Daily Papers

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.

Materials discovery and design are essential for advancing technology across various industries by enabling the development of application-specific materials. Recent research has leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) to accelerate this process. We explore the potential of LLMs to generate viable hypotheses that, once validated, can expedite materials discovery. Collaborating with materials science experts, we curated a novel dataset from recent journal publications, featuring real-world goals, constraints, and methods for designing real-world applications. Using this dataset, we test LLM-based agents that generate hypotheses for achieving given goals under specific constraints. To assess the relevance and quality of these hypotheses, we propose a novel scalable evaluation metric that emulates the process a materials scientist would use to evaluate a hypothesis critically. Our curated dataset, proposed method, and evaluation framework aim to advance future research in accelerating materials discovery and design with LLMs.

Hypothesis ranking is a crucial component of automated scientific discovery, particularly in natural sciences where wet-lab experiments are costly and throughput-limited. Existing approaches focus on pre-experiment ranking, relying solely on large language model's internal reasoning without incorporating empirical outcomes from experiments. We introduce the task of experiment-guided ranking, which aims to prioritize candidate hypotheses based on the results of previously tested ones. However, developing such strategies is challenging due to the impracticality of repeatedly conducting real experiments in natural science domains. To address this, we propose a simulator grounded in three domain-informed assumptions, modeling hypothesis performance as a function of similarity to a known ground truth hypothesis, perturbed by noise. We curate a dataset of 124 chemistry hypotheses with experimentally reported outcomes to validate the simulator. Building on this simulator, we develop a pseudo experiment-guided ranking method that clusters hypotheses by shared functional characteristics and prioritizes candidates based on insights derived from simulated experimental feedback. Experiments show that our method outperforms pre-experiment baselines and strong ablations.

As AI tools become increasingly common for research ideation, robust evaluation is critical to ensure the validity and usefulness of generated ideas. We introduce ScholarEval, a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria: soundness - the empirical validity of proposed methods based on existing literature, and contribution - the degree of advancement made by the idea across different dimensions relative to prior research. To evaluate ScholarEval, we introduce ScholarIdeas, the first expert-annotated dataset of multi-domain research ideas and reviews, comprised of 117 ideas across four disciplines: artificial intelligence, neuroscience, biochemistry, and ecology. Our evaluation shows that ScholarEval achieves significantly higher coverage of points mentioned in the human expert annotated rubrics in ScholarIdeas compared to all baselines. Furthermore, ScholarEval is consistently preferred over our strongest baseline o4-mini-deep-research, a reasoning and search-enabled agentic system by OpenAI, in terms of evaluation actionability, depth, and evidence support. Our large-scale user study also shows that ScholarEval significantly outperforms deep research in literature engagement, idea refinement, and usefulness. We openly release our code, dataset, and ScholarEval tool for the community to use and build on.

Hypothesis generation is a fundamental step in scientific discovery, yet it is increasingly challenged by information overload and disciplinary fragmentation. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked growing interest in their potential to enhance and automate this process. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of hypothesis generation with LLMs by (i) reviewing existing methods, from simple prompting techniques to more complex frameworks, and proposing a taxonomy that categorizes these approaches; (ii) analyzing techniques for improving hypothesis quality, such as novelty boosting and structured reasoning; (iii) providing an overview of evaluation strategies; and (iv) discussing key challenges and future directions, including multimodal integration and human-AI collaboration. Our survey aims to serve as a reference for researchers exploring LLMs for hypothesis generation.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

Automatic evaluation with large language models, commonly known as LLM-as-a-judge, is now standard across reasoning and alignment tasks. Despite evaluating many samples in deployment, these evaluators typically (i) treat each case independently, missing the opportunity to accumulate experience, and (ii) rely on a single fixed prompt for all cases, neglecting the need for sample-specific evaluation criteria. We introduce Learning While Evaluating (LWE), a framework that allows evaluators to improve sequentially at inference time without requiring training or validation sets. LWE maintains an evolving meta-prompt that (i) produces sample-specific evaluation instructions and (ii) refines itself through self-generated feedback. Furthermore, we propose Selective LWE, which updates the meta-prompt only on self-inconsistent cases, focusing computation where it matters most. This selective approach retains the benefits of sequential learning while being far more cost-effective. Across two pairwise comparison benchmarks, Selective LWE outperforms strong baselines, empirically demonstrating that evaluators can improve during sequential testing with a simple selective update, learning most from the cases they struggle with.

In this paper, we offer a guide for researchers on evaluating reasoning in language models, building the case that reasoning should be assessed through evidence of adaptive, multi-step search rather than final-answer accuracy alone. Under an evaluation-oriented definition, reasoning requires selecting intermediate steps and halting according to input-dependent conditions, which we formalize as a search-like procedure. We show that single forward passes in scalable architectures are structurally limited in their ability to realize such variable-depth computation, motivating intermediate decoding and externalized reasoning traces as appropriate evaluation interfaces. Central to our argument is that final-answer accuracy alone is an insufficient measure of reasoning, because it provides little ability to diagnose or debug the underlying processes that produce individual solutions in frontier models. We therefore argue for a shift toward process-based evaluation, in which reasoning is assessed through the faithfulness and validity of intermediate reasoning traces as first-class evaluation targets.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on final-answer correctness is the dominant paradigm. This approach, however, provides a coarse signal for model improvement and overlooks the quality of the underlying reasoning process. We argue that a more granular evaluation of reasoning offers a more effective path to building robust models. We decompose reasoning quality into two dimensions: relevance and coherence. Relevance measures if a step is grounded in the problem; coherence measures if it follows logically from prior steps. To measure these aspects reliably, we introduce causal stepwise evaluation (CaSE). This method assesses each reasoning step using only its preceding context, which avoids hindsight bias. We validate CaSE against human judgments on our new expert-annotated benchmarks, MRa-GSM8K and MRa-MATH. More importantly, we show that curating training data with CaSE-evaluated relevance and coherence directly improves final task performance. Our work provides a scalable framework for analyzing, debugging, and improving LLM reasoning, demonstrating the practical value of moving beyond validity checks.

Autonomous research agents must acquire and reason over evidence within a limited budget. Yet relevant sources can remain uninspected or unused, leaving a gap between retrieval coverage and the evidence that informs research. The challenge is to align fast local judgments with changing evidence needs and feed their findings back into research decisions. We introduce JevGPT, a dual-system architecture for autonomous research that couples fast evidence processing with deliberative research planning. System Two sets evidence objectives and integrates findings, while System One locates support, assesses relevance, and guides further inspection. Independent source judgments run in parallel; selected original passages inform the next research step. Experiments on fixed-corpus question answering and document ranking show that JevGPT achieves leading task performance, with faster completion and lower cost than comparably effective research agents. Evidence analysis shows broader source inspection and greater coverage of supporting documents in the research loop, highlighting efficient evidence processing as a route to more capable autonomous research.

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) towards autonomous agents has catalyzed progress in Deep Research. While retrieval capabilities are well-benchmarked, the post-retrieval synthesis stage--where agents must digest massive amounts of context and consolidate fragmented evidence into coherent, long-form reports--remains under-evaluated due to the subjectivity of open-ended writing. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepSynth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities. We leverage high-quality survey papers as gold standards, reverse-engineering research requests and constructing "Oracle Contexts" from their bibliographies to isolate synthesis from retrieval noise. We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization), transforming subjective judgment into verifiable metrics. Experiments across 96 tasks reveal that synthesizing information from hundreds of references remains a significant challenge. Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write workflows significantly outperform single-turn generation, effectively reducing hallucinations and improving adherence to complex structural constraints.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

Retrieval models are often evaluated on partially-annotated datasets. Each query is mapped to a few relevant texts and the remaining corpus is assumed to be irrelevant. As a result, models that successfully retrieve false negatives are punished in evaluation. Unfortunately, completely annotating all texts for every query is not resource efficient. In this work, we show that using partially-annotated datasets in evaluation can paint a distorted picture. We curate D-MERIT, a passage retrieval evaluation set from Wikipedia, aspiring to contain all relevant passages for each query. Queries describe a group (e.g., ``journals about linguistics'') and relevant passages are evidence that entities belong to the group (e.g., a passage indicating that Language is a journal about linguistics). We show that evaluating on a dataset containing annotations for only a subset of the relevant passages might result in misleading ranking of the retrieval systems and that as more relevant texts are included in the evaluation set, the rankings converge. We propose our dataset as a resource for evaluation and our study as a recommendation for balance between resource-efficiency and reliable evaluation when annotating evaluation sets for text retrieval.

