Daily Papers

The TextClass Benchmark project is an ongoing, continuous benchmarking process that aims to provide a comprehensive, fair, and dynamic evaluation of LLMs and transformers for text classification tasks. This evaluation spans various domains and languages in social sciences disciplines engaged in NLP and text-as-data approach. The leaderboards present performance metrics and relative ranking using a tailored Elo rating system. With each leaderboard cycle, novel models are added, fixed test sets can be replaced for unseen, equivalent data to test generalisation power, ratings are updated, and a Meta-Elo leaderboard combines and weights domain-specific leaderboards. This article presents the rationale and motivation behind the project, explains the Elo rating system in detail, and estimates Meta-Elo across different classification tasks in social science disciplines. We also present a snapshot of the first cycle of classification tasks on incivility data in Chinese, English, German and Russian. This ongoing benchmarking process includes not only additional languages such as Arabic, Hindi, and Spanish but also a classification of policy agenda topics, misinformation, among others.

With the increasing code reasoning capabilities of existing large language models (LLMs) and breakthroughs in reasoning models like OpenAI o1 and o3, there is a growing need to develop more challenging and comprehensive benchmarks that effectively test their sophisticated competition-level coding abilities. Existing benchmarks, like LiveCodeBench and USACO, fall short due to the unavailability of private test cases, lack of support for special judges, and misaligned execution environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce CodeElo, a standardized competition-level code generation benchmark that effectively addresses all these challenges for the first time. CodeElo benchmark is mainly based on the official CodeForces platform and tries to align with the platform as much as possible. We compile the recent six months of contest problems on CodeForces with detailed information such as contest divisions, problem difficulty ratings, and problem algorithm tags. We introduce a unique judging method in which problems are submitted directly to the platform and develop a reliable Elo rating calculation system that aligns with the platform and is comparable with human participants but has lower variance. By testing on our CodeElo, we provide the Elo ratings of 30 existing popular open-source and 3 proprietary LLMs for the first time. The results show that o1-mini and QwQ-32B-Preview stand out significantly, achieving Elo ratings of 1578 and 1261, respectively, while other models struggle even with the easiest problems, placing in the lowest 20 percent among all human participants. Detailed analysis experiments are also conducted to provide insights into performance across algorithms and comparisons between using C++ and Python, which can suggest directions for future studies.

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), the Elo rating system, originally designed for ranking players in dynamic games such as chess, is increasingly being used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) through "A vs B" paired comparisons. However, while popular, the system's suitability for assessing entities with constant skill levels, such as LLMs, remains relatively unexplored. We study two fundamental axioms that evaluation methods should adhere to: reliability and transitivity. We conduct extensive evaluation of Elo behaviour, illustrating that individual Elo computations exhibit volatility and delving into the impact of varying the Elo rating system's hyperparameters. We show that these axioms are not always satisfied raising questions about the reliability of current comparative evaluations of LLMs. If the current use of Elo scores is intended to substitute the costly head-to-head comparison of LLMs, it is crucial to ensure the ranking is as robust as possible. Guided by the axioms, our findings offer concrete guidelines for enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluation methods, suggesting a need for reassessment of existing comparative approaches.

Large language model (LLM) agents allocate test-time compute adaptively as they revise solutions, use tools, explore alternatives, and decide when to stop. This test-time strategy makes it difficult to measure how agent performance scales. We study open-ended tasks that provide continuous scores for intermediate submissions, making progress observable throughout long trajectories. We propose Elo-per-token analysis, which tracks the best solution found at each token budget and uses a Bradley-Terry model to aggregate within-task orderings into Elo ratings across tasks with different score scales. We apply it to four general-purpose agents on four open-ended benchmarks, with sessions of up to 100M tokens, and to three feedback-driven LLM optimization harnesses in controlled single-task interventions. Independent sampling provides a theoretically characterized reference, for which Elo grows linearly with log compute. Against this reference, agents can initially convert tokens into Elo faster than independent sampling, but their marginal gains diminish and eventually fall below the reference. In contrast, the strongest historical human contestants improve superlinearly over contest time on shared AtCoder Heuristic Contest tasks, providing evidence of continual learning and substantial headroom after agents slow down. We define the scaling inflection point as the per-session budget where marginal Elo gains match the independent-sampling reference. Using this point as the per-session budget, we split 100M tokens across parallel sessions on FrontierCS Polyomino Packing, gaining +264 Elo over one long session and +355 over ten short sessions.

We study the problem of building a controller that can follow open-ended instructions in open-world environments. We propose to follow reference videos as instructions, which offer expressive goal specifications while eliminating the need for expensive text-gameplay annotations. A new learning framework is derived to allow learning such instruction-following controllers from gameplay videos while producing a video instruction encoder that induces a structured goal space. We implement our agent GROOT in a simple yet effective encoder-decoder architecture based on causal transformers. We evaluate GROOT against open-world counterparts and human players on a proposed Minecraft SkillForge benchmark. The Elo ratings clearly show that GROOT is closing the human-machine gap as well as exhibiting a 70% winning rate over the best generalist agent baseline. Qualitative analysis of the induced goal space further demonstrates some interesting emergent properties, including the goal composition and complex gameplay behavior synthesis. Code and video can be found on the website https://craftjarvis-groot.github.io.

Despite their sophisticated capabilities, large language models (LLMs) encounter a major hurdle in effective assessment. This paper first revisits the prevalent evaluation method-multiple choice question answering (MCQA), which allows for straightforward accuracy measurement. Through a comprehensive evaluation of 24 models across 11 benchmarks, we highlight several potential drawbacks of MCQA, for instance, the inconsistency between the MCQA evaluation and the generation of open-ended responses in practical scenarios. In response, we introduce an RWQ-Elo rating system, engaging 24 LLMs such as GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Google-Gemini-Pro and LLaMA-1/-2, in a two-player competitive format, with GPT-4 serving as the judge. Each LLM receives an Elo rating thereafter. This system is designed to mirror real-world usage, and for this purpose, we have compiled a new benchmark called ``Real-world questions'' (RWQ), comprising 20,772 authentic user inquiries. Additionally, we thoroughly analyze the characteristics of our system and compare it with prior leaderboards like AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Our analysis reveals the stability of our RWQ-Elo system, the feasibility of registering new models, and its potential to reshape LLM leaderboards.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

As intelligent agents become more generally-capable, i.e. able to master a wide variety of tasks, the complexity and cost of properly evaluating them rises significantly. Tasks that assess specific capabilities of the agents can be correlated and stochastic, requiring many samples for accurate comparisons, leading to added costs. In this paper, we propose a formal definition and a conceptual framework for active evaluation of agents across multiple tasks, which assesses the performance of ranking algorithms as a function of number of evaluation data samples. Rather than curating, filtering, or compressing existing data sets as a preprocessing step, we propose an online framing: on every iteration, the ranking algorithm chooses the task and agents to sample scores from. Then, evaluation algorithms report a ranking of agents on each iteration and their performance is assessed with respect to the ground truth ranking over time. Several baselines are compared under different experimental contexts, with synthetic generated data and simulated online access to real evaluation data from Atari game-playing agents. We find that the classical Elo rating system -- while it suffers from well-known failure modes, in theory -- is a consistently reliable choice for efficient reduction of ranking error in practice. A recently-proposed method, Soft Condorcet Optimization, shows comparable performance to Elo on synthetic data and significantly outperforms Elo on real Atari agent evaluation. When task variation from the ground truth is high, selecting tasks based on proportional representation leads to higher rate of ranking error reduction.

Adversarial board games, as a paradigmatic domain of strategic reasoning and intelligence, have long served as both a popular competitive activity and a benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Building on this foundation, we propose an adversarial benchmarking framework to assess the comprehensive performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) through board games competition, compensating the limitation of data dependency of the mainstream Question-and-Answer (Q&A) based benchmark method. We introduce Qi Town, a specialized evaluation platform that supports 5 widely played games and involves 20 LLM-driven players. The platform employs both the Elo rating system and a novel Performance Loop Graph (PLG) to quantitatively evaluate the technical capabilities of LLMs, while also capturing Positive Sentiment Score (PSS) throughout gameplay to assess mental fitness. The evaluation is structured as a round-robin tournament, enabling systematic comparison across players. Experimental results indicate that, despite technical differences, most LLMs remain optimistic about winning and losing, demonstrating greater adaptability to high-stress adversarial environments than humans. On the other hand, the complex relationship between cyclic wins and losses in PLGs exposes the instability of LLMs' skill play during games, warranting further explanation and exploration.

We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) using challenging, real-world user queries. WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. For automated evaluation with WildBench, we have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs such as GPT-4-turbo. WildBench evaluation uses task-specific checklists to evaluate model outputs systematically and provides structured explanations that justify the scores and comparisons, resulting in more reliable and interpretable automatic judgments. WB-Reward employs fine-grained pairwise comparisons between model responses, generating five potential outcomes: much better, slightly better, slightly worse, much worse, or a tie. Unlike previous evaluations that employed a single baseline model, we selected three baseline models at varying performance levels to ensure a comprehensive pairwise evaluation. Additionally, we propose a simple method to mitigate length bias, by converting outcomes of ``slightly better/worse'' to ``tie'' if the winner response exceeds the loser one by more than K characters. WB-Score evaluates the quality of model outputs individually, making it a fast and cost-efficient evaluation metric. WildBench results demonstrate a strong correlation with the human-voted Elo ratings from Chatbot Arena on hard tasks. Specifically, WB-Reward achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.98 with top-ranking models. Additionally, WB-Score reaches 0.95, surpassing both ArenaHard's 0.91 and AlpacaEval2.0's 0.89 for length-controlled win rates, as well as the 0.87 for regular win rates.

In arena-style evaluation of large language models (LLMs), two LLMs respond to a user query, and the user chooses the winning response or deems the "battle" a draw, resulting in an adjustment to the ratings of both models. The prevailing approach for modeling these rating dynamics is to view battles as two-player game matches, as in chess, and apply the Elo rating system and its derivatives. In this paper, we critically examine this paradigm. Specifically, we question whether a draw genuinely means that the two models are equal and hence whether their ratings should be equalized. Instead, we conjecture that draws are more indicative of query difficulty: if the query is too easy, then both models are more likely to succeed equally. On three real-world arena datasets, we show that ignoring rating updates for draws yields a 1-3% relative increase in battle outcome prediction accuracy (which includes draws) for all four rating systems studied. Further analyses suggest that draws occur more for queries rated as very easy and those as highly objective, with risk ratios of 1.37 and 1.35, respectively. We recommend future rating systems to reconsider existing draw semantics and to account for query properties in rating updates.

Hallucinations are a common issue that undermine the reliability of large language models (LLMs). Recent studies have identified a specific subset of hallucinations, known as confabulations, which arise due to predictive uncertainty of LLMs. To detect confabulations, various methods for estimating predictive uncertainty in natural language generation (NLG) have been developed. These methods are typically evaluated by correlating uncertainty estimates with the correctness of generated text, with question-answering (QA) datasets serving as the standard benchmark. However, commonly used approximate correctness functions have substantial disagreement between each other and, consequently, in the ranking of the uncertainty estimation methods. This allows one to inflate the apparent performance of uncertainty estimation methods. We propose using several alternative risk indicators for risk correlation experiments that improve robustness of empirical assessment of UE algorithms for NLG. For QA tasks, we show that marginalizing over multiple LLM-as-a-judge variants leads to reducing the evaluation biases. Furthermore, we explore structured tasks as well as out of distribution and perturbation detection tasks which provide robust and controllable risk indicators. Finally, we propose to use an Elo rating of uncertainty estimation methods to give an objective summarization over extensive evaluation settings.

