complexity, cultural richness, and underrepresented status of Arabic in AI research, there is a pressing need to focus on Large Language Models (LLMs) performance and safety for Arabic-related tasks. Despite some progress in their development, there is a lack of comprehensive trustworthiness evaluation benchmarks, which presents a major challenge in accurately assessing and improving the safety of LLMs when prompted in Arabic. In this paper, we introduce AraTrust, the first comprehensive trustworthiness benchmark for LLMs in Arabic. AraTrust comprises 522 human-written multiple-choice questions addressing diverse dimensions related to truthfulness, ethics, safety, physical health, mental health, unfairness, illegal activities, privacy, and offensive language. We evaluated a set of LLMs against our benchmark to assess their trustworthiness. GPT-4 was the most trustworthy LLM, while open-source models, particularly AceGPT 7B and Jais 13B, struggled to achieve a score of 60% in our benchmark.

The "Information Retrieval in Software Engineering (IRSE)" at FIRE 2023 shared task introduces code comment classification, a challenging task that pairs a code snippet with a comment that should be evaluated as either useful or not useful to the understanding of the relevant code. We answer the code comment classification shared task challenge by providing a two-fold evaluation: from an algorithmic perspective, we compare the performance of classical machine learning systems and complement our evaluations from a data-driven perspective by generating additional data with the help of large language model (LLM) prompting to measure the potential increase in performance. Our best model, which took second place in the shared task, is a Neural Network with a Macro-F1 score of 88.401% on the provided seed data and a 1.5% overall increase in performance on the data generated by the LLM.

The prohibitive cost of evaluating large language models (LLMs) on comprehensive benchmarks necessitates the creation of small yet representative data subsets (i.e., tiny benchmarks) that enable efficient assessment while retaining predictive fidelity. Current methods for this task operate under a model-centric paradigm, selecting benchmarking items based on the collective performance of existing models. Such approaches are limited by large upfront costs, an inability to immediately handle new benchmarks (`cold-start'), and the fragile assumption that future models will share the failure patterns of their predecessors. In this work, we challenge this paradigm and propose a item-centric approach to benchmark subset selection, arguing that selection should be based on the intrinsic properties of the task items themselves, rather than on model-specific failure patterns. We instantiate this item-centric efficient benchmarking approach via a novel method, Scales++, where data selection is based on the cognitive demands of the benchmark samples. Empirically, we show Scales++ reduces the upfront selection cost by over 18x while achieving competitive predictive fidelity. On the Open LLM Leaderboard, using just a 0.5\% data subset, we predict full benchmark scores with a 2.9% mean absolute error. We demonstrate that this item-centric approach enables more efficient model evaluation without significant fidelity degradation, while also providing better cold-start performance and more interpretable benchmarking.

Large Language Models (LLMs) effectiveness is usually evaluated by means of benchmarks such as MMLU, ARC-C, or HellaSwag, where questions are presented in their original wording, thus in a fixed, standardized format. However, real-world applications involve linguistic variability, requiring models to maintain their effectiveness across diverse rewordings of the same question or query. In this study, we systematically assess the robustness of LLMs to paraphrased benchmark questions and investigate whether benchmark-based evaluations provide a reliable measure of model capabilities. We systematically generate various paraphrases of all the questions across six different common benchmarks, and measure the resulting variations in effectiveness of 34 state-of-the-art LLMs, of different size and effectiveness. Our findings reveal that while LLM rankings remain relatively stable across paraphrased inputs, absolute effectiveness scores change, and decline significantly. This suggests that LLMs struggle with linguistic variability, raising concerns about their generalization abilities and evaluation methodologies. Furthermore, the observed performance drop challenges the reliability of benchmark-based evaluations, indicating that high benchmark scores may not fully capture a model's robustness to real-world input variations. We discuss the implications of these findings for LLM evaluation methodologies, emphasizing the need for robustness-aware benchmarks that better reflect practical deployment scenarios.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are reshaping the game industry, particularly with more intelligent and human-preferable game characters. However, existing game benchmarks fall short of practical needs: they lack evaluations of diverse LLM capabilities across various game genres, studies of agentic modules crucial for complex gameplay, and fine-tuning datasets for aligning pre-trained LLMs into gaming agents. To fill these gaps, we present \benchname{}, a foundational benchmark designed to train and evaluate LLM agents across diverse real-world video games. Unlike existing benchmarks, Orak includes 12 popular video games spanning all major genres, enabling comprehensive studies of LLM capabilities and agentic modules essential for intricate game scenarios. To support consistent evaluation of LLMs, we introduce a plug-and-play interface based on Model Context Protocol (MCP) that enables LLMs to seamlessly connect with games and manipulate agentic modules. Additionally, we propose a fine-tuning dataset, consisting of LLM gameplay trajectories across diverse game genres. Orak offers a comprehensive evaluation framework, encompassing general game score leaderboards, LLM battle arenas, and in-depth analyses of visual input state, agentic strategies, and fine-tuning effects, establishing a foundation towards building generic gaming agents. Code is available at https://github.com/krafton-ai/Orak.

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than 400 models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only 100 anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman ρgeq 0.9 for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

LLMs are increasingly used as long-running conversational agents, yet every major benchmark evaluating their memory treats user information as static facts to be stored and retrieved. That's the wrong model. People change their minds, and over extended interactions, phenomena like opinion drift, over-alignment, and confirmation bias start to matter a lot. BeliefShift introduces a longitudinal benchmark designed specifically to evaluate belief dynamics in multi-session LLM interactions. It covers three tracks: Temporal Belief Consistency, Contradiction Detection, and Evidence-Driven Revision. The dataset includes 2,400 human-annotated multi-session interaction trajectories spanning health, politics, personal values, and product preferences. We evaluate seven models including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro, LLaMA-3, and Mistral-Large under zero-shot and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) settings. Results reveal a clear trade-off: models that personalize aggressively resist drift poorly, while factually grounded models miss legitimate belief updates. We further introduce four novel evaluation metrics: Belief Revision Accuracy (BRA), Drift Coherence Score (DCS), Contradiction Resolution Rate (CRR), and Evidence Sensitivity Index (ESI).

In this paper, we present an investigative study on how Mental Sets influence the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. LLMs have excelled in diverse natural language processing (NLP) tasks, driven by advancements in parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and emergent capabilities like in-context learning (ICL). For complex reasoning tasks, selecting the right model for PEFT or ICL is critical, often relying on scores on benchmarks such as MMLU, MATH, and GSM8K. However, current evaluation methods, based on metrics like F1 Score or reasoning chain assessments by larger models, overlook a key dimension: adaptability to unfamiliar situations and overcoming entrenched thinking patterns. In cognitive psychology, Mental Set refers to the tendency to persist with previously successful strategies, even when they become inefficient - a challenge for problem solving and reasoning. We compare the performance of LLM models like Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct and GPT-4o in the presence of mental sets. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to integrate cognitive psychology concepts into the evaluation of LLMs for complex reasoning tasks, providing deeper insights into their adaptability and problem-solving efficacy.