Significant progress has been made in automatic text evaluation with the introduction of large language models (LLMs) as evaluators. However, current sample-wise evaluation paradigm suffers from the following issues: (1) Sensitive to prompt design; (2) Poor resistance to noise; (3) Inferior ensemble performance with static reference. Inspired by the fact that humans treat both criterion definition and inter sample comparison as references for evaluation, we propose BatchEval, a paradigm that conducts batch-wise evaluation iteratively to alleviate the above problems. We explore variants under this paradigm and confirm the optimal settings are two stage procedure with heterogeneous batch composition strategy and decimal scoring format. Comprehensive experiments across 3 LLMs on 4 text evaluation tasks demonstrate that BatchEval outperforms state-of-the-art methods by 10.5% on Pearson correlations with only 64% API cost on average. Further analyses have been conducted to verify the robustness, generalization, and working mechanism of BatchEval.

Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is "best", achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of "robust usefulness", along with steps that might be required to get us there.

Finding evidence for human opinion and behavior at scale is a challenging task, often requiring an understanding of sophisticated thought patterns among vast online communities found on social media. For example, studying how gun ownership is related to the perception of Freedom, requires a retrieval system that can operate at scale over social media posts, while dealing with two key challenges: (1) identifying abstract concept instances, (2) which can be instantiated differently across different communities. To address these, we introduce ConceptCarve, an evidence retrieval framework that utilizes traditional retrievers and LLMs to dynamically characterize the search space during retrieval. Our experiments show that ConceptCarve surpasses traditional retrieval systems in finding evidence within a social media community. It also produces an interpretable representation of the evidence for that community, which we use to qualitatively analyze complex thought patterns that manifest differently across the communities.

We introduce an explainability method for biomedical hypothesis generation systems, built on top of the novel Hypothesis Generation Context Retriever framework. Our approach combines semantic graph-based retrieval and relevant data-restrictive training to simulate real-world discovery constraints. Integrated with large language models (LLMs) via retrieval-augmented generation, the system explains hypotheses with contextual evidence using published scientific literature. We also propose a novel feedback loop approach, which iteratively identifies and corrects flawed parts of LLM-generated explanations, refining both the evidence paths and supporting context. We demonstrate the performance of our method with multiple large language models and evaluate the explanation and context retrieval quality through both expert-curated assessment and large-scale automated analysis. Our code is available at: https://github.com/IlyaTyagin/HGCR.

As language models shift from single-shot answer generation toward multi-step reasoning that retrieves and consumes evidence mid-inference, evaluating the role of individual retrieved items becomes more important. Existing RAG evaluation typically targets final-answer quality, citation faithfulness, or answer-level attribution, but none of these directly targets the intervention-based, per-evidence-item utility view we study here. We introduce CUE-R, a lightweight intervention-based framework for measuring per-evidence-item operational utility in single-shot RAG using shallow observable retrieval-use traces. CUE-R perturbs individual evidence items via REMOVE, REPLACE, and DUPLICATE operators, then measures changes along three utility axes (correctness, proxy-based grounding faithfulness, and confidence error) plus a trace-divergence signal. We also outline an operational evidence-role taxonomy for interpreting intervention outcomes. Experiments on HotpotQA and 2WikiMultihopQA with Qwen-3 8B and GPT-5.2 reveal a consistent pattern: REMOVE and REPLACE substantially harm correctness and grounding while producing large trace shifts, whereas DUPLICATE is often answer-redundant yet not fully behaviorally neutral. A zero-retrieval control confirms that these effects arise from degradation of meaningful retrieval. A two-support ablation further shows that multi-hop evidence items can interact non-additively: removing both supports harms performance far more than either single removal. Our results suggest that answer-only evaluation misses important evidence effects and that intervention-based utility analysis is a practical complement for RAG evaluation.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Peer review is a cornerstone of quality control in scientific publishing. With the increasing workload, the unintended use of `quick' heuristics, referred to as lazy thinking, has emerged as a recurring issue compromising review quality. Automated methods to detect such heuristics can help improve the peer-reviewing process. However, there is limited NLP research on this issue, and no real-world dataset exists to support the development of detection tools. This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories. Our analysis reveals that Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting. However, instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points, highlighting the importance of high-quality training data. Furthermore, a controlled experiment demonstrates that reviews revised with lazy thinking feedback are more comprehensive and actionable than those written without such feedback. We will release our dataset and the enhanced guidelines that can be used to train junior reviewers in the community. (Code available here: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2025-lazy-review)

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

LLM agents increasingly rely on external inference conditions: prompts, tools, memory, SOPs, skills, and harness feedback. These assets can improve task execution without changing model weights, but they are often revised by heuristic reflection or by reusing observed successes and failures as if counts alone were reliable belief. We introduce Bayesian-Agent, a native and cross-harness framework that treats reusable skills and SOPs as hypotheses about whether a frozen model will succeed under a particular prompt, context, and harness environment. Bayesian-Agent records verified trajectory evidence, maintains a feature-conditioned categorical posterior over each skill, and maps posterior state into inspectable actions such as patch, split, compress, retire, and explore. Model-facing prompts receive executable guardrails and failure-mode patches, while posterior summaries remain available for audit. With deepseek-v4-flash, incremental repair improves SOP-Bench from 80\% to 95\%, Lifelong AgentBench from 90\% to 100\%, and RealFin-Bench from 45\% to 65\%. We further evaluate Bayesian-Agent's native backend and optional GenericAgent, mini-swe-agent, and Claude Code backends. The results include positive, negative, saturated, and case-study settings, suggesting that agent skill evolution is best viewed as posterior-guided harness optimization rather than uncalibrated prompt accumulation. The source code is available at https://github.com/DataArcTech/Bayesian-Agent.

We present Seed2.0, a model series that takes a meaningful step toward solving complex, real-world tasks. Our approach begins with identifying users' genuine needs and constructing a reliable, forward-looking evaluation system by selecting and abstracting benchmarks grounded in these needs and in realistic, complex scenarios. Guided by this evaluation system, Seed2.0 targets two persistent challenges, long-tail knowledge and complex instruction following, substantially improving the model's reliability on intricate, long-horizon tasks. Beyond these, Seed2.0 delivers world-leading reasoning intelligence, visual understanding, and search capabilities that address the most common needs of a broad user base. Through extensive real-world use cases documented in this model card, we demonstrate that Seed2.0 begins to exhibit the ability to handle initial complex real-world tasks, delivering greater value to hundreds of millions of users.

Scientific discovery is a cumulative process and requires new ideas to be situated within an ever-expanding landscape of existing knowledge. An emerging and critical challenge is how to identify conceptually relevant prior work from rapidly growing literature, and assess how a new idea differentiates from existing research. Current embedding approaches typically conflate distinct conceptual aspects into single representations and cannot support fine-grained literature retrieval; meanwhile, LLM-based evaluators are subject to sycophancy biases, failing to provide discriminative novelty assessment. To tackle these challenges, we introduce the Ideation Space, a structured representation that decomposes scientific knowledge into three distinct dimensions, i.e., research problem, methodology, and core findings, each learned through contrastive training. This framework enables principled measurement of conceptual distance between ideas, and modeling of ideation transitions that capture the logical connections within a proposed idea. Building upon this representation, we propose a Hierarchical Sub-Space Retrieval framework for efficient, targeted literature retrieval, and a Decomposed Novelty Assessment algorithm that identifies which aspects of an idea are novel. Extensive experiments demonstrate substantial improvements, where our approach achieves Recall@30 of 0.329 (16.7% over baselines), our ideation transition retrieval reaches Hit Rate@30 of 0.643, and novelty assessment attains 0.37 correlation with expert judgments. In summary, our work provides a promising paradigm for future research on accelerating and evaluating scientific discovery.