This paper investigates the evaluation of learned multiagent strategies in the incomplete information setting, which plays a critical role in ranking and training of agents. Traditionally, researchers have relied on Elo ratings for this purpose, with recent works also using methods based on Nash equilibria. Unfortunately, Elo is unable to handle intransitive agent interactions, and other techniques are restricted to zero-sum, two-player settings or are limited by the fact that the Nash equilibrium is intractable to compute. Recently, a ranking method called α-Rank, relying on a new graph-based game-theoretic solution concept, was shown to tractably apply to general games. However, evaluations based on Elo or α-Rank typically assume noise-free game outcomes, despite the data often being collected from noisy simulations, making this assumption unrealistic in practice. This paper investigates multiagent evaluation in the incomplete information regime, involving general-sum many-player games with noisy outcomes. We derive sample complexity guarantees required to confidently rank agents in this setting. We propose adaptive algorithms for accurate ranking, provide correctness and sample complexity guarantees, then introduce a means of connecting uncertainties in noisy match outcomes to uncertainties in rankings. We evaluate the performance of these approaches in several domains, including Bernoulli games, a soccer meta-game, and Kuhn poker.

Pommerman is a multi-agent environment that has received considerable attention from researchers in recent years. This environment is an ideal benchmark for multi-agent training, providing a battleground for two teams with communication capabilities among allied agents. Pommerman presents significant challenges for model-free reinforcement learning due to delayed action effects, sparse rewards, and false positives, where opponent players can lose due to their own mistakes. This study introduces a system designed to train multi-agent systems to play Pommerman using a combination of curriculum learning and population-based self-play. We also tackle two challenging problems when deploying the multi-agent training system for competitive games: sparse reward and suitable matchmaking mechanism. Specifically, we propose an adaptive annealing factor based on agents' performance to adjust the dense exploration reward during training dynamically. Additionally, we implement a matchmaking mechanism utilizing the Elo rating system to pair agents effectively. Our experimental results demonstrate that our trained agent can outperform top learning agents without requiring communication among allied agents.

Recent advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have led to significant improvements across various multimodal benchmarks. However, as evaluations shift from static datasets to open-world, dynamic environments, current game-based benchmarks remain inadequate because they lack visual-centric tasks and fail to assess the diverse reasoning skills required for real-world decision-making. To address this, we introduce Visual-centric Multiple Abilities Game Evaluation (V-MAGE), a game-based evaluation framework designed to assess visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. V-MAGE features five diverse games with 30+ handcrafted levels, testing models on core visual skills such as positioning, trajectory tracking, timing, and visual memory, alongside higher-level reasoning like long-term planning and deliberation. We use V-MAGE to evaluate leading MLLMs, revealing significant challenges in their visual perception and reasoning. In all game environments, the top-performing MLLMs, as determined by Elo rating comparisons, exhibit a substantial performance gap compared to humans. Our findings highlight critical limitations, including various types of perceptual errors made by the models, and suggest potential avenues for improvement from an agent-centric perspective, such as refining agent strategies and addressing perceptual inaccuracies. Code is available at https://github.com/CSU-JPG/V-MAGE.

Evaluating research ideas generated by LLMs is difficult because their scientific value cannot be fully determined by objective criteria, and no single reference answer specifies what counts as a good idea. To address this challenge, we introduce Ideation Arena, a battle style platform that evaluates research ideas through pairwise human assessment. Ideation Arena evaluates ideas generated by 14 frontier LLMs and 5 research agent architectures built on 2 base models. To ensure a common starting point, Ideation Arena builds shared literature contexts from papers familiar to the participating researchers and provides the same contexts to all LLMs and agents. We collect over 6,000 double blind pairwise comparisons from 105 active computer science researchers and construct an Elo rating leaderboard of proposal-stage expert preferences in computer science under a shared closed-context protocol. We validate the rankings through interrater agreement and robustness analyses, showing that the leaderboard remains stable under changes in annotator composition and domain coverage. Our results show substantial variation in agent effectiveness, with some frameworks improving ideation quality over their backbones and others offering little benefit or even underperforming their base models. We further construct Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark for assessing whether automated evaluators align with human preferences in research ideation. Experiments with current LLM judges show that they still cannot reliably reproduce expert preferences, with the best judge reaching 72.56% Soft Accuracy on Overall Quality. Our code, data, and leaderboards are available at https://github.com/foss12138/Research-Ideation-Arena.

Recent text-to-image generation models have achieved remarkable visual quality, but improving them through post-training remains challenging because no single reward signal captures the full range of human preference. In this work, we develop a simple and effective post-training recipe for open-domain text-to-image generation based on the composition of complementary reward signals. Our reward system consists of two main components: a preference reward, trained on large-scale human preference data using a Bradley-Terry objective to capture overall human aesthetic and perceptual preferences, and rubric-based rewards, which explicitly evaluate prompt faithfulness and other desirable properties while providing safeguards against reward hacking. A key challenge is how to combine these heterogeneous reward signals. We show that a naive weighted average leads to suboptimal optimization behavior, and propose a simple reward composition strategy that more effectively balances preference optimization with rubric satisfaction. In the Arena text-to-image leaderboard (https://arena.ai/), our RL-trained Flux2dev achieves an Elo rating 69 points above the base model, and our post-trained Ideogram-4 surpasses every open-source model on the leaderboard, reaching an Elo of 1223.5. (Claims of state-of-the-art performance are based on the Arena leaderboard snapshot as of September 4, 2026.) Our results suggest that effective rewards for frontier generative-model training require broad coverage of user intent and robustness to exploitation under optimization. To support reproducible research, we release Arena-T2I-Training, a 1K subset of training data that recovers some gains of full-scale training, providing a resource that we hope will facilitate future work on post-training for text-to-image models.

Despite recent advances in text-to-3D generative methods, there is a notable absence of reliable evaluation metrics. Existing metrics usually focus on a single criterion each, such as how well the asset aligned with the input text. These metrics lack the flexibility to generalize to different evaluation criteria and might not align well with human preferences. Conducting user preference studies is an alternative that offers both adaptability and human-aligned results. User studies, however, can be very expensive to scale. This paper presents an automatic, versatile, and human-aligned evaluation metric for text-to-3D generative models. To this end, we first develop a prompt generator using GPT-4V to generate evaluating prompts, which serve as input to compare text-to-3D models. We further design a method instructing GPT-4V to compare two 3D assets according to user-defined criteria. Finally, we use these pairwise comparison results to assign these models Elo ratings. Experimental results suggest our metric strongly align with human preference across different evaluation criteria.

Self-play (SP) is a popular multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) framework for solving competitive games, where each agent optimizes policy by treating others as part of the environment. Despite the empirical successes, the theoretical properties of SP-based methods are limited to two-player zero-sum games. However, for mixed cooperative-competitive games where agents on the same team need to cooperate with each other, we can show a simple counter-example where SP-based methods cannot converge to a global Nash equilibrium (NE) with high probability. Alternatively, Policy-Space Response Oracles (PSRO) is an iterative framework for learning NE, where the best responses w.r.t. previous policies are learned in each iteration. PSRO can be directly extended to mixed cooperative-competitive settings by jointly learning team best responses with all convergence properties unchanged. However, PSRO requires repeatedly training joint policies from scratch till convergence, which makes it hard to scale to complex games. In this work, we develop a novel algorithm, Fictitious Cross-Play (FXP), which inherits the benefits from both frameworks. FXP simultaneously trains an SP-based main policy and a counter population of best response policies. The main policy is trained by fictitious self-play and cross-play against the counter population, while the counter policies are trained as the best responses to the main policy's past versions. We validate our method in matrix games and show that FXP converges to global NEs while SP methods fail. We also conduct experiments in a gridworld domain, where FXP achieves higher Elo ratings and lower exploitabilities than baselines, and a more challenging football game, where FXP defeats SOTA models with over 94% win rate.

Controlling the attribute intensity of text generation is crucial across scenarios (e.g., writing conciseness, chatting emotion, and explanation clarity). The remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized text generation, prompting us to explore such smooth control of LLM generation. Specifically, we propose metrics to assess the range, calibration, and consistency of the generated text's attribute intensity in response to varying control values, as well as its relevance to the intended context. To quantify the attribute intensity and context relevance, we propose an effective evaluation framework leveraging the Elo rating system and GPT4, both renowned for their robust alignment with human judgment. We look into two viable training-free methods for achieving smooth control of LLMs: (1) Prompting with semantic shifters, and (2) Modifying internal model representations. The evaluations of these two methods are conducted on 5 different attributes with various models. Our code and dataset can be obtained from https://github.com/ShangDataLab/Smooth-Control.

Crowdsourced model evaluation platforms, such as Chatbot Arena, enable real-time evaluation from human perspectives to assess the quality of model responses. In the coding domain, manually examining the quality of LLM-generated content is extremely challenging, as it requires understanding long chunks of raw code and deliberately simulating code execution. To this end, we introduce BigCodeArena, an open human evaluation platform for code generation backed by a comprehensive and on-the-fly execution environment. Built on top of Chatbot Arena, BigCodeArena enables the execution of LLM-generated code and allows humans to interact with the execution process and outcomes. We collected over 14,000 raw code-centric conversation sessions across 10 widely used LLMs, spanning 10 languages and 8 types of execution environments. Among these conversations, we identified more than 4,700 multi-turn samples with pairwise human preferences. Further analysis uncovers underexplored preferences of LLMs in fine-grained domains characterized by tasks, languages, and frameworks. To systematically examine code understanding and generation capabilities of frontier LLMs, we curated two benchmarks based on the collected data, namely BigCodeReward and AutoCodeArena. For BigCodeReward, we post-processed the 4,700 conversations and evaluated the consistency between reward models and human preferences. The evaluation shows that most LLMs have superior performance in judging coding preferences when the execution results are available. Inspired by these findings, we propose AutoCodeArena, an automatic Elo rating benchmark designed to assess the coding quality of LLMs without human involvement. We find that proprietary LLMs like GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4, and Claude-Opus-4 still lead in code generation performance among recent emerging models.

Large multimodal models (LMMs) with advanced video analysis capabilities have recently garnered significant attention. However, most evaluations rely on traditional methods like multiple-choice questions in benchmarks such as VideoMME and LongVideoBench, which are prone to lack the depth needed to capture the complex demands of real-world users. To address this limitation-and due to the prohibitive cost and slow pace of human annotation for video tasks-we introduce VideoAutoArena, an arena-style benchmark inspired by LMSYS Chatbot Arena's framework, designed to automatically assess LMMs' video analysis abilities. VideoAutoArena utilizes user simulation to generate open-ended, adaptive questions that rigorously assess model performance in video understanding. The benchmark features an automated, scalable evaluation framework, incorporating a modified ELO Rating System for fair and continuous comparisons across multiple LMMs. To validate our automated judging system, we construct a 'gold standard' using a carefully curated subset of human annotations, demonstrating that our arena strongly aligns with human judgment while maintaining scalability. Additionally, we introduce a fault-driven evolution strategy, progressively increasing question complexity to push models toward handling more challenging video analysis scenarios. Experimental results demonstrate that VideoAutoArena effectively differentiates among state-of-the-art LMMs, providing insights into model strengths and areas for improvement. To further streamline our evaluation, we introduce VideoAutoBench as an auxiliary benchmark, where human annotators label winners in a subset of VideoAutoArena battles. We use GPT-4o as a judge to compare responses against these human-validated answers. Together, VideoAutoArena and VideoAutoBench offer a cost-effective, and scalable framework for evaluating LMMs in user-centric video analysis.

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.

Many real-world coding challenges are open-ended and admit no known optimal solution. Yet, recent progress in LLM coding has focused on well-defined tasks such as feature implementation, bug fixing, and competitive programming. Open-ended coding remains a weak spot for LLMs, largely because open-ended training problems are scarce and expensive to construct. Our goal is to synthesize open-ended coding problems at scale to train stronger LLM coders. We introduce FrontierSmith, an automated system for iteratively evolving open-ended problems from existing closed-ended coding tasks. Starting from competitive programming problems, FrontierSmith generates candidate open-ended variants by changing the problems'goals, restricting outputs, and generalizing inputs. It then uses a quantitative idea divergence metric to select problems that elicit genuinely diverse approaches from different solvers. Agents then generate test cases and verifiers for the surviving candidates. On two open-ended coding benchmarks, training on our synthesized data yields substantial gains over the base models: Qwen3.5-9B improves by +8.82 score on FrontierCS and +306.36 (Elo-rating-based performance) on ALE-bench; Qwen3.5-27B improves by +12.12 and +309.12, respectively. The synthesized problems also make agents take more turns and use more tokens, similar to human-curated ones, suggesting that closed-ended seeds can be a practical starting point for long-horizon coding data.

Reliable evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is impeded by two key challenges: objective metrics often fail to reflect human perception of natural language, and exhaustive human labeling is prohibitively expensive. Here, we propose a sample-efficient human evaluation method for LLMs based on the principle of MAximum Discrepancy (MAD) Competition. Our method automatically and adaptively selects a compact set of input instructions that maximize semantic discrepancy between pairs of LLM responses. Human evaluators then perform three-alternative forced choices on these paired responses, which are aggregated into a global ranking using Elo rating. We apply our approach to compare eight widely used LLMs across four tasks: scientific knowledge understanding, mathematical reasoning, creative and functional writing, and code generation and explanation. Experimental results show that our sample-efficient evaluation method recovers "gold-standard" model rankings with a handful of MAD-selected instructions, reveals respective strengths and weaknesses of each LLM, and offers nuanced insights to guide future LLM development. Code is available at https://github.com/weiji-Feng/MAD-Eval .

In this research, I explore advanced deep learning methodologies to forecast the outcomes of the 2025 NCAA Division 1 Men's and Women's Basketball tournaments. Leveraging historical NCAA game data, I implement two sophisticated sequence-based models: Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Transformer architectures. The predictive power of these models is augmented through comprehensive feature engineering, including team quality metrics derived from Generalized Linear Models (GLM), Elo ratings, seed differences, and aggregated box-score statistics. To evaluate the robustness and reliability of predictions, I train each model variant using both Binary Cross-Entropy (BCE) and Brier loss functions, providing insights into classification performance and probability calibration. My comparative analysis reveals that while the Transformer architecture optimized with BCE yields superior discriminative power (highest AUC of 0.8473), the LSTM model trained with Brier loss demonstrates superior probabilistic calibration (lowest Brier score of 0.1589). These findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate model architectures and loss functions based on the specific requirements of forecasting tasks. The detailed analytical pipeline presented here serves as a reproducible framework for future predictive modeling tasks in sports analytics and beyond.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in long-running settings where improving through experience at test time becomes important. A common approach is to update an explicit memory after each interaction to guide future decisions. However, most existing methods rely on hand-designed prompting rules, making it difficult to align memory updates with downstream objectives over multi-step horizons consistently. We propose MemoPilot, a plug-in memory copilot that explicitly trains the memory update process to improve a frozen LLM's performance across sequential interactions. We formulate memory updating as a multi-turn decision problem and optimize it end-to-end with multi-turn GRPO. Our training recipe introduces (i) a turn-wise reward signal and (ii) a context-independent, turn-level advantage estimation across rollouts, enabling finer-grained credit assignment and more stable training in multi-turn settings. We evaluate MemoPilot on two testbeds: multi-round Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) and Limit Texas Hold'em (LHE). Across both environments, MemoPilot substantially improves test-time learning of a frozen player over strong baselines, ranking first in Elo ratings on both games (1762 on LHE and 1590 on RPS) and outperforming all baseline memory methods and proprietary models, including DeepSeek-V3.2.

We present Qwen-Image-2.0-RL, a post-training pipeline that applies reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and on-policy distillation (OPD) to improve both the visual quality and instruction-following capability of the Qwen-Image-2.0 diffusion model. To provide reliable reward signals, we construct task-specific composite reward models by fine-tuning vision-language models with a pointwise scoring paradigm and chain-of-thought reasoning. For text-to-image generation, the reward models cover alignment, aesthetics, and portrait fidelity dimensions. For image editing tasks, the reward system addresses instruction-following accuracy and face identity preservation. Building on this reward system, we develop a scalable GRPO-based RL training framework, incorporating a hybrid classifier-free guidance (CFG) strategy to preserve pre-trained knowledge, prompt curation via intra-group reward range filtering, and per-category reward weight calibration. To merge the task-specialized RL policies for T2I and editing, we propose on-policy distillation as the final training stage, which consolidates multiple teachers into a single student model through trajectory-level velocity matching. Extensive evaluation shows that Qwen-Image-2.0-RL achieves 57.84 overall score on Qwen-Image-Bench (+2.61 over the base model), Elo ratings of 1193 in text-to-image arena (+78) and 1349 in image edit arena (+93), demonstrating consistent gains in aesthetic quality, prompt adherence, and editing accuracy.

Evaluating world models requires assessing both the quality of the worlds they generate and their consistency and responsiveness under exploration, interaction, and modification. We introduce HappyWorld-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates whether generated worlds remain reliable as agents interact with them. Our design is built on a hierarchical capability framework of six world capabilities (W1-W6), from generative construction to unified world modeling, instantiated across three independent evaluation tracks: video world models, spatial world models, and embodied world models. HappyWorld-Bench comprises 1,138 video prompts, 300 spatial scenes, and 254 embodied test cases. Across all three tracks, we build and operate HappyWorld-Arena to organize human A/B comparisons and derive model-level Elo ratings, which complement newly designed automated metrics that capture behavioral correctness. We evaluate 14 video world models, 9 spatial systems, and 8 embodied candidates under this unified framework. Results reveal remaining reliability gaps across all three tracks: video models exhibit reduced consistency during extended rollouts and revisits, spatial models achieve at best 70.14% placement accuracy and 73.33% edit execution, and embodied models struggle to preserve state across multi-step actions and respond precisely to altered action conditions and physical rules. These findings highlight the need to evaluate world models not only by visual quality, but also by state consistency and the correctness of their responses to actions and interventions.

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

Skill assessment in procedural videos is crucial for the objective evaluation of human performance in settings such as manufacturing and procedural daily tasks. Current research on skill assessment has predominantly focused on sports and lacks large-scale datasets for complex procedural activities. Existing studies typically involve only a limited number of actions, focus on either pairwise assessments (e.g., A is better than B) or on binary labels (e.g., good execution vs needs improvement). In response to these shortcomings, we introduce ProSkill, the first benchmark dataset for action-level skill assessment in procedural tasks. ProSkill provides absolute skill assessment annotations, along with pairwise ones. This is enabled by a novel and scalable annotation protocol that allows for the creation of an absolute skill assessment ranking starting from pairwise assessments. This protocol leverages a Swiss Tournament scheme for efficient pairwise comparisons, which are then aggregated into consistent, continuous global scores using an ELO-based rating system. We use our dataset to benchmark the main state-of-the-art skill assessment algorithms, including both ranking-based and pairwise paradigms. The suboptimal results achieved by the current state-of-the-art highlight the challenges and thus the value of ProSkill in the context of skill assessment for procedural videos. All data and code are available at https://fpv-iplab.github.io/ProSkill/

As the field progresses toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), there is a pressing need for more comprehensive and insightful evaluation frameworks that go beyond aggregate performance metrics. This paper introduces a unified rating system that jointly models the difficulty of individual test cases and the competency of AI models (or humans) across vision, language, and action domains. Unlike existing metrics that focus solely on models, our approach allows for fine-grained, difficulty-aware evaluations through competitive interactions between models and tasks, capturing both the long-tail distribution of real-world challenges and the competency gap between current models and full task mastery. We validate the generalizability and robustness of our system through extensive experiments on multiple established datasets and models across distinct AGI domains. The resulting rating distributions offer novel perspectives and interpretable insights into task difficulty, model progression, and the outstanding challenges that remain on the path to achieving full AGI task mastery.

To take the esports scene to the next level, we introduce PandaSkill, a framework for assessing player performance and skill rating. Traditional rating systems like Elo and TrueSkill often overlook individual contributions and face challenges in professional esports due to limited game data and fragmented competitive scenes. PandaSkill leverages machine learning to estimate in-game player performance from individual player statistics. Each in-game role is modeled independently, ensuring a fair comparison between them. Then, using these performance scores, PandaSkill updates the player skill ratings using the Bayesian framework OpenSkill in a free-for-all setting. In this setting, skill ratings are updated solely based on performance scores rather than game outcomes, hightlighting individual contributions. To address the challenge of isolated rating pools that hinder cross-regional comparisons, PandaSkill introduces a dual-rating system that combines players' regional ratings with a meta-rating representing each region's overall skill level. Applying PandaSkill to five years of professional League of Legends matches worldwide, we show that our method produces skill ratings that better predict game outcomes and align more closely with expert opinions compared to existing methods.

Challenges in the automated evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Question-Answering (QA) systems include hallucination problems in domain-specific knowledge and the lack of gold standard benchmarks for company internal tasks. This results in difficulties in evaluating RAG variations, like RAG-Fusion (RAGF), in the context of a product QA task at Infineon Technologies. To solve these problems, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate large datasets of synthetic queries based on real user queries and in-domain documents, uses LLM-as-a-judge to rate retrieved documents and answers, evaluates the quality of answers, and ranks different variants of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents with RAGElo's automated Elo-based competition. LLM-as-a-judge rating of a random sample of synthetic queries shows a moderate, positive correlation with domain expert scoring in relevance, accuracy, completeness, and precision. While RAGF outperformed RAG in Elo score, a significance analysis against expert annotations also shows that RAGF significantly outperforms RAG in completeness, but underperforms in precision. In addition, Infineon's RAGF assistant demonstrated slightly higher performance in document relevance based on MRR@5 scores. We find that RAGElo positively aligns with the preferences of human annotators, though due caution is still required. Finally, RAGF's approach leads to more complete answers based on expert annotations and better answers overall based on RAGElo's evaluation criteria.