In recent years, the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed the landscape of scientific research, offering unprecedented support across various stages of the research cycle. This paper presents the first systematic survey dedicated to exploring how LLMs are revolutionizing the scientific research process. We analyze the unique roles LLMs play across four critical stages of research: hypothesis discovery, experiment planning and implementation, scientific writing, and peer reviewing. Our review comprehensively showcases the task-specific methodologies and evaluation benchmarks. By identifying current challenges and proposing future research directions, this survey not only highlights the transformative potential of LLMs, but also aims to inspire and guide researchers and practitioners in leveraging LLMs to advance scientific inquiry. Resources are available at the following repository: https://github.com/du-nlp-lab/LLM4SR

Large-taxonomy retrieval often assumes that the input already expresses the target concept. In many settings, however, the input is indirect evidence, such as a table cell whose meaning depends on its row, column, datatype, and context. We call this mismatch the retrieval readiness gap. Our analysis shows that the current index retrieves the target reliably when its semantics are explicit, while raw evidence often leaves it deep in the ranking. We propose Factorized Hypothesis Search (FHS), which maintains multiple partial interpretations over named semantic dimensions. These hypotheses support structured query rendering, multi-hypothesis retrieval, and dimension-level candidate verification. On both financial taxonomy tagging and CodiEsp clinical coding tasks, FHS achieves the best Recall@1, MRR, and final accuracy among the non-oracle methods. Replacing the factorized hypothesis path with a free-text ensemble causes the largest drop in head-ranking performance, while sequential refinement provides no additional gain over FHS's strong parallel first round.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured. We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discriminative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence, including anomalous observations and fragmented records, to guide subsequent investigation. To evaluate this capability, we introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets. To construct HypoData at scale, we propose Retrospective Context Regression, a Forge--Audit pipeline that reconstructs pre-conclusion contexts from completed expert documents by removing explicit conclusions, target hypotheses, and retrospective causal attributions while preserving the factual substrate. Because PHD admits multiple valid outputs, HypoEval combines bidirectional pairwise judgments with Bradley--Terry--Davidson aggregation for ranking and six-dimensional rubric scoring for diagnosis. Experiments on 15 frontier LLMs reveal clear capability stratification and model-dependent effects of structured analytical skills, with gains for several lower-performing models on HypoArena but regressions for other systems, including a top-performing model. Compared with absolute rubric scoring, arena evaluation resolves finer-grained differences among models, with aggregated rankings showing strong agreement with human experts and an independent judge. Together, these results support treating PHD as a distinct target for evaluating how LLMs formulate investigative directions when final conclusions are withheld. Our code and data are publicly available at github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HypoArena and github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HypoArena.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed how people interact with artificial intelligence (AI) systems, achieving state-of-the-art results in various tasks, including scientific discovery and hypothesis generation. However, the lack of a comprehensive and systematic evaluation framework for generating research ideas using LLMs poses a significant obstacle to understanding and assessing their generative capabilities in scientific discovery. To address this gap, we propose IdeaBench, a benchmark system that includes a comprehensive dataset and an evaluation framework for standardizing the assessment of research idea generation using LLMs. Our dataset comprises titles and abstracts from a diverse range of influential papers, along with their referenced works. To emulate the human process of generating research ideas, we profile LLMs as domain-specific researchers and ground them in the same context considered by human researchers. This maximizes the utilization of the LLMs' parametric knowledge to dynamically generate new research ideas. We also introduce an evaluation framework for assessing the quality of generated research ideas. Our evaluation framework is a two-stage process: first, using GPT-4o to rank ideas based on user-specified quality indicators such as novelty and feasibility, enabling scalable personalization; and second, calculating relative ranking based "Insight Score" to quantify the chosen quality indicator. The proposed benchmark system will be a valuable asset for the community to measure and compare different LLMs, ultimately advancing the automation of the scientific discovery process.

With the rapid and continuous increase in academic publications, identifying high-quality research has become an increasingly pressing challenge. While recent methods leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated paper evaluation have shown great promise, they are often constrained by outdated domain knowledge and limited reasoning capabilities. In this work, we present PaperEval, a novel LLM-based framework for automated paper evaluation that addresses these limitations through two key components: 1) a domain-aware paper retrieval module that retrieves relevant concurrent work to support contextualized assessments of novelty and contributions, and 2) a latent reasoning mechanism that enables deep understanding of complex motivations and methodologies, along with comprehensive comparison against concurrently related work, to support more accurate and reliable evaluation. To guide the reasoning process, we introduce a progressive ranking optimization strategy that encourages the LLM to iteratively refine its predictions with an emphasis on relative comparison. Experiments on two datasets demonstrate that PaperEval consistently outperforms existing methods in both academic impact and paper quality evaluation. In addition, we deploy PaperEval in a real-world paper recommendation system for filtering high-quality papers, which has gained strong engagement on social media -- amassing over 8,000 subscribers and attracting over 10,000 views for many filtered high-quality papers -- demonstrating the practical effectiveness of PaperEval.

Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. ChainForge provides a graphical interface for comparison of responses across models and prompt variations. Our system was designed to support three tasks: model selection, prompt template design, and hypothesis testing (e.g., auditing). We released ChainForge early in its development and iterated on its design with academics and online users. Through in-lab and interview studies, we find that a range of people could use ChainForge to investigate hypotheses that matter to them, including in real-world settings. We identify three modes of prompt engineering and LLM hypothesis testing: opportunistic exploration, limited evaluation, and iterative refinement.

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

We introduce CheckEval, a novel evaluation framework using Large Language Models, addressing the challenges of ambiguity and inconsistency in current evaluation methods. CheckEval addresses these challenges by dividing evaluation criteria into detailed sub-aspects and constructing a checklist of Boolean questions for each, simplifying the evaluation. This approach not only renders the process more interpretable but also significantly enhances the robustness and reliability of results by focusing on specific evaluation dimensions. Validated through a focused case study using the SummEval benchmark, CheckEval indicates a strong correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, it demonstrates a highly consistent Inter-Annotator Agreement. These findings highlight the effectiveness of CheckEval for objective, flexible, and precise evaluations. By offering a customizable and interactive framework, CheckEval sets a new standard for the use of LLMs in evaluation, responding to the evolving needs of the field and establishing a clear method for future LLM-based evaluation.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

Agentic search, as a more autonomous and adaptive paradigm of retrieval augmentation, is driving the evolution of intelligent search systems. However, existing evaluation frameworks fail to align well with the goals of agentic search. First, the complex queries commonly used in current benchmarks often deviate from realistic user search scenarios. Second, prior approaches tend to introduce noise when extracting ground truth for end-to-end evaluations, leading to distorted assessments at a fine-grained level. Third, most current frameworks focus solely on the quality of final answers, neglecting the evaluation of the iterative process inherent to agentic search. To address these limitations, we propose RAVine -- a Reality-Aligned eValuation framework for agentic LLMs with search. RAVine targets multi-point queries and long-form answers that better reflect user intents, and introduces an attributable ground truth construction strategy to enhance the accuracy of fine-grained evaluation. Moreover, RAVine examines model's interaction with search tools throughout the iterative process, and accounts for factors of efficiency. We benchmark a series of models using RAVine and derive several insights, which we hope will contribute to advancing the development of agentic search systems. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/SwordFaith/RAVine.