Assessing and comparing player skill in online multiplayer gaming environments is essential for fair matchmaking and player engagement. Traditional ranking models like Elo and Glicko-2, designed for two-player games, are insufficient for the complexity of multi-player, asymmetric team-based matches. To address this gap, the OpenSkill library offers a suite of sophisticated, fast, and adaptable models tailored for such dynamics. Drawing from Bayesian inference methods, OpenSkill provides a more accurate representation of individual player contributions and speeds up the computation of ranks. This paper introduces the OpenSkill library, featuring a Python implementation of the Plackett-Luce model among others, highlighting its performance advantages and predictive accuracy against proprietary systems like TrueSkill. OpenSkill is a valuable tool for game developers and researchers, ensuring a responsive and fair gaming experience by efficiently adjusting player rankings based on game outcomes. The library's support for time decay and diligent documentation further aid in its practical application, making it a robust solution for the nuanced world of multiplayer ranking systems. This paper also acknowledges areas for future enhancement, such as partial play and contribution weighting, emphasizing the library's ongoing development to meet the evolving needs of online gaming communities.

Chess has long been a testbed for AI's quest to match human intelligence, and in recent years, chess AI systems have surpassed the strongest humans at the game. However, these systems are not human-aligned; they are unable to match the skill levels of all human partners or model human-like behaviors beyond piece movement. In this paper, we introduce Allie, a chess-playing AI designed to bridge the gap between artificial and human intelligence in this classic game. Allie is trained on log sequences of real chess games to model the behaviors of human chess players across the skill spectrum, including non-move behaviors such as pondering times and resignations In offline evaluations, we find that Allie exhibits humanlike behavior: it outperforms the existing state-of-the-art in human chess move prediction and "ponders" at critical positions. The model learns to reliably assign reward at each game state, which can be used at inference as a reward function in a novel time-adaptive Monte-Carlo tree search (MCTS) procedure, where the amount of search depends on how long humans would think in the same positions. Adaptive search enables remarkable skill calibration; in a large-scale online evaluation against players with ratings from 1000 to 2600 Elo, our adaptive search method leads to a skill gap of only 49 Elo on average, substantially outperforming search-free and standard MCTS baselines. Against grandmaster-level (2500 Elo) opponents, Allie with adaptive search exhibits the strength of a fellow grandmaster, all while learning exclusively from humans.

Energy forecasting models are usually compared on backtests and fixed public datasets. Backtests can use data that did not yet exist when the forecast would have been made, and a fixed test set, reused across studies and possibly contained in the pretraining data of foundation models, invites overfitting to the benchmark. EnergyBench evaluates every entry live instead. Each day at 11:30 CET/CEST, thirty minutes before the day-ahead (SDAC) gate closes, every model forecasts the next day's price, wind and solar generation and load on the 15-minute grid for six bidding zones (BE, NL, FR, DE-LU, DK1, DK2). Unlike existing live benchmarks, EnergyBench runs the models itself, on one information set that it freezes at the cut-off and publishes, including three numerical weather prediction models, so that foundation models can be compared with and without the same weather covariates under the actual market deadline. Errors are pooled per series against a seasonal-naive baseline, and models are ranked by a Bradley-Terry rating on the Elo scale with a day-bootstrap interval. The field spans baselines, linear and gradient-boosted models on the frozen weather, eighteen time-series foundation models from eleven families, ensembles, and the grid operators' own forecasts. Over the first thirty-two live days, the covariates reduced the error of each of the ten foundation models run with and without them by 37-51% on matched races (64-73% on wind, 48-61% on solar). Used zero-shot, these models match or outperform a LightGBM model trained on the same covariates. Model size, from 3M to 331M parameters, has a much smaller effect, and median ensembles of the covariate models rank highest. The grid operators' pre-gate forecasts remain ahead on wind and solar, where the best single foundation models have 16-22% more error; on load the gap is 4-6%, within the intervals.

Current rating systems update ratings incrementally and may not always accurately reflect a player's true strength at all times, especially for rapidly improving players or very rusty players. To overcome this, we explore a method to estimate player ratings directly from game moves and clock times. We compiled a benchmark dataset from Lichess, encompassing various time controls and including move sequences and clock times. Our model architecture comprises a CNN to learn positional features, which are then integrated with clock-time data into a bidirectional LSTM, predicting player ratings after each move. The model achieved an MAE of 182 rating points in the test data. Additionally, we applied our model to the 2024 IEEE Big Data Cup Chess Puzzle Difficulty Competition dataset, predicted puzzle ratings and achieved competitive results. This model is the first to use no hand-crafted features to estimate chess ratings and also the first to output a rating prediction for each move. Our method highlights the potential of using move-based rating estimation for enhancing rating systems and potentially other applications such as cheating detection.

How strong can an AlphaZero-style chess system become under limited training compute when its entire learning loop is engineered for efficiency? We train from random initialization through searched self-play on a single eight-GPU node for 2.5 days. The resulting 6.32-million-parameter model reaches 3,251 benchmark Elo [3,206, 3,297] at 100,000 searches per move (estimated at under five seconds of thinking time) against a fixed-node Stockfish 13 ladder. The run ingests 3.25 million completed games, involves an estimated 100 billion search simulations, and makes 836.6 million training presentations. We investigate search allocation, replay and restart-state selection, policy representation, progressive model sizing, quantized inference, and throughput engineering. Alongside the retained design, we document plausible alternatives that failed to improve the complete learning loop or did not justify their cost. The reported strength is a result of the integrated system, not an isolated Elo gain attributable to any single choice.

ICC's current ranking system does not adequately account for key contextual factors such as home advantage, toss impact and scheduling imbalances; leading to inconsistencies in team evaluation in Test cricket. This study develops an enhanced rating framework by adapting and enhancing Glicko's model to incorporate these influences alongside Margin of Victory, an important indicator of dominance a contest. This enables a more dynamic and probabilistically grounded assessment of team performance. Using past match data, the model demonstrates improved expected score estimation and predictive accuracy. Robustness of the resulting ratings is demonstrated through bootstrap resampling, confirming stability with respect to match scheduling. Overall, the framework provides a fairer and more statistically consistent approach to ranking Test teams.

Evaluating Generative 3D models remains challenging due to misalignment between automated metrics and human perception of quality. Current benchmarks rely on image-based metrics that ignore 3D structure or geometric measures that fail to capture perceptual appeal and real-world utility. To address this gap, we present 3D Arena, an open platform for evaluating image-to-3D generation models through large-scale human preference collection using pairwise comparisons. Since launching in June 2024, the platform has collected 123,243 votes from 8,096 users across 19 state-of-the-art models, establishing the largest human preference evaluation for Generative 3D. We contribute the iso3d dataset of 100 evaluation prompts and demonstrate quality control achieving 99.75% user authenticity through statistical fraud detection. Our ELO-based ranking system provides reliable model assessment, with the platform becoming an established evaluation resource. Through analysis of this preference data, we present insights into human preference patterns. Our findings reveal preferences for visual presentation features, with Gaussian splat outputs achieving a 16.6 ELO advantage over meshes and textured models receiving a 144.1 ELO advantage over untextured models. We provide recommendations for improving evaluation methods, including multi-criteria assessment, task-oriented evaluation, and format-aware comparison. The platform's community engagement establishes 3D Arena as a benchmark for the field while advancing understanding of human-centered evaluation in Generative 3D.

Ranking and scoring are ubiquitous. We consider the setting in which an institution, called a ranker, evaluates a set of individuals based on demographic, behavioral or other characteristics. The final output is a ranking that represents the relative quality of the individuals. While automatic and therefore seemingly objective, rankers can, and often do, discriminate against individuals and systematically disadvantage members of protected groups. This warrants a careful study of the fairness of a ranking scheme. In this paper we propose fairness measures for ranked outputs. We develop a data generation procedure that allows us to systematically control the degree of unfairness in the output, and study the behavior of our measures on these datasets. We then apply our proposed measures to several real datasets, and demonstrate cases of unfairness. Finally, we show preliminary results of incorporating our ranked fairness measures into an optimization framework, and show potential for improving fairness of ranked outputs while maintaining accuracy.

In Machine Learning, a benchmark refers to an ensemble of datasets associated with one or multiple metrics together with a way to aggregate different systems performances. They are instrumental in (i) assessing the progress of new methods along different axes and (ii) selecting the best systems for practical use. This is particularly the case for NLP with the development of large pre-trained models (e.g. GPT, BERT) that are expected to generalize well on a variety of tasks. While the community mainly focused on developing new datasets and metrics, there has been little interest in the aggregation procedure, which is often reduced to a simple average over various performance measures. However, this procedure can be problematic when the metrics are on a different scale, which may lead to spurious conclusions. This paper proposes a new procedure to rank systems based on their performance across different tasks. Motivated by the social choice theory, the final system ordering is obtained through aggregating the rankings induced by each task and is theoretically grounded. We conduct extensive numerical experiments (on over 270k scores) to assess the soundness of our approach both on synthetic and real scores (e.g. GLUE, EXTREM, SEVAL, TAC, FLICKR). In particular, we show that our method yields different conclusions on state-of-the-art systems than the mean-aggregation procedure while being both more reliable and robust.

Reward models (RMs) play a crucial role in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback by serving as proxies for human preferences in aligning large language models. In this paper, we identify a model preference bias in RMs, where they systematically assign disproportionately high scores to responses from certain policy models. This bias distorts ranking evaluations and leads to unfair judgments. To address this issue, we propose a calibration method named CHatbot Arena calibrated Reward Modeling (CHARM) that leverages Elo scores from the Chatbot Arena leaderboard to mitigate RM overvaluation. We also introduce a Mismatch Degree metric to measure this preference bias. Our approach is computationally efficient, requiring only a small preference dataset for continued training of the RM. We conduct extensive experiments on reward model benchmarks and human preference alignment. Results demonstrate that our calibrated RMs (1) achieve improved evaluation accuracy on RM-Bench and the Chat-Hard domain of RewardBench, and (2) exhibit a stronger correlation with human preferences by producing scores more closely aligned with Elo rankings. By mitigating model preference bias, our method provides a generalizable and efficient solution for building fairer and more reliable reward models.

We introduce Agent K v1.0, an end-to-end autonomous data science agent designed to automate, optimise, and generalise across diverse data science tasks. Fully automated, Agent K v1.0 manages the entire data science life cycle by learning from experience. It leverages a highly flexible structured reasoning framework to enable it to dynamically process memory in a nested structure, effectively learning from accumulated experience stored to handle complex reasoning tasks. It optimises long- and short-term memory by selectively storing and retrieving key information, guiding future decisions based on environmental rewards. This iterative approach allows it to refine decisions without fine-tuning or backpropagation, achieving continuous improvement through experiential learning. We evaluate our agent's apabilities using Kaggle competitions as a case study. Following a fully automated protocol, Agent K v1.0 systematically addresses complex and multimodal data science tasks, employing Bayesian optimisation for hyperparameter tuning and feature engineering. Our new evaluation framework rigorously assesses Agent K v1.0's end-to-end capabilities to generate and send submissions starting from a Kaggle competition URL. Results demonstrate that Agent K v1.0 achieves a 92.5\% success rate across tasks, spanning tabular, computer vision, NLP, and multimodal domains. When benchmarking against 5,856 human Kaggle competitors by calculating Elo-MMR scores for each, Agent K v1.0 ranks in the top 38\%, demonstrating an overall skill level comparable to Expert-level users. Notably, its Elo-MMR score falls between the first and third quartiles of scores achieved by human Grandmasters. Furthermore, our results indicate that Agent K v1.0 has reached a performance level equivalent to Kaggle Grandmaster, with a record of 6 gold, 3 silver, and 7 bronze medals, as defined by Kaggle's progression system.