Deep research requires models to retrieve, connect, and synthesize evidence from large-scale heterogeneous sources to answer complex queries and produce analytical reports. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outcomes, such as answer correctness, report quality, or citation alignment, while providing limited visibility into whether evidence is correctly selected, linked, and aggregated into supported claims and conclusions. To address this gap, we introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research. HiEviDR-Bench covers open-domain and academic-domain settings under both text-only and multimodal conditions, and represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation from evidence to intermediate claims and final conclusions. Based on this formulation, we develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness, together with a progressive gating mechanism for fine-grained error localization. HiEviDR-Bench contains 2,000 human-validated questions with evidence graphs across multiple difficulty levels. Experiments on 16 representative multimodal large language models show that, although many systems achieve strong report quality, their performance drops markedly on citation accuracy, claim construction, and answer correctness. Further analysis shows that the main bottlenecks lie in evidence identification and intermediate claim construction, revealing that strong surface-level report quality does not necessarily imply grounded multi-stage reasoning on our benchmark.

Deep research systems are widely used for multi-step web research, analysis, and cross-source synthesis, yet their evaluation remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often require annotation-intensive task construction, rely on static evaluation dimensions, or fail to reliably verify facts when citations are missing. To bridge these gaps, we introduce DeepResearchEval, an automated framework for deep research task construction and agentic evaluation. For task construction, we propose a persona-driven pipeline generating realistic, complex research tasks anchored in diverse user profiles, applying a two-stage filter Task Qualification and Search Necessity to retain only tasks requiring multi-source evidence integration and external retrieval. For evaluation, we propose an agentic pipeline with two components: an Adaptive Point-wise Quality Evaluation that dynamically derives task-specific evaluation dimensions, criteria, and weights conditioned on each generated task, and an Active Fact-Checking that autonomously extracts and verifies report statements via web search, even when citations are missing.

A recent focus of large language model (LLM) development, as exemplified by generative search engines, is to incorporate external references to generate and support their claims. However, evaluating the attribution, i.e., verifying whether the generated statement is indeed fully supported by the cited reference, remains an open problem. Although human evaluation is common practice, it is costly and time-consuming. In this paper, we investigate the automatic evaluation of attribution by LLMs. We begin by providing a definition of attribution and then explore two approaches for automatic evaluation: prompting LLMs and fine-tuning smaller LMs. The fine-tuning data is repurposed from related tasks, such as question answering, fact-checking, natural language inference, and summarization. To facilitate the evaluation, we manually curate a set of test examples covering 12 domains from a generative search engine, New Bing. Our results on the curated test set and simulated test examples from existing benchmark questions highlight both promising signals as well as remaining challenges for the automatic evaluation of attribution. We hope our testbed, modeling methodology, and insights will help lay the foundation for future studies on this important problem.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in assisting scientific research, yet their ability to discover high-quality research hypotheses remains unexamined due to the lack of a dedicated benchmark. To address this gap, we introduce the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating LLMs with a near-sufficient set of sub-tasks of scientific discovery: inspiration retrieval, hypothesis composition, and hypothesis ranking. We develop an automated framework that extracts critical components - research questions, background surveys, inspirations, and hypotheses - from scientific papers across 12 disciplines, with expert validation confirming its accuracy. To prevent data contamination, we focus exclusively on papers published in 2024, ensuring minimal overlap with LLM pretraining data. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs perform well in retrieving inspirations, an out-of-distribution task, suggesting their ability to surface novel knowledge associations. This positions LLMs as "research hypothesis mines", capable of facilitating automated scientific discovery by generating innovative hypotheses at scale with minimal human intervention.

Knowledge probing assesses to which degree a language model (LM) has successfully learned relational knowledge during pre-training. Probing is an inexpensive way to compare LMs of different sizes and training configurations. However, previous approaches rely on the objective function used in pre-training LMs and are thus applicable only to masked or causal LMs. As a result, comparing different types of LMs becomes impossible. To address this, we propose an approach that uses an LM's inherent ability to estimate the log-likelihood of any given textual statement. We carefully design an evaluation dataset of 7,731 instances (40,916 in a larger variant) from which we produce alternative statements for each relational fact, one of which is correct. We then evaluate whether an LM correctly assigns the highest log-likelihood to the correct statement. Our experimental evaluation of 22 common LMs shows that our proposed framework, BEAR, can effectively probe for knowledge across different LM types. We release the BEAR datasets and an open-source framework that implements the probing approach to the research community to facilitate the evaluation and development of LMs.

Scientific discovery requires developing worthwhile hypotheses into practical investigations, yet learning from this evolving research process remains challenging. We introduce an operational definition of valuable and testable research hypotheses: evidence-grounded claims about consequential uncertainties, coupled with feasible investigations, explicit decision criteria, and alternative explanations. Our DiscoveryRSI framework develops hypothesis trees through multi-agent evolutionary search, compiles selected investigations into executable Harbor tasks, and recursively learns through three mechanisms: hypothesis credit optimization attributes scientific assessments to documented research contributions; harness replay identifies productive strategies and recurring failures to refine research workflows; and rediscovery applies accepted improvements to new investigations, generating further experience for subsequent learning. We also introduce DFM-Bench, which provides comprehensive assessment of hypothesis quality and cumulative research progress at the levels of hypotheses, revisions, development paths and research runs. Across four life-science domains, automated evaluation shows that hypothesis quality rises from 4.86 for the base model to 5.39 after two rounds of self-improvement, with the large gains in falsifiability and data resolvability. We further validate hypothesis quality through expert review, comparing our DiscoveryRSI-27B with other research agents. Preliminary human assessments show that DiscoveryRSI-27B scores higher than GPT-6 Luna on hypothesis importance and whether claims are plausible and evidence-bounded. DiscoveryRSI-27B achieved a 6.3% rate of hypothesis correspondence with research published after the model cutoff, largely outperform GPT-6 with 2.5% and Claude Opus 5 with 2.3%, while delivering greater human-rated improvement along research paths.

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.

Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval (RIR) targets retrieval settings where relevance is mediated by latent inferential links between a query and supporting evidence, rather than semantic similarity. Motivated by the emergent reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), recent work integrates these capabilities into the IR field, spanning the entire pipeline from benchmarks to retrievers and rerankers. Despite this progress, the field lacks a systematic framework to organize current efforts and articulate a clear path forward. To provide a clear roadmap for this rapidly growing yet fragmented area, this survey (1) systematizes existing RIR benchmarks by knowledge domains and modalities, providing a detailed analysis of the current landscape; (2) introduces a structured taxonomy that categorizes methods based on where and how reasoning is integrated into the retrieval pipeline, alongside an analysis of their trade-offs and practical applications; and (3) summarizes challenges and future directions to guide research in this evolving field.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

Evaluating LLMs is challenging, as benchmark scores often fail to capture models' real-world usefulness. Instead, users often rely on ``vibe-testing'': informal experience-based evaluation, such as comparing models on coding tasks related to their own workflow. While prevalent, vibe-testing is often too ad hoc and unstructured to analyze or reproduce at scale. In this work, we study how vibe-testing works in practice and then formalize it to support systematic analysis. We first analyze two empirical resources: (1) a survey of user evaluation practices, and (2) a collection of in-the-wild model comparison reports from blogs and social media. Based on these resources, we formalize vibe-testing as a two-part process: users personalize both what they test and how they judge responses. We then introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation pipeline that follows this formulation by generating personalized prompts and comparing model outputs using user-aware subjective criteria. In experiments on coding benchmarks, we find that combining personalized prompts and user-aware evaluation can change which model is preferred, reflecting the role of vibe-testing in practice. These findings suggest that formalized vibe-testing can serve as a useful approach for bridging benchmark scores and real-world experience.

Automated research systems support literature synthesis, ideation, experiments, writing, and peer review, but their evaluation is dispersed across tasks, benchmarks, and studies that are difficult to compare directly. We review this literature from the perspective of evaluation design and evidence, covering six targets: literature synthesis, research ideation, executable workflows, scholarly writing and communication, automatic peer review, and end-to-end research. We compare task construction, evidence sources, evaluators, and scoring procedures to explain the capabilities assessed by different designs. Our synthesis highlights three recurring lessons: output checks, process checks, and human studies provide complementary information; evaluator calibration is specific to the property being assessed; and resource budgets and attempt selection are integral to interpreting performance comparisons. We identify diagnostic evaluation designs and documented gaps in supporting evidence, and translate these comparisons into reporting and audit recommendations for specific evaluation settings. The survey helps readers navigate existing evaluations, select appropriate benchmarks, and design subsequent studies.