Personalized summarization models cater to individuals' subjective understanding of saliency, as represented by their reading history and current topics of attention. Existing personalized text summarizers are primarily evaluated based on accuracy measures such as BLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR. However, a recent study argued that accuracy measures are inadequate for evaluating the degree of personalization of these models and proposed EGISES, the first metric to evaluate personalized text summaries. It was suggested that accuracy is a separate aspect and should be evaluated standalone. In this paper, we challenge the necessity of an accuracy leaderboard, suggesting that relying on accuracy-based aggregated results might lead to misleading conclusions. To support this, we delve deeper into EGISES, demonstrating both theoretically and empirically that it measures the degree of responsiveness, a necessary but not sufficient condition for degree-of-personalization. We subsequently propose PerSEval, a novel measure that satisfies the required sufficiency condition. Based on the benchmarking of ten SOTA summarization models on the PENS dataset, we empirically establish that -- (i) PerSEval is reliable w.r.t human-judgment correlation (Pearson's r = 0.73; Spearman's rho = 0.62; Kendall's tau = 0.42), (ii) PerSEval has high rank-stability, (iii) PerSEval as a rank-measure is not entailed by EGISES-based ranking, and (iv) PerSEval can be a standalone rank-measure without the need of any aggregated ranking.

Speech quality assessment is a critical process in selecting text-to-speech synthesis (TTS) or voice conversion models. Evaluation of voice synthesis can be done using objective metrics or subjective metrics. Although there are many objective metrics like the Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ), Perceptual Objective Listening Quality Assessment (POLQA) or Short-Time Objective Intelligibility (STOI) but none of them is feasible in selecting the best model. On the other hand subjective metric like Mean Opinion Score is highly reliable but it requires a lot of manual efforts and are time-consuming. To counter the issues in MOS Evaluation, we have developed a novel model, Speaker Agnostic Latent Features (SALF)-Mean Opinion Score (MOS) which is a small-sized, end-to-end, highly generalized and scalable model for predicting MOS score on a scale of 5. We use the sequences of convolutions and stack them to get the latent features of the audio samples to get the best state-of-the-art results based on mean squared error (MSE), Linear Concordance Correlation coefficient (LCC), Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCC) and Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient (KTAU).

The explosion of visual content available online underscores the requirement for an accurate machine assessor to robustly evaluate scores across diverse types of visual contents. While recent studies have demonstrated the exceptional potentials of large multi-modality models (LMMs) on a wide range of related fields, in this work, we explore how to teach them for visual rating aligned with human opinions. Observing that human raters only learn and judge discrete text-defined levels in subjective studies, we propose to emulate this subjective process and teach LMMs with text-defined rating levels instead of scores. The proposed Q-Align achieves state-of-the-art performance on image quality assessment (IQA), image aesthetic assessment (IAA), as well as video quality assessment (VQA) tasks under the original LMM structure. With the syllabus, we further unify the three tasks into one model, termed the OneAlign. In our experiments, we demonstrate the advantage of the discrete-level-based syllabus over direct-score-based variants for LMMs. Our code and the pre-trained weights are released at https://github.com/Q-Future/Q-Align.

This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence language model, across multiple iterations, time spans and stylistic variations. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education (HE) subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to learn more about the interrater reliability, consistency of the ratings across iterations and the correlation between ratings in terms of content and style. The results revealed a high interrater reliability with ICC scores ranging between 0.94 and 0.99 for different timespans, suggesting that GPT-4 is capable of generating consistent ratings across repetitions with a clear prompt. Style and content ratings show a high correlation of 0.87. When applying a non-adequate style the average content ratings remained constant, while style ratings decreased, which indicates that the large language model (LLM) effectively distinguishes between these two criteria during evaluation. The prompt used in this study is furthermore presented and explained. Further research is necessary to assess the robustness and reliability of AI models in various use cases.

Evaluating free-text explanations is a multifaceted, subjective, and labor-intensive task. Large language models (LLMs) present an appealing alternative due to their potential for consistency, scalability, and cost-efficiency. In this work, we present ACORN, a new dataset of 3,500 free-text explanations and aspect-wise quality ratings, and use it to gain insights into how LLMs evaluate explanations. We observed that replacing one of the human ratings sometimes maintained, but more often lowered the inter-annotator agreement across different settings and quality aspects, suggesting that their judgments are not always consistent with human raters. We further quantified this difference by comparing the correlation between LLM-generated ratings with majority-voted human ratings across different quality aspects. With the best system, Spearman's rank correlation ranged between 0.53 to 0.95, averaging 0.72 across aspects, indicating moderately high but imperfect alignment. Finally, we considered the alternative of using an LLM as an additional rater when human raters are scarce, and measured the correlation between majority-voted labels with a limited human pool and LLMs as an additional rater, compared to the original gold labels. While GPT-4 improved the outcome when there were only two human raters, in all other observed cases, LLMs were neutral to detrimental when there were three or more human raters. We publicly release the dataset to support future improvements in LLM-in-the-loop evaluation here: https://github.com/a-brassard/ACORN.

Otter is a 15.3M-parameter human chess AI that predicts human move selection by modeling play as a time-aware, sequential process rather than treating each position in isolation. It combines two conditioning signals: (1) a move history encoder that conditions predictions on the last 20 moves, capturing opening preferences, positional drift, and intra-game behavioral tendencies; and (2) a time control module that modulates predictions based on clock pressure. Otter is trained on 6.1 billion positions from 117 million Lichess rapid games over 30 days on a single T4 GPU. Otter achieves 55.23% top-1 and 90.95% top-5 move-prediction accuracy, surpassing the prior state-of-the-art human chess model, Maia 2, with far fewer parameters and less training data. Across 11 Elo brackets (<1100 to >=2000), accuracy peaks at 57.38% in the 1900-1999 bracket. These results show that modeling chess as a time-aware, sequential activity yields more human-accurate move prediction than position-only approaches, using a smaller model. Code, trained models, and complete training logs are publicly released.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for automating the evaluation of natural language generation. Previous frameworks of LLM-as-a-judge fall short in two ways: they either use zero-shot setting without consulting any human input, which leads to low alignment, or fine-tune LLMs on labeled data, which requires a non-trivial number of samples. Moreover, previous methods often provide little reasoning behind automated evaluations. In this paper, we propose HypoEval, Hypothesis-guided Evaluation framework, which first uses a small corpus of human evaluations to generate more detailed rubrics for human judgments and then incorporates a checklist-like approach to combine LLM's assigned scores on each decomposed dimension to acquire overall scores. With only 30 human evaluations, HypoEval achieves state-of-the-art performance in alignment with both human rankings (Spearman correlation) and human scores (Pearson correlation), on average outperforming G-Eval by 11.86% and fine-tuned Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with at least 3 times more human evaluations by 11.95%. Furthermore, we conduct systematic studies to assess the robustness of HypoEval, highlighting its effectiveness as a reliable and interpretable automated evaluation framework.

The evaluation of recommender system fairness has become increasingly important, especially with recent legislation that emphasises the development of fair and responsible artificial intelligence. This has led to the emergence of various fairness evaluation measures, which quantify fairness based on different definitions. However, many of such measures are simply proposed and used without further analysis on their robustness. As a result, there is insufficient understanding and awareness of the measures' limitations. Among other issues, it is not known what kind of model outputs produce the (un)fairest score, how the measure scores are empirically distributed, and whether there are cases where the measures cannot be computed (e.g., due to division by zero). These issues cause difficulty in interpreting the measure scores and confusion on which measure(s) should be used for a specific case. This thesis presents a series of papers that assess and overcome various theoretical, empirical, and conceptual limitations of existing recommender system fairness evaluation measures. We investigate a wide range of offline evaluation measures for different fairness notions, divided based on the evaluation subjects (users and items) and for different evaluation granularities (groups of subjects and individual subjects). Firstly, we perform theoretical and empirical analysis on the measures, exposing flaws that limit their interpretability, expressiveness, or applicability. Secondly, we contribute novel evaluation approaches and measures that overcome these limitations. Finally, considering the measures' limitations, we recommend guidelines for the appropriate measure usage, thereby allowing for more precise selection of fairness evaluation measures in practical scenarios. Overall, this thesis contributes to advancing the state-of-the-art offline evaluation of fairness in recommender systems.

Language models have been adopted faster than evaluation practices that reliably assess their risks, and a growing share of use is affective rather than informational. Within that traffic users disclose suicide and self-harm (SSH) crises. Existing safety benchmarks score models primarily on refusal, but refusal is not the desired behavior here; the conversation requires a substantive supportive response. We introduce DistressBench, 718 English conversations with clinician-authored user turns spanning 23 SSH subcategories, each paired with a task-specific rubric of weighted atomic criteria across seven dimensions of crisis support and a clinician reference response. A model's score is the weighted average over the criteria its reply satisfies, reading directly as the fraction of required care delivered. The best of 25 frontier models satisfies 88.4% of weighted criteria and the median model 71.4%, against 98.7% for clinician references scored on the same criteria. Pooled across all 25 models, in 35.3% of conversations where a model satisfied every criterion for recognizing the crisis, it failed to route the user toward human help. The shortfall concentrates in the dimensions requiring the model to act rather than withhold. Contrasting each dimension's median model against its best separates capability limits from choices: de-escalation reaches 74.6% in the strongest model against a median of 46.0%, and safety disclaimers 84.6% against 8.3%. Multi-turn conversations score below single-turn ones (68.5% against 74.2%). We release the corpus, rubrics, judge calibration labels, and a companion annex of 20 long-horizon red-team transcripts. These results argue for evaluating crisis safety on the care a model delivers rather than on what it declines to say, and for treating de-escalation and resource routing as deployment requirements.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

The development of state-of-the-art systems in different applied areas of machine learning (ML) is driven by benchmarks, which have shaped the paradigm of evaluating generalisation capabilities from multiple perspectives. Although the paradigm is shifting towards more fine-grained evaluation across diverse tasks, the delicate question of how to aggregate the performances has received particular interest in the community. In general, benchmarks follow the unspoken utilitarian principles, where the systems are ranked based on their mean average score over task-specific metrics. Such aggregation procedure has been viewed as a sub-optimal evaluation protocol, which may have created the illusion of progress. This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields and identify the best-performing systems in research and development case studies. The Vote'n'Rank's procedures are more robust than the mean average while being able to handle missing performance scores and determine conditions under which the system becomes the winner.

Automatic evaluation benchmarks such as MT-Bench, Arena-Hard, and Auto-Arena are seeing growing adoption for the evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing research has primarily focused on approximating human-based model rankings using limited data and LLM-as-a-Judge. However, the fundamental premise of these studies, which attempts to replicate human rankings, is flawed. Specifically, these benchmarks typically offer only overall scores, limiting their utility to leaderboard rankings, rather than providing feedback that can guide model optimization and support model profiling. Therefore, we advocate for an evaluation paradigm shift from approximating human-based model rankings to providing feedback with analytical value. To this end, we introduce Feedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results, thereby enabling thorough identification of a model's specific strengths and weaknesses. Such feedback not only supports the targeted optimization of the model but also enhances the understanding of its behavior. Feedbacker comprises three key components: an extensible tree-based query taxonomy builder, an automated query synthesis scheme, and a suite of visualization and analysis tools. Furthermore, we propose a novel LLM-as-a-Judge method: PC2 (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) pointwise evaluation. This method derives evaluation criteria by pre-comparing the differences between several auxiliary responses, achieving the accuracy of pairwise evaluation while maintaining the time complexity of pointwise evaluation. Finally, leveraging the evaluation results of 17 mainstream LLMs, we demonstrate the usage of Feedbacker and highlight its effectiveness and potential. Our homepage project is available at https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker.