Language models are increasingly used in scientific discovery to generate hypotheses, propose candidate solutions, implement systems, and iteratively refine them. At the core of these trial-and-error loops lies evaluation: the process of obtaining feedback on candidate solutions via verifiers, simulators, or task-specific scoring functions. While prior work has highlighted the importance of evaluation, it has not explicitly formulated the problem of how evaluation-driven discovery loops can be scaled up in a principled and effective manner to push the boundaries of scientific discovery, a problem this paper seeks to address. We introduce Simple Test-time Evaluation-driven Scaling (SimpleTES), a general framework that strategically combines parallel exploration, feedback-driven refinement, and local selection, revealing substantial gains unlocked by scaling evaluation-driven discovery loops along the right dimensions. Across 21 scientific problems spanning six domains, SimpleTES discovers state-of-the-art solutions using gpt-oss models, consistently outperforming both frontier-model baselines and sophisticated optimization pipelines. Particularly, we sped up the widely used LASSO algorithm by over 2x, designed quantum circuit routing policies that reduce gate overhead by 24.5%, and discovered new Erdos minimum overlap constructions that surpass the best-known results. Beyond novel discoveries, SimpleTES produces trajectory-level histories that naturally supervise feedback-driven learning. When post-trained on successful trajectories, models not only improve efficiency on seen problems but also generalize to unseen problems, discovering solutions that base models fail to uncover. Together, our results establish effective evaluation-driven loop scaling as a central axis for advancing LLM-driven scientific discovery, and provide a simple yet practical framework for realizing these gains.

Large-scale Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized human-AI interaction and achieved significant success in the generation of novel ideas. However, current assessments of idea generation overlook crucial factors such as knowledge leakage in LLMs, the absence of open-ended benchmarks with grounded truth, and the limited scope of feasibility analysis constrained by prompt design. These limitations hinder the potential of uncovering groundbreaking research ideas. In this paper, we present AI Idea Bench 2025, a framework designed to quantitatively evaluate and compare the ideas generated by LLMs within the domain of AI research from diverse perspectives. The framework comprises a comprehensive dataset of 3,495 AI papers and their associated inspired works, along with a robust evaluation methodology. This evaluation system gauges idea quality in two dimensions: alignment with the ground-truth content of the original papers and judgment based on general reference material. AI Idea Bench 2025's benchmarking system stands to be an invaluable resource for assessing and comparing idea-generation techniques, thereby facilitating the automation of scientific discovery.

While Large Language Models have improved rapidly, many fundamental questions remain about how to evaluate the knowledge and reasoning abilities they acquire, and how such evaluations relate to the learning signals used in pre-training. In this paper, we propose ModelLog, a declarative probabilistic framework for pre-training evaluation that makes the semantic structure of model behavior explicit and provides new formal tools for relating evaluation to learning. ModelLog specifies evaluation targets as symbolic constraints over token-level predictions and measures how strongly a model's distribution satisfies those constraints. We explore the framework through a new suite of tasks targeting negation, mutual exclusivity, and consistency, finding systematic failures that are difficult to characterize through token likelihood or answer accuracy alone. We further show that these evaluation scores can also be interpreted as losses, whose gradients reflect logical strength, informativeness, and variable-level sensitivity. This links evaluation and learning through a shared semantics, suggesting evaluation methods that diagnose model behavior while also helping to clarify the semantic structure of learning.

Relevance judgments are crucial for evaluating information retrieval systems, but traditional human-annotated labels are time-consuming and expensive. As a result, many researchers turn to automatic alternatives to accelerate method development. Among these, Large Language Models (LLMs) provide a scalable solution by generating relevance labels directly through prompting. However, prompting an LLM for a relevance label without constraints often results in not only incorrect predictions but also outputs that are difficult for humans to interpret. We propose the Multi-Criteria framework for LLM-based relevance judgments, decomposing the notion of relevance into multiple criteria--such as exactness, coverage, topicality, and contextual fit--to improve the robustness and interpretability of retrieval evaluations compared to direct grading methods. We validate this approach on three datasets: the TREC Deep Learning tracks from 2019 and 2020, as well as LLMJudge (based on TREC DL 2023). Our results demonstrate that Multi-Criteria judgments enhance the system ranking/leaderboard performance. Moreover, we highlight the strengths and limitations of this approach relative to direct grading approaches, offering insights that can guide the development of future automatic evaluation frameworks in information retrieval.

Despite the significant advancements in keyphrase extraction and keyphrase generation methods, the predominant approach for evaluation only relies on exact matching with human references and disregards reference-free attributes. This scheme fails to recognize systems that generate keyphrases that are semantically equivalent to the references or keyphrases that have practical utility. To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of different keyphrase systems, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework consisting of six critical dimensions: naturalness, faithfulness, saliency, coverage, diversity, and utility. For each dimension, we discuss the desiderata and design semantic-based metrics that align with the evaluation objectives. Rigorous meta-evaluation studies demonstrate that our evaluation strategy correlates better with human preferences compared to a range of previously used metrics. Using this framework, we re-evaluate 18 keyphrase systems and further discover that (1) the best model differs in different dimensions, with pre-trained language models achieving the best in most dimensions; (2) the utility in downstream tasks does not always correlate well with reference-based metrics; and (3) large language models exhibit a strong performance in reference-free evaluation.

Large language models have made research ideation increasingly accessible, yet effective idea development requires more than generating candidate directions. Researchers must ground a problem in current literature, identify meaningful bottlenecks, differentiate from existing solutions, and evaluate risks before committing to implementation. We present ResearchStudio-Idea as a reusable skill suite for this first mile of research ideation. The suite includes Paper-Search, a standalone multi-source literature search skill; Scoop-Check, a standalone prior-art collision checker for novelty claims; and IdeaSpark, the end-to-end skill that composes evidence grounding, pattern-guided generation, collision retrieval, audit, and idea-card rendering into one workflow. IdeaSpark is constructed from a corpus of 1,947 machine learning conference papers collected from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS between 2021 and 2025, including Oral papers, a separately tracked high-citation subset, and rejected submissions. Analysis of these outcomes reveals 31 recurring ideation sub-patterns, consolidated into 15 reusable ideation patterns. Each pattern is operationalized as a structured card containing research contexts, bottleneck types, differentiation strategies, supporting precedents, and common failure modes. Given a research problem and an evidence bundle, IdeaSpark evaluates evidence readiness, reconstructs the surrounding research context, identifies unresolved bottlenecks, selects relevant patterns, instantiates one candidate direction, retrieves potentially conflicting prior work, and performs outcome-informed auditing. This workflow transforms reusable ideation patterns into traceable research proposals. Blind automated-judge evaluations show that IdeaSpark consistently produces stronger research proposals than no-skill and generic-skill baselines while maintaining competitive novelty.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

Deep search requires agents to answer complex questions through multi-step web search, browsing, evidence comparison, and synthesis. A central challenge is deciding how to search when several directions look plausible but only some will later lead to reliable evidence. If an agent greedily follows the current best-looking direction, it may keep extending a weak continuation. If it explores without discipline, it may waste budget on disconnected trials. We propose TreeSeeker, an inference-time framework for controlled trial-and-error in deep search. TreeSeeker organizes search as branch-and-return search over tree-structured states, where each branch is a tentative direction for a sub-goal. At each round, TreeSearch reads all sub-goal trees, identifies active goals, and uses textual UCB signals of value, uncertainty, and risk to select among exploiting a promising branch, exploring an uncertain alternative, or pruning an unproductive continuation and returning to an earlier branch point. TreeMem supports this control loop by keeping evidence, uncertainty, conflicts, progress, and failure cues attached to the branches that produced them, so trial outcomes can guide later decisions. Experiments on XBench-DeepSearch, BrowseComp, and BrowseComp-ZH show that TreeSeeker consistently outperforms strong open-source baselines, suggesting that explicit branch-and-return control complements stronger reasoning and tool execution.

Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Yet terminal correctness assigns equal credit to direct answers from parametric knowledge, evidence-grounded answers, and answers recalled after redundant search. Process supervision and LLM judges provide richer feedback but can require high-cost annotation or inference; low-cost, non-contrastive policy confidence signals do not directly identify whether retrieved evidence changes an answer. We propose Search-G1, a reward framework that couples retrieval necessity with evidence reliance through two intervention-calibrated hidden-state readouts for selective grounded search. A prompt readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement proxies policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout predicts evidence reliance as sensitivity to evidence deletion conditional on the realized reasoning prefix. A correctness-first reward gates evidence-reliance credit by retrieval necessity, rewards sufficient direct answers, and penalizes repeated search. After calibration, scoring needs neither process annotations nor LLM-judge inference. As policy-relative targets, trajectory distributions, and representations may drift, Search-G1 periodically regenerates targets and refits its readouts. Across four QA benchmarks and two scales, Search-G1 achieves competitive task accuracy, with stronger counterfactual evidence dependence and fewer searches in the main comparisons, complemented by independent human audits of answer support.

As frontier language models increasingly saturate standard QA benchmarks, concerns about data contamination, memorization, and escalating dataset creation costs persist. We propose a debate-driven evaluation paradigm that transforms any existing QA dataset into structured adversarial debates--where one model is given the official answer to defend, and another constructs and defends an alternative answer--adjudicated by a judge model blind to the correct solution. By forcing multi-round argumentation, this approach substantially increases difficulty while penalizing shallow memorization, yet reuses QA items to reduce curation overhead. We make two main contributions: (1) an evaluation pipeline to systematically convert QA tasks into debate-based assessments, and (2) a public benchmark that demonstrates our paradigm's effectiveness on a subset of MMLU-Pro questions, complete with standardized protocols and reference models. Empirical results validate the robustness of the method and its effectiveness against data contamination--a Llama 3.1 model fine-tuned on test questions showed dramatic accuracy improvements (50% -> 82%) but performed worse in debates. Results also show that even weaker judges can reliably differentiate stronger debaters, highlighting how debate-based evaluation can scale to future, more capable systems while maintaining a fraction of the cost of creating new benchmarks. Overall, our framework underscores that "pretraining on the test set is no longer all you need," offering a sustainable path for measuring the genuine reasoning ability of advanced language models.

As research in large language models (LLMs) continues to accelerate, LLM-based evaluation has emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations for comparing the ever increasing list of models. This paper investigates the efficacy of these "LLM evaluators", particularly in using them to assess instruction following, a metric that gauges how closely generated text adheres to the given instruction. We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. The authors manually curated 419 pairs of outputs, one adhering to instructions while the other diverging, yet may possess deceptive qualities that mislead an LLM evaluator, e.g., a more engaging tone. Contrary to existing meta-evaluation, we discover that different evaluators (i.e., combinations of LLMs and prompts) exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement. We also present a novel suite of prompting strategies that further close the gap between LLM and human evaluators. With LLMBar, we hope to offer more insight into LLM evaluators and foster future research in developing better instruction-following models.

Model cards describe model behavior through a mixture of textual descriptions and structured artifacts, including performance, configuration, and dataset tables. Existing model search systems rely predominantly on semantic similarity over text, which can produce homogeneous result sets and limit exploration of alternatives. We argue that model search is inherently comparative: users want models that are task-aligned yet differentiated in measurable ways. We hypothesize that this balance requires retrieval over condensed, high-quality evidence rather than verbose descriptions, and much of that evidence is concentrated in structured tables. We present StructuredSemanticSearch, a table-driven model search framework built on the ModelTables benchmark. Given a query, StructuredSemanticSearch combines a semantic baseline for task alignment with a structure-aware pipeline that discovers query-related model-card tables using table discovery operators such as unionability, joinability, and keyword search. Retrieved tables are mapped back to model cards under a controlled top-k budget, enabling fair comparison between text-based and table-based retrieval. Beyond retrieval, StructuredSemanticSearch adapts table integration to the model-table domain through orientation-aware integration, producing compact integrated views of tables from partially overlapping and sometimes transposed evidence tables. For evaluation, we introduce a nugget-based, auditable protocol that extracts compact evidence items from model cards, matches queries to condition- or intent-specific nuggets, and measures evidence coverage and diversity over retrieved model-card candidate sets. This protocol also provides a scalable path toward approximate, evidence-based labeling in dynamic model lakes. Experiments on 597 model-recommendation queries show improved nugget coverage for the structure-aware pipeline than semantic baseline

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE, while useful, are increasingly inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges. Through experiments on three open-ended question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple LLMs-as-judges significantly improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, particularly in complex tasks where a single model might struggle. Our findings reveal a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing our method as a viable and effective alternative to traditional metrics and human judgments, particularly in the context of LLM-based chat assistants where the complexity and diversity of responses challenge existing benchmarks.

Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs), with rapid advances from both academic and industrial labs. However, this progress often outpaces methodological rigor, with many evaluations relying on benchmarking practices that lack transparency, robustness, or statistical grounding. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices - including decoding parameters, random seeds, prompt formatting, and even hardware and software-framework configurations. Performance gains reported in recent studies frequently hinge on unclear comparisons or unreported sources of variance. To address these issues, we propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards. Using this framework, we reassess recent methods and find that reinforcement learning (RL) approaches yield only modest improvements - far below prior claims - and are prone to overfitting, especially on small-scale benchmarks like AIME24. In contrast, supervised finetuning (SFT) methods show consistently stronger generalization. To foster reproducibility, we release all code, prompts, and model outputs, for reasoning benchmarks, establishing more rigorous foundations for future work.

A central limitation of current data-free self-evolution methods for training search agents is their reliance on difficulty-based proposer rewards. These methods reward a proposer for generating questions that challenge a co-evolving solver, using solver difficulty as a proxy for question quality. Yet difficulty alone is insufficient to distinguish questions that require cross-passage evidence from those that are answerable via simpler shortcuts. In addition, measuring difficulty demands repeated solver rollouts for every candidate question, leading to substantial computational costs. In this paper, we introduce \methodname, the first self-evolving search framework that eliminates difficulty-based proposer rewards and directly optimizes for evidence necessity relative to shortcut contexts. Dr. Free samples relational chains from a knowledge graph and pairs them with aligned passages, giving question generation an explicit multi-hop structure. A generated question receives a positive information-gain reward only when the likelihood of the target answer under the complete evidence passages exceeds the maximum likelihood under all evaluated shortcut contexts. Because this signal is computed from teacher-forced likelihoods, it removes the need for pass-rate estimation and reduces proposer training time by over 7times. Experiments on seven open-domain QA benchmarks show that Dr. Free outperforms prior data-free search agents and the supervised baseline, with large improvements on multi-hop QA benchmarks.

Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research, their creation involves significant efforts in manual annotation. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment. Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements. These correlations are helpful in large-scale experiments but less informative if we want to focus on top-performing systems. Moreover, these correlations ignore whether and how LLM-based judgements impact the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to human assessments. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM-based judgements are unfair at ranking top-performing systems. Moreover, we observe an exceedingly high rate of false positives regarding statistical differences. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of the reliability of using LLMs-based judgements for IR evaluation. We hope this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop more reliable models for automatic relevance assessment.

Step-by-step reasoning is widely used to enhance the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) in complex problems. Evaluating the quality of reasoning traces is crucial for understanding and improving LLM reasoning. However, the evaluation criteria remain highly unstandardized, leading to fragmented efforts in developing metrics and meta-evaluation benchmarks. To address this gap, this survey provides a comprehensive overview of step-by-step reasoning evaluation, proposing a taxonomy of evaluation criteria with four top-level categories (groundedness, validity, coherence, and utility). We then categorize metrics based on their implementations, survey which metrics are used for assessing each criterion, and explore whether evaluator models can transfer across different criteria. Finally, we identify key directions for future research.