The rapid advancement of visual generation models has outpaced traditional evaluation approaches, necessitating the adoption of Vision-Language Models as surrogate judges. In this work, we systematically investigate the reliability of the prevailing absolute pointwise scoring standard, across a wide spectrum of visual generation tasks. Our analysis reveals that this paradigm is limited due to stochastic inconsistency and poor alignment with human perception. To resolve these limitations, we introduce GenArena, a unified evaluation framework that leverages a pairwise comparison paradigm to ensure stable and human-aligned evaluation. Crucially, our experiments uncover a transformative finding that simply adopting this pairwise protocol enables off-the-shelf open-source models to outperform top-tier proprietary models. Notably, our method boosts evaluation accuracy by over 20% and achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.86 with the authoritative LMArena leaderboard, drastically surpassing the 0.36 correlation of pointwise methods. Based on GenArena, we benchmark state-of-the-art visual generation models across diverse tasks, providing the community with a rigorous and automated evaluation standard for visual generation.

Skill extraction benchmarks score models against a few human-annotated positives and treat every other skill in the vocabulary as equally wrong. At the scale of ESCO (13,939 skills) this binary view can reward models that rank the annotated positive high for the wrong reason, and hides semantically nonsensical predictions. The WorkRB Challenge at RecSys-HR 2026 replaces it with graded relevance: every candidate skill in a model's ranking window carries a 0 to 4 grade, and the leaderboard scores nDCG@100 against these grades. Since ternary judgements proved too coarse for objective annotation, relevance is decomposed into a cascade of four binary questions (same domain, activity mentioned, right granularity, replacement of a gold positive) that a smaller LLM judge can answer reliably; the labels are validated with blind human and frontier-model re-annotation. This paper documents the annotation methodology, the construction of five benchmark datasets (four with vacancy sentences as queries, one with lexically distant skill surface forms), the validation of the LLM cascade, and insights from the submissions. The field converged on multi-stage retrieve-and-rerank pipelines, whose gains come from clearing nonsense out of the ranking window rather than finding more positives: at the top of the leaderboard, the graded ordering is uncorrelated with what binary evaluation would have said. Graded labels expose much bigger gaps between top submissions and baselines than binary evaluation does, and show that semantic-understanding skill recommendation is still wide open. The clear next direction is bringing efficiency back: every submitted system we could size uses at least 42x, typically several hundred times, more parameters than the baselines it beats.

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

Preference learning algorithms (e.g., RLHF and DPO) are frequently used to steer LLMs to produce generations that are more preferred by humans, but our understanding of their inner workings is still limited. In this work, we study the conventional wisdom that preference learning trains models to assign higher likelihoods to more preferred outputs than less preferred outputs, measured via ranking accuracy. Surprisingly, we find that most state-of-the-art preference-tuned models achieve a ranking accuracy of less than 60% on common preference datasets. We furthermore derive the idealized ranking accuracy that a preference-tuned LLM would achieve if it optimized the DPO or RLHF objective perfectly. We demonstrate that existing models exhibit a significant alignment gap -- i.e., a gap between the observed and idealized ranking accuracies. We attribute this discrepancy to the DPO objective, which is empirically and theoretically ill-suited to fix even mild ranking errors in the reference model, and derive a simple and efficient formula for quantifying the difficulty of learning a given preference datapoint. Finally, we demonstrate that ranking accuracy strongly correlates with the empirically popular win rate metric when the model is close to the reference model used in the objective, shedding further light on the differences between on-policy (e.g., RLHF) and off-policy (e.g., DPO) preference learning algorithms.

Probability estimation models play an important role in various fields, such as weather forecasting, recommendation systems, and sports analysis. Among several models estimating probabilities, it is difficult to evaluate which model gives reliable probabilities since the ground-truth probabilities are not available. The win probability estimation model for esports, which calculates the win probability under a certain game state, is also one of the fields being actively studied in probability estimation. However, most of the previous works evaluated their models using accuracy, a metric that only can measure the performance of discrimination. In this work, we firstly investigate the Brier score and the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) as a replacement of accuracy used as a performance evaluation metric for win probability estimation models in esports field. Based on the analysis, we propose a novel metric called Balance score which is a simple yet effective metric in terms of six good properties that probability estimation metric should have. Under the general condition, we also found that the Balance score can be an effective approximation of the true expected calibration error which has been imperfectly approximated by ECE using the binning technique. Extensive evaluations using simulation studies and real game snapshot data demonstrate the promising potential to adopt the proposed metric not only for the win probability estimation model for esports but also for evaluating general probability estimation models.

Large Language Model (LLM) leaderboards based on benchmark rankings are regularly used to guide practitioners in model selection. Often, the published leaderboard rankings are taken at face value - we show this is a (potentially costly) mistake. Under existing leaderboards, the relative performance of LLMs is highly sensitive to (often minute) details. We show that for popular multiple choice question benchmarks (e.g. MMLU) minor perturbations to the benchmark, such as changing the order of choices or the method of answer selection, result in changes in rankings up to 8 positions. We explain this phenomenon by conducting systematic experiments over three broad categories of benchmark perturbations and identifying the sources of this behavior. Our analysis results in several best-practice recommendations, including the advantage of a hybrid scoring method for answer selection. Our study highlights the dangers of relying on simple benchmark evaluations and charts the path for more robust evaluation schemes on the existing benchmarks.

Current pre-trained language models rely on large datasets for achieving state-of-the-art performance. However, past research has shown that not all examples in a dataset are equally important during training. In fact, it is sometimes possible to prune a considerable fraction of the training set while maintaining the test performance. Established on standard vision benchmarks, two gradient-based scoring metrics for finding important examples are GraNd and its estimated version, EL2N. In this work, we employ these two metrics for the first time in NLP. We demonstrate that these metrics need to be computed after at least one epoch of fine-tuning and they are not reliable in early steps. Furthermore, we show that by pruning a small portion of the examples with the highest GraNd/EL2N scores, we can not only preserve the test accuracy, but also surpass it. This paper details adjustments and implementation choices which enable GraNd and EL2N to be applied to NLP.

The purpose of this work is to contribute to the understanding and improvement of deep neural networks in the field of vocal quality. A neural network that predicts the perceptual assessment of overall severity of dysphonia in GRBAS scale is obtained. The design focuses on amplitude perturbations, frequency perturbations, and noise. Results are compared with performance of human raters on the same data. Both the precision and the mean absolute error of the neural network are close to human intra-rater performance, exceeding inter-rater performance.

Evaluation of text-to-music systems is constrained by the cost and availability of collecting experts for assessment. AudioMOS 2025 Challenge track 1 is created to automatically predict music impression (MI) as well as text alignment (TA) between the prompt and the generated musical piece. This paper reports our winning system, which uses a dual-branch architecture with pre-trained MuQ and RoBERTa models as audio and text encoders. A cross-attention mechanism fuses the audio and text representations. For training, we reframe the MI and TA prediction as a classification task. To incorporate the ordinal nature of MOS scores, one-hot labels are converted to a soft distribution using a Gaussian kernel. On the official test set, a single model trained with this method achieves a system-level Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCC) of 0.991 for MI and 0.952 for TA, corresponding to a relative improvement of 21.21\% in MI SRCC and 31.47\% in TA SRCC over the challenge baseline.

In speech generation tasks, human subjective ratings, usually referred to as the opinion score, are considered the "gold standard" for speech quality evaluation, with the mean opinion score (MOS) serving as the primary evaluation metric. Due to the high cost of human annotation, several MOS prediction systems have emerged in the speech domain, demonstrating good performance. These MOS prediction models are trained using annotations from previous speech-related challenges. However, compared to the speech domain, the singing domain faces data scarcity and stricter copyright protections, leading to a lack of high-quality MOS-annotated datasets for singing. To address this, we propose SingMOS, a high-quality and diverse MOS dataset for singing, covering a range of Chinese and Japanese datasets. These synthesized vocals are generated using state-of-the-art models in singing synthesis, conversion, or resynthesis tasks and are rated by professional annotators alongside real vocals. Data analysis demonstrates the diversity and reliability of our dataset. Additionally, we conduct further exploration on SingMOS, providing insights for singing MOS prediction and guidance for the continued expansion of SingMOS.

Human subjective evaluation is the gold standard to evaluate speech quality optimized for human perception. Perceptual objective metrics serve as a proxy for subjective scores. We have recently developed a non-intrusive speech quality metric called Deep Noise Suppression Mean Opinion Score (DNSMOS) using the scores from ITU-T Rec. P.808 subjective evaluation. The P.808 scores reflect the overall quality of the audio clip. ITU-T Rec. P.835 subjective evaluation framework gives the standalone quality scores of speech and background noise in addition to the overall quality. In this work, we train an objective metric based on P.835 human ratings that outputs 3 scores: i) speech quality (SIG), ii) background noise quality (BAK), and iii) the overall quality (OVRL) of the audio. The developed metric is highly correlated with human ratings, with a Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC)=0.94 for SIG and PCC=0.98 for BAK and OVRL. This is the first non-intrusive P.835 predictor we are aware of. DNSMOS P.835 is made publicly available as an Azure service.

Preference learning has gained significant attention in tasks involving subjective human judgments, such as speech emotion recognition (SER) and image aesthetic assessment. While pairwise frameworks such as RankNet offer robust modeling of relative preferences, they are inherently limited to local comparisons and struggle to capture global ranking consistency. To address these limitations, we propose RankList, a novel listwise preference learning framework that generalizes RankNet to structured list-level supervision. Our formulation explicitly models local and non-local ranking constraints within a probabilistic framework. The paper introduces a log-sum-exp approximation to improve training efficiency. We further extend RankList with skip-wise comparisons, enabling progressive exposure to complex list structures and enhancing global ranking fidelity. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our method across diverse modalities. On benchmark SER datasets (MSP-Podcast, IEMOCAP, BIIC Podcast), RankList achieves consistent improvements in Kendall's Tau and ranking accuracy compared to standard listwise baselines. We also validate our approach on aesthetic image ranking using the Artistic Image Aesthetics dataset, highlighting its broad applicability. Through ablation and cross-domain studies, we show that RankList not only improves in-domain ranking but also generalizes better across datasets. Our framework offers a unified, extensible approach for modeling ordered preferences in subjective learning scenarios.

This study explores the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o (ChatGPT), for automated grading of conceptual questions in an undergraduate Mechanical Engineering course. We compared the grading performance of GPT-4o with that of human teaching assistants (TAs) on ten quiz problems from the MEEN 361 course at Texas A&M University, each answered by approximately 225 students. Both the LLM and TAs followed the same instructor-provided rubric to ensure grading consistency. We evaluated performance using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) to assess the alignment between rankings and the accuracy of scores assigned by GPT-4o and TAs under zero- and few-shot grading settings. In the zero-shot setting, GPT-4o demonstrated a strong correlation with TA grading, with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient exceeding 0.6 in seven out of ten datasets and reaching a high of 0.9387. Our analysis reveals that GPT-4o performs well when grading criteria are straightforward but struggles with nuanced answers, particularly those involving synonyms not present in the rubric. The model also tends to grade more stringently in ambiguous cases compared to human TAs. Overall, ChatGPT shows promise as a tool for grading conceptual questions, offering scalability and consistency.