The advent of Deep Research agents has substantially reduced the time required for conducting extensive research tasks. However, these tasks inherently demand rigorous standards of factual accuracy and comprehensiveness, necessitating thorough evaluation before widespread adoption. In this paper, we propose ReportBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the content quality of research reports generated by large language models (LLMs). Our evaluation focuses on two critical dimensions: (1) the quality and relevance of cited literature, and (2) the faithfulness and veracity of the statements within the generated reports. ReportBench leverages high-quality published survey papers available on arXiv as gold-standard references, from which we apply reverse prompt engineering to derive domain-specific prompts and establish a comprehensive evaluation corpus. Furthermore, we develop an agent-based automated framework within ReportBench that systematically analyzes generated reports by extracting citations and statements, checking the faithfulness of cited content against original sources, and validating non-cited claims using web-based resources. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that commercial Deep Research agents such as those developed by OpenAI and Google consistently generate more comprehensive and reliable reports than standalone LLMs augmented with search or browsing tools. However, there remains substantial room for improvement in terms of the breadth and depth of research coverage, as well as factual consistency. The complete code and data will be released at the following link: https://github.com/ByteDance-BandAI/ReportBench

Large language model (LLM)-based search agents have proven promising for addressing knowledge-intensive problems by incorporating information retrieval capabilities. Existing works largely focus on optimizing the reasoning paradigms of search agents, yet the quality of intermediate search queries during reasoning remains overlooked. As a result, the generated queries often remain inaccurate, leading to unexpected retrieval results and ultimately limiting search agents' overall effectiveness. To mitigate this issue, we introduce SmartSearch, a framework built upon two key mechanisms: (1) Process rewards, which provide fine-grained supervision for the quality of each intermediate search query through Dual-Level Credit Assessment. (2) Query refinement, which promotes the optimization of query generation by selectively refining low-quality search queries and regenerating subsequent search rounds based on these refinements. To enable the search agent to progressively internalize the ability to improve query quality under the guidance of process rewards, we design a three-stage curriculum learning framework. This framework guides the agent through a progression from imitation, to alignment, and ultimately to generalization. Experimental results show that SmartSearch consistently surpasses existing baselines, and additional quantitative analyses further confirm its significant gains in both search efficiency and query quality. The code is available at https://github.com/MYVAE/SmartSearch.

Hypothetical induction is recognized as the main reasoning type when scientists make observations about the world and try to propose hypotheses to explain those observations. Past research on hypothetical induction is under a constrained setting: (1) the observation annotations in the dataset are carefully manually handpicked sentences (resulting in a close-domain setting); and (2) the ground truth hypotheses are mostly commonsense knowledge, making the task less challenging. In this work, we tackle these problems by proposing the first dataset for social science academic hypotheses discovery, with the final goal to create systems that automatically generate valid, novel, and helpful scientific hypotheses, given only a pile of raw web corpus. Unlike previous settings, the new dataset requires (1) using open-domain data (raw web corpus) as observations; and (2) proposing hypotheses even new to humanity. A multi-module framework is developed for the task, including three different feedback mechanisms to boost performance, which exhibits superior performance in terms of both GPT-4 based and expert-based evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work showing that LLMs are able to generate novel (''not existing in literature'') and valid (''reflecting reality'') scientific hypotheses.

Reasoning-intensive retrieval aims to surface evidence that supports downstream reasoning rather than merely matching topical similarity. This capability is increasingly important for agentic search systems, where retrievers must provide complementary evidence across iterative search and synthesis. However, existing work remains limited on both evaluation and training: benchmarks such as BRIGHT provide narrow gold sets and evaluate retrievers in isolation, while synthetic training corpora often optimize single-passage relevance rather than evidence portfolio construction. We introduce BRIGHT-Pro, an expert-annotated benchmark that expands each query with multi-aspect gold evidence and evaluates retrievers under both static and agentic search protocols. We further construct RTriever-Synth, an aspect-decomposed synthetic corpus that generates complementary positives and positive-conditioned hard negatives, and use it to LoRA fine-tune RTriever-4B from Qwen3-Embedding-4B. Experiments across lexical, general-purpose, and reasoning-intensive retrievers show that aspect-aware and agentic evaluation expose behaviors hidden by standard metrics, while RTriever-4B substantially improves over its base model.

Effective decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for handling intricate tasks. However, existing approaches prioritize performance but often overlook the balance between effectiveness and computational cost. To address this, we first introduce the 3E Criteria to systematically assess the cost-effectiveness of search strategies, revealing that existing methods often trade significant efficiency for marginal performance gains. To improve LLM decision-making while maintaining efficiency, we propose the Speculative Reward Model (SRM), a plug-and-play framework that seamlessly integrates with existing search strategies. Specifically, SRM employs an external reward assigner to predict optimal actions, reducing reliance on LLMs' internal self-evaluation. And a speculative verification mechanism is used to prune suboptimal choices and guide the search toward more promising steps. We evaluate SRM on several complex decision-making tasks including mathematical reasoning, planning and numerical reasoning in specialized domains. Experimental results show that SRM reduces costs to 1/10 of the original search framework on average while maintaining effectiveness.

The ability to research and synthesize knowledge is central to human expertise and progress. An emerging class of systems promises these exciting capabilities through generative research synthesis, performing retrieval over the live web and synthesizing discovered sources into long-form, cited summaries. However, evaluating such systems remains an open challenge: existing question-answering benchmarks focus on short-form factual responses, while expert-curated datasets risk staleness and data contamination. Both fail to capture the complexity and evolving nature of real research synthesis tasks. In this work, we introduce DeepScholar-bench, a live benchmark and holistic, automated evaluation framework designed to evaluate generative research synthesis. DeepScholar-bench draws queries from recent, high-quality ArXiv papers and focuses on a real research synthesis task: generating the related work sections of a paper by retrieving, synthesizing, and citing prior research. Our evaluation framework holistically assesses performance across three key dimensions, knowledge synthesis, retrieval quality, and verifiability. We also develop DeepScholar-base, a reference pipeline implemented efficiently using the LOTUS API. Using the DeepScholar-bench framework, we perform a systematic evaluation of prior open-source systems, search AI's, OpenAI's DeepResearch, and DeepScholar-base. We find that DeepScholar-base establishes a strong baseline, attaining competitive or higher performance than each other method. We also find that DeepScholar-bench remains far from saturated, with no system exceeding a score of 19% across all metrics. These results underscore the difficulty of DeepScholar-bench, as well as its importance for progress towards AI systems capable of generative research synthesis. We make our code available at https://github.com/guestrin-lab/deepscholar-bench.

AI holds promise for transforming scientific processes, including hypothesis generation. Prior work on hypothesis generation can be broadly categorized into theory-driven and data-driven approaches. While both have proven effective in generating novel and plausible hypotheses, it remains an open question whether they can complement each other. To address this, we develop the first method that combines literature-based insights with data to perform LLM-powered hypothesis generation. We apply our method on five different datasets and demonstrate that integrating literature and data outperforms other baselines (8.97\% over few-shot, 15.75\% over literature-based alone, and 3.37\% over data-driven alone). Additionally, we conduct the first human evaluation to assess the utility of LLM-generated hypotheses in assisting human decision-making on two challenging tasks: deception detection and AI generated content detection. Our results show that human accuracy improves significantly by 7.44\% and 14.19\% on these tasks, respectively. These findings suggest that integrating literature-based and data-driven approaches provides a comprehensive and nuanced framework for hypothesis generation and could open new avenues for scientific inquiry.

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.

Generating rationales that justify scoring decisions has been a promising way to facilitate explainability in automated scoring systems. However, existing methods do not match the accuracy of classifier-based methods. Plus, the generated rationales often contain hallucinated information. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework capable of generating more faithful rationales and, more importantly, matching performance with classifier-based black-box scoring systems. We first mimic the human assessment process by querying Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate a thought tree. We then summarise intermediate assessment decisions from each thought tree path for creating synthetic rationale data and rationale preference data. Finally, we utilise the generated synthetic data to calibrate LLMs through a two-step training process: supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves a 38% assessment performance improvement in the QWK score compared to prior work while producing higher-quality rationales, as recognised by human evaluators and LLMs. Our work sheds light on the effectiveness of performing preference optimization using synthetic preference data obtained from thought tree paths.