AI assistants are becoming a primary interface for local discovery, yet almost nothing is known about which venues they surface -- especially in food and drink, where recommendations carry direct revenue consequences. We present the first census-denominated audit of AI venue recommendation: a complete enumeration of 4,776 cafes, restaurants, and bars across two bounded markets (Canggu and Ubud, Bali), against which we evaluate 2,208 search-grounded responses from four production AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity) to 96 persona-conditioned queries, collected over seven days under a pre-registered protocol. Because we observe the full market, we can measure what sampled audits cannot: 85.6% of venues were never recommended by any system -- 72.6% even among established venues with fifty or more ratings. Visibility follows a two-margin structure. Entry into answers is associated with documentation: review volume (OR 1.64), an own website (OR 1.92), listed price information (OR 1.54), and third-party web mentions (OR 1.44) -- while star rating is null at this margin (OR 0.89). Rank within answers reverses the pattern: among recommended venues, rating significantly predicts first position (OR 1.17). Presence in an open POI dataset (Foursquare), a folk-theorized visibility factor, shows no positive effect at either margin. Outright fabrication is rare (0.08% of mentions), but systems recommended permanently closed venues 93 times -- staleness, not hallucination, is the practical failure mode. Cross-system agreement is low (top-20 Jaccard 0.33-0.54). A two-week test-retest shows cross-period answer similarity comparable to same-day rerun similarity: the churn is sampling stochasticity, not temporal drift. We release our protocol, registry construction method, and derived data.

One of the goals of automatic evaluation metrics in grammatical error correction (GEC) is to rank GEC systems such that it matches human preferences. However, current automatic evaluations are based on procedures that diverge from human evaluation. Specifically, human evaluation derives rankings by aggregating sentence-level relative evaluation results, e.g., pairwise comparisons, using a rating algorithm, whereas automatic evaluation averages sentence-level absolute scores to obtain corpus-level scores, which are then sorted to determine rankings. In this study, we propose an aggregation method for existing automatic evaluation metrics which aligns with human evaluation methods to bridge this gap. We conducted experiments using various metrics, including edit-based metrics, n-gram based metrics, and sentence-level metrics, and show that resolving the gap improves results for the most of metrics on the SEEDA benchmark. We also found that even BERT-based metrics sometimes outperform the metrics of GPT-4. The proposed ranking method is integrated gec-metrics.

Collaborative-filtering (CF) scores provide graded, personalized rewards for training large language model (LLM) recommenders through reinforcement learning. However, these rewards can cause exposure collapse: even though the CF model itself produces diverse top recommendations across users, an LLM optimized with its rewards concentrates on fewer items. We decompose each score into an item-mean component, the item's average CF score across user histories, and a residual component, the current user's score deviation from the average. Through controlled interventions, we identify the item-mean component as a contributor to exposure collapse. Accordingly, we propose two reward corrections: per-item centering removes each item's estimated mean score, while per-item standardization further rescales the residual using its estimated standard deviation. Experiments on two datasets with two identifier schemes show that both corrections substantially improve catalog coverage and exposure evenness. Compared with training on the uncorrected CF reward, our corrections increase the number of distinct items ranked first across users by up to 9.8times, while maintaining comparable ranking accuracy. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LLM4Rec-CF-Bias-27EF/.

We propose the PeerRank method for peer assessment. This constructs a grade for an agent based on the grades proposed by the agents evaluating the agent. Since the grade of an agent is a measure of their ability to grade correctly, the PeerRank method weights grades by the grades of the grading agent. The PeerRank method also provides an incentive for agents to grade correctly. As the grades of an agent depend on the grades of the grading agents, and as these grades themselves depend on the grades of other agents, we define the PeerRank method by a fixed point equation similar to the PageRank method for ranking web-pages. We identify some formal properties of the PeerRank method (for example, it satisfies axioms of unanimity, no dummy, no discrimination and symmetry), discuss some examples, compare with related work and evaluate the performance on some synthetic data. Our results show considerable promise, reducing the error in grade predictions by a factor of 2 or more in many cases over the natural baseline of averaging peer grades.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust and challenging benchmarks. Leaderboards like Chatbot Arena rank LLMs based on how well their responses align with human preferences. However, many tasks such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, or persuasiveness, are highly subjective and often lack majoritarian human agreement. Judges may have irreconcilable disagreements about what constitutes a better response. To address the challenge of ranking LLMs on highly subjective tasks, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, the Language Model Council (LMC). The LMC operates through a democratic process to: 1) formulate a test set through equal participation, 2) administer the test among council members, and 3) evaluate responses as a collective jury. We deploy a council of 20 newest LLMs on an open-ended emotional intelligence task: responding to interpersonal dilemmas. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable, robust, and less biased than those from any individual LLM judge, and is more consistent with a human-established leaderboard compared to other benchmarks.

The rapid advancement of visual generative models necessitates efficient and reliable evaluation methods. Arena platform, which gathers user votes on model comparisons, can rank models with human preferences. However, traditional Arena methods, while established, require an excessive number of comparisons for ranking to converge and are vulnerable to preference noise in voting, suggesting the need for better approaches tailored to contemporary evaluation challenges. In this paper, we introduce K-Sort Arena, an efficient and reliable platform based on a key insight: images and videos possess higher perceptual intuitiveness than texts, enabling rapid evaluation of multiple samples simultaneously. Consequently, K-Sort Arena employs K-wise comparisons, allowing K models to engage in free-for-all competitions, which yield much richer information than pairwise comparisons. To enhance the robustness of the system, we leverage probabilistic modeling and Bayesian updating techniques. We propose an exploration-exploitation-based matchmaking strategy to facilitate more informative comparisons. In our experiments, K-Sort Arena exhibits 16.3x faster convergence compared to the widely used ELO algorithm. To further validate the superiority and obtain a comprehensive leaderboard, we collect human feedback via crowdsourced evaluations of numerous cutting-edge text-to-image and text-to-video models. Thanks to its high efficiency, K-Sort Arena can continuously incorporate emerging models and update the leaderboard with minimal votes. Our project has undergone several months of internal testing and is now available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/ksort/K-Sort-Arena

Using a large language model to play the user is now standard in scalable evaluation. It has a repeatedly diagnosed failure: the simulated user is excessively cooperative, so a system under test can score by the sheer number of questions it asks rather than by making the user willing to speak. We answer with a disclosure gate conditioning information release on the companion agent's behaviour: its state is a ladder of five ordered gates, merged onto three observable depth layers. We specify, ablate, and audit it, and train a user simulator against that specification. Gating behaviour is learned from the training corpus's synthetic branch, while the real branch supplies how people speak and react; after training, the simulator need not be told at runtime which gate each item sits behind. The gate is a load-bearing component of the environment: on the English corpus of a published companion-agent benchmark (CompanionBench), once training no longer states per example which gate each item sits behind, the largest rank displacement across 12 systems under test exceeds the noise band set by re-running that environment under a new seed, while per-system scores show no detectable change. We state two acceptance criteria: a ranking must be order-preserving, and absolute scores must be scale-stable. Of the candidates we examine, only one passes both -- the simulator we release -- and its leaderboard correlates at 0.993 with the benchmark's original simulator. By contrast, prompting a frontier model as the simulator barely moves the ranking while shifting every score upward -- a shift invisible to anyone checking the ranking alone. The environment we specify is the one that benchmark already used. That publication describes the mechanism in about four hundred words, and we supply what it lacked: specification, ablations, human studies, negative controls, and downstream sensitivity analysis.

As Learning-to-Rank (LTR) approaches primarily seek to improve ranking quality, their output scores are not scale-calibrated by design. This fundamentally limits LTR usage in score-sensitive applications. Though a simple multi-objective approach that combines a regression and a ranking objective can effectively learn scale-calibrated scores, we argue that the two objectives are not necessarily compatible, which makes the trade-off less ideal for either of them. In this paper, we propose a practical regression compatible ranking (RCR) approach that achieves a better trade-off, where the two ranking and regression components are proved to be mutually aligned. Although the same idea applies to ranking with both binary and graded relevance, we mainly focus on binary labels in this paper. We evaluate the proposed approach on several public LTR benchmarks and show that it consistently achieves either best or competitive result in terms of both regression and ranking metrics, and significantly improves the Pareto frontiers in the context of multi-objective optimization. Furthermore, we evaluated the proposed approach on YouTube Search and found that it not only improved the ranking quality of the production pCTR model, but also brought gains to the click prediction accuracy. The proposed approach has been successfully deployed in the YouTube production system.

Review websites, such as TripAdvisor and Yelp, allow users to post online reviews for various businesses, products and services, and have been recently shown to have a significant influence on consumer shopping behaviour. An online review typically consists of free-form text and a star rating out of 5. The problem of predicting a user's star rating for a product, given the user's text review for that product, is called Review Rating Prediction and has lately become a popular, albeit hard, problem in machine learning. In this paper, we treat Review Rating Prediction as a multi-class classification problem, and build sixteen different prediction models by combining four feature extraction methods, (i) unigrams, (ii) bigrams, (iii) trigrams and (iv) Latent Semantic Indexing, with four machine learning algorithms, (i) logistic regression, (ii) Naive Bayes classification, (iii) perceptrons, and (iv) linear Support Vector Classification. We analyse the performance of each of these sixteen models to come up with the best model for predicting the ratings from reviews. We use the dataset provided by Yelp for training and testing the models.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Law changes over time. A court decides a case under the law in force on that day, and legal QA benchmarks grade answers against today's law. We checked 156,650 decisions of four Thai courts. Up to 67% of them cite law that has since been amended or repealed. We introduce NitiBench+, the sequel of our NitiBench, a Thai legal QA benchmark with 1,670 items across 17 domains, built from decisions of three courts. For each cited section it holds both the text in force on the decision date and the current text, and its retrieval corpus holds every dated version of every Thai statute section. Answers are graded on the Thai Bar Council rubric, the Bar-standard score, and on the overlap between the cited sections and the court's. The report has two parts. Part I measures the cost of the wrong text on 13 open-weight models. Reading the current text of amended law drops the Bar-standard score by 0.25 and missing repealed law drops it by 0.79. The penalty comes from rule changes, 0.45 on the 428 rule-changed items and none on the 331 wording-only items, and Citation F1 does not see it. The text in force is the fair setting. Part II benchmarks today's models on that setting. A public leaderboard ranks 26 models on a held-out test split of 500 items stratified by domain, with a validation split of the same shape released for public use, from memory alone, with the court's sections provided, and as a retrieval agent over the law in force, with the cost per item and the hallucinated citations. The best model scores 7.78 out of 10 and the best open-weight model 6.39. Without a search tool only five open-weight models recall any Thai law, and with it twenty of the 26 models gain and six lose. Leaderboard will take new models as they are released. Legal benchmarks must track dates, and on the right text today's models still leave a wide gap on Thai law.

Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer. The rubric, however, is a fixed proxy for quality, never a complete description of it, and a policy trained against it long enough will learn to exploit the difference. We measure this directly. Training Qwen3-8B with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on medical and science rubrics and grading out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks with both the training judge and a stronger gold judge, we find that the two scores diverge during training. The training judge's score keeps climbing while the gold judge's score peaks and then falls, by 3 points on HealthBench-Hard and by 22 points on ResearchQA. A judge with a fixed bias would shift the gold curve by a constant, not send it down while the training score rises, so the divergence is reward hacking, not judge noise. We propose Rubric Dropout, a one-line fix borrowed from neuron dropout. At every step, we randomly drop a subset of the rubric's criteria before computing the reward, so the policy never optimizes the same rubric twice. The dropped subset is shared across each rollout group, so GRPO's group-relative advantages stay comparable, and evaluation always uses the full rubric. Comparing no dropout against dropout at 30% and 50% on both benchmark pairs, dropout raises the OOD gold score at every matched checkpoint (+1 to +2 points on HealthBench-Hard, +6 to +7 points on ResearchQA), lowers the two hacking measures we track, and costs nothing in domain. Sweeping the dropout fraction shows a broad 30-50% sweet spot, while the natural alternative, reweighting criteria by how useful they are to training, performs worse than no intervention at all in our setting.

Climbing grades are used to classify a climbing route based on its perceived difficulty, and have come to play a central role in the sport of rock climbing. Recently, the first statistically rigorous method for estimating climbing grades from whole-history ascent data was described, based on the dynamic Bradley-Terry model for games between players of time-varying ability. In this paper, we implement inference under the whole-history rating model using Markov chain Monte Carlo and apply the method to a curated data set made up of climbers who climb regularly. We use these data to get an estimate of the model's fundamental scale parameter m, which defines the proportional increase in difficulty associated with an increment of grade. We show that the data conform to assumptions that the climbing grade scale is a logarithmic scale of difficulty, like decibels or stellar magnitude. We estimate that an increment in Ewbank, French and UIAA climbing grade systems corresponds to 2.1, 2.09 and 2.13 times increase in difficulty respectively, assuming a logistic model of probability of success as a function of grade. Whereas we find that the Vermin scale for bouldering (V-grade scale) corresponds to a 3.17 increase in difficulty per grade increment. In addition, we highlight potential connections between the logarithmic properties of climbing grade scales and the psychophysical laws of Weber and Fechner.

Probability-only models, which TypeSafe calls System One models, return calibrated probabilities for fixed choices in milliseconds and generate no text. We study one such model, Jev, through two tasks that require decisions under tight constraints. In bullet chess, a bot that places Jev's judgment inside Stockfish search alongside an opening book and endgame tablebases climbs above a 2200 Lichess bullet rating against other bots. Live model calls are too slow for search, so we distill pairwise judgments into a compact evaluator that runs at every position. We then ask how best to spend a fixed labeling budget when an LLM, Qwen3-32B, is available as a second teacher. In chess, averaging both judges' labels beats spending the whole budget on Qwen alone by 9.6 Elo (95% interval 4.3 to 14.9), and the gain replicates on fresh openings; a second answer from the same judge is no substitute, and Jev is the strongest partner for Qwen among the models tested. In passage reranking, Jev's labels alone train a reranker that scores as high as Qwen's, from 21 minutes of API calls instead of 5.1 GPU-hours, and adding Qwen gains at most a few thousandths in ranking quality. Search supplies the lookahead, distillation makes the judgment cheap enough to use at every position, and an LLM partner pays off in chess.

This report describes the system submitted to the music source restoration (MSR) Challenge 2025. Our approach is composed of sequential BS-RoFormers, each dealing with a single task including music source separation (MSS), denoise and dereverb. To support 8 instruments given in the task, we utilize pretrained checkpoints from MSS community and finetune the MSS model with several training schemes, including (1) mixing and cleaning of datasets; (2) random mixture of music pieces for data augmentation; (3) scale-up of audio length. Our system achieved the first rank in all three subjective and three objective evaluation metrics, including an MMSNR score of 4.4623 and an FAD score of 0.1988. We have open-sourced all the code and checkpoints at https://github.com/ModistAndrew/xlance-msr.

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}.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust evaluation methodologies. Current benchmarking approaches often rely on comparing model outputs against predefined prompts and reference outputs. Relying on predefined reference outputs hinders flexible adaptation of benchmarks to the rapidly evolving capabilities of LLMs. This limitation necessitates periodic efforts to prepare new benchmarks. To keep pace with rapidly evolving LLM capabilities, we propose a more flexible benchmarking approach. Our method, \textbf{Varco Arena}, provides reference-free benchmarking of LLMs in tournament style. \textbf{Varco Arena} directly compares LLM outputs across a diverse set of prompts, determining model rankings through a single-elimination tournament structure. This direct pairwise comparison offers two key advantages: (1) Direct comparison, unmediated by reference text, more effectively orders competing LLMs, resulting in more reliable rankings, and (2) reference-free approach to benchmarking adds flexibility in updating benchmark prompts by eliminating the need for quality references. Our empirical results, supported by simulation experiments, demonstrate that the \textbf{Varco Arena} tournament approach aligns better with the current Elo model for benchmarking LLMs. The alignment is measured in terms of Spearman correlation, showing improvement over current practice of benchmarking that use reference outputs as comparison anchors.

With the advent of highly capable instruction-tuned neural language models, benchmarking in natural language processing (NLP) is increasingly shifting towards pairwise comparison leaderboards, such as LMSYS Arena, from traditional global pointwise scores (e.g., GLUE, BIG-bench, SWE-bench). This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of both global scores and pairwise comparisons to aid decision-making in selecting appropriate model evaluation strategies. Through computational experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets using standard global metrics and the popular Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons, we found that while global scores provide more reliable overall rankings, they can underestimate strong models with rare, significant errors or low confidence. Conversely, pairwise comparisons are particularly effective for identifying strong contenders among models with lower global scores, especially where quality metrics are hard to define (e.g., text generation), though they require more comparisons to converge if ties are frequent. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/HSPyroblast/srw-ranking under a permissive license.

Evaluating audio generation systems, including text-to-music (TTM), text-to-speech (TTS), and text-to-audio (TTA), remains challenging due to the subjective and multi-dimensional nature of human perception. Existing methods treat mean opinion score (MOS) prediction as a regression problem, but standard regression losses overlook the relativity of perceptual judgments. To address this limitation, we introduce QAMRO, a novel Quality-aware Adaptive Margin Ranking Optimization framework that seamlessly integrates regression objectives from different perspectives, aiming to highlight perceptual differences and prioritize accurate ratings. Our framework leverages pre-trained audio-text models such as CLAP and Audiobox-Aesthetics, and is trained exclusively on the official AudioMOS Challenge 2025 dataset. It demonstrates superior alignment with human evaluations across all dimensions, significantly outperforming robust baseline models.

In order to evaluate the prevalence of security and privacy practices on a representative sample of the Web, researchers rely on website popularity rankings such as the Alexa list. While the validity and representativeness of these rankings are rarely questioned, our findings show the contrary: we show for four main rankings how their inherent properties (similarity, stability, representativeness, responsiveness and benignness) affect their composition and therefore potentially skew the conclusions made in studies. Moreover, we find that it is trivial for an adversary to manipulate the composition of these lists. We are the first to empirically validate that the ranks of domains in each of the lists are easily altered, in the case of Alexa through as little as a single HTTP request. This allows adversaries to manipulate rankings on a large scale and insert malicious domains into whitelists or bend the outcome of research studies to their will. To overcome the limitations of such rankings, we propose improvements to reduce the fluctuations in list composition and guarantee better defenses against manipulation. To allow the research community to work with reliable and reproducible rankings, we provide Tranco, an improved ranking that we offer through an online service available at https://tranco-list.eu.

Large language models (LLMs) are now regularly asked to forecast real-world events, but comparisons are often difficult because models receive different information, use different tools, and are evaluated under different rules. This paper reports the completed AI World Cup benchmark, in which ten LLM-based assistants made a single pre-tournament forecast of the entire 2026 FIFA World Cup. Every submission used the same tournament snapshot, prompt, JSON schema, and scoring procedure. The forecasts covered group-stage scores, group rankings, the knockout bracket, final placings, confidence values, and short explanations. After all 104 matches had been played, GPT-5.5 Thinking finished first with 744 points, followed by GPT-5.5 with 717, Gemini with 699, and Qwen 3.7 with 687. GPT-5.5 Thinking was also the only model to select Spain, which defeated Argentina 1--0 in the final, as champion. The final ranking was driven mainly by knockout performance: total score was strongly correlated with knockout points (r=0.986), but showed little relationship with group-stage match points (r=0.055), group-standing points (r=-0.103), or their combined pre-knockout score (r=-0.054). Match-level accuracy produced a different ordering. Claude Sonnet 4.6 correctly predicted the largest number of group-stage outcomes (63.89\%) but placed sixth overall. Average self-reported confidence was also unrelated to either outcome accuracy (r=-0.060) or total score (r=-0.067). The results suggest that forecasting a complete tournament tests something different from predicting matches one at a time, while also showing how strongly a bracket-based leaderboard can depend on scoring design. The benchmark materials, raw responses, and scoring code are released to support replication and future extensions.

Now that AI-driven moderation has become pervasive in everyday life, we often hear claims that "the AI is biased". While this is often said jokingly, the light-hearted remark reflects a deeper concern. How can we be certain that an online post flagged as "inappropriate" was not simply the victim of a biased algorithm? This paper investigates this problem using a dual approach. First, I conduct a quantitative benchmark of a widely used toxicity model (unitary/toxic-bert) to measure performance disparity between text in African-American English (AAE) and Standard American English (SAE). The benchmark reveals a clear, systematic bias: on average, the model scores AAE text as 1.8 times more toxic and 8.8 times higher for "identity hate". Second, I introduce an interactive pedagogical tool that makes these abstract biases tangible. The tool's core mechanic, a user-controlled "sensitivity threshold," demonstrates that the biased score itself is not the only harm; instead, the more-concerning harm is the human-set, seemingly neutral policy that ultimately operationalises discrimination. This work provides both statistical evidence of disparate impact and a public-facing tool designed to foster critical AI literacy.

Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we identify 27 private LLM variants tested by Meta in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

Recently, the physical capabilities of (M)LLMs have garnered increasing attention. However, existing benchmarks for physics suffer from two major gaps: they neither provide systematic and up-to-date coverage of real-world physics competitions such as physics Olympiads, nor enable direct performance comparison with humans. To bridge these gaps, we present HiPhO, the first benchmark dedicated to high school physics Olympiads with human-aligned evaluation. Specifically, HiPhO highlights three key innovations. (1) Comprehensive Data: It compiles 13 latest Olympiad exams from 2024-2025, spanning both international and regional competitions, and covering mixed modalities that encompass problems spanning text-only to diagram-based. (2) Professional Evaluation: We adopt official marking schemes to perform fine-grained grading at both the answer and step level, fully aligned with human examiners to ensure high-quality and domain-specific evaluation. (3) Comparison with Human Contestants: We assign gold, silver, and bronze medals to models based on official medal thresholds, thereby enabling direct comparison between (M)LLMs and human contestants. Our large-scale evaluation of 30 state-of-the-art (M)LLMs shows that: across 13 exams, open-source MLLMs mostly remain at or below the bronze level; open-source LLMs show promising progress with occasional golds; closed-source reasoning MLLMs can achieve 6 to 12 gold medals; and most models still have a significant gap from full marks. These results highlight a substantial performance gap between open-source models and top students, the strong physical reasoning capabilities of closed-source reasoning models, and the fact that there is still significant room for improvement. HiPhO, as a rigorous, human-aligned, and Olympiad-focused benchmark for advancing multimodal physical reasoning, is open-source and available at https://github.com/SciYu/HiPhO.