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.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have brought impressive performance across diverse tasks; however, shortcomings remain in logical reasoning, including inconsistencies under linguistic variation. To improve the reasoning capacity of LLMs, we must be able to accurately measure their reasoning capacity. Current benchmarks primarily report single accuracy numbers on selected reasoning tasks. Such a performance-based evaluation methodology says little about a model's generalization capacity in reasoning. To address this limitation, we argue for a different evaluation paradigm, called competence-based evaluation (CBE), which tests whether models reliably apply the same competence across a family of problems. A parameterized generator scales complexity while keeping the required competence fixed, and matched answer-preserving presentations test correctness beyond one formulation. We instantiate CBE on elementary ordering tasks, scaling input size while varying presentations of the same ordering rule. Across six GPT and Qwen models, performance is reasonably good over bounded complexity ranges, but even strong models fail the competence condition across the tested family. Chain-of-thought and GRPO extend strong performance without resolving all tested failures; supervised LoRA shows little held-out transfer. CBE provides diagnostic profiles and an evaluation protocol that can grow with future models.

Academic survey writing, which distills vast literature into a coherent and insightful narrative, remains a labor-intensive and intellectually demanding task. While recent approaches, such as general DeepResearch agents and survey-specialized methods, can generate surveys automatically (a.k.a. LLM4Survey), their outputs often fall short of human standards and there lacks a rigorous, reader-aligned benchmark for thoroughly revealing their deficiencies. To fill the gap, we propose a fine-grained, quiz-driven evaluation framework SurveyBench, featuring (1) typical survey topics source from recent 11,343 arXiv papers and corresponding 4,947 high-quality surveys; (2) a multifaceted metric hierarchy that assesses the outline quality (e.g., coverage breadth, logical coherence), content quality (e.g., synthesis granularity, clarity of insights), and non-textual richness; and (3) a dual-mode evaluation protocol that includes content-based and quiz-based answerability tests, explicitly aligned with readers' informational needs. Results show SurveyBench effectively challenges existing LLM4Survey approaches (e.g., on average 21% lower than human in content-based evaluation).

Retrieval-augmented agents can query external evidence, yet their reliability in multi-step reasoning remains limited: noisy retrieval may derail multi-hop question answering, while outcome-only reinforcement learning provides credit signals that are too coarse to optimize intermediate steps. We propose EvalAct (Evaluate-as-Action), which converts implicit retrieval quality assessment into an explicit action and enforces a coupled Search-to-Evaluate protocol so that each retrieval is immediately followed by a structured evaluation score, yielding process signals aligned with the interaction trajectory. To leverage these signals, we introduce Process-Calibrated Advantage Rescaling (PCAR), a GRPO-based optimization method that rescales advantages at the segment level according to evaluation scores, emphasizing reliable segments while updating uncertain ones conservatively. Experiments on seven open-domain QA benchmarks show that EvalAct achieves the best average accuracy, with the largest gains on multi-hop tasks, and ablations verify that the explicit evaluation loop drives the primary improvements while PCAR provides consistent additional benefits.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) increasingly rely on reasoning traces with complex internal structures. However, existing work lacks a unified answer to three fundamental questions: (1) what defines high-quality reasoning, (2) how to reliably evaluate long, implicitly structured reasoning traces, and (3) how to use such evaluation signals for reasoning optimization. To address these challenges, we provide a unified perspective. (1) We introduce the ME^2 principle to characterize reasoning quality along macro- and micro-level concerning efficiency and effectiveness. (2) Built on this principle, we model reasoning traces as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and develop a DAG-based pairwise evaluation method, capturing complex reasoning structures. (3) Based on this method, we construct the TRM-Preference dataset and train a Thinking Reward Model (TRM) to evaluate reasoning quality at scale. Experiments show that thinking rewards serve as an effective optimization signal. At test time, selecting better reasoning leads to better outcomes (up to 19.3\% gain), and during RL training, thinking rewards enhance reasoning and performance (up to 3.9\% gain) across diverse tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Simplified-Reasoning/TRM.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are advancing at an amazing speed and have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications. To keep pace with the status quo, this survey probes the core challenges that the rise of LLMs poses for evaluation. We identify and analyze two pivotal transitions: (i) from task-specific to capability-based evaluation, which reorganizes benchmarks around core competencies such as knowledge, reasoning, instruction following, multi-modal understanding, and safety; and (ii) from manual to automated evaluation, encompassing dynamic dataset curation and "LLM-as-a-judge" scoring. Yet, even with these transitions, a crucial obstacle persists: the evaluation generalization issue. Bounded test sets cannot scale alongside models whose abilities grow seemingly without limit. We will dissect this issue, along with the core challenges of the above two transitions, from the perspectives of methods, datasets, evaluators, and metrics. Due to the fast evolving of this field, we will maintain a living GitHub repository (links are in each section) to crowd-source updates and corrections, and warmly invite contributors and collaborators.

Evaluating large language models at scale remains a practical bottleneck for many organizations. While existing evaluation frameworks work well for thousands of examples, they struggle when datasets grow to hundreds of thousands or millions of samples. This scale is common when assessing model behavior across diverse domains or conducting comprehensive regression testing. We present Spark-LLM-Eval, a distributed evaluation framework built natively on Apache Spark. The system treats evaluation as a data-parallel problem, partitioningexamplesacrossexecutorsandaggregatingresultswithproperstatistical accounting. Beyond raw throughput, we emphasize statistical rigor: every reported metric includes bootstrap confidence intervals, and model comparisons come with appropriate significance tests (paired t-tests, McNemar's test, or Wilcoxon signed-rank, depending on the metric type). The framework also addresses the cost problem inherent in LLM evaluation through content-addressable response caching backed by Delta Lake, which allows iterating on metric definitions without re-running inference. We describe the system architecture, the statistical methodology, and report benchmark results showing linear scaling with cluster size. The framework and all evaluation code are available as open source.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and by what criteria; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. Alongside rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that while current deep research systems can produce structurally plausible reports that cite external evidence, there is room for improvement in fulfilling expert-level user requests and achieving logical completeness. Beyond simple performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

As the use of text-to-image generative models increases, so does the adoption of automatic benchmarking methods used in their evaluation. However, while metrics and datasets abound, there are few unified benchmarking libraries that provide a framework for performing evaluations across many datasets and metrics. Furthermore, the rapid introduction of increasingly robust benchmarking methods requires that evaluation libraries remain flexible to new datasets and metrics. Finally, there remains a gap in synthesizing evaluations in order to deliver actionable takeaways about model performance. To enable unified, flexible, and actionable evaluations, we introduce EvalGIM (pronounced ''EvalGym''), a library for evaluating generative image models. EvalGIM contains broad support for datasets and metrics used to measure quality, diversity, and consistency of text-to-image generative models. In addition, EvalGIM is designed with flexibility for user customization as a top priority and contains a structure that allows plug-and-play additions of new datasets and metrics. To enable actionable evaluation insights, we introduce ''Evaluation Exercises'' that highlight takeaways for specific evaluation questions. The Evaluation Exercises contain easy-to-use and reproducible implementations of two state-of-the-art evaluation methods of text-to-image generative models: consistency-diversity-realism Pareto Fronts and disaggregated measurements of performance disparities across groups. EvalGIM also contains Evaluation Exercises that introduce two new analysis methods for text-to-image generative models: robustness analyses of model rankings and balanced evaluations across different prompt styles. We encourage text-to-image model exploration with EvalGIM and invite contributions at https://github.com/facebookresearch/EvalGIM/.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in autonomous information retrieval and report generation, showing great potential to assist humans in complex research tasks. Current evaluation frameworks primarily rely on LLM-generated references or LLM-derived evaluation dimensions. While these approaches offer scalability, they often lack the reliability of expert-verified content and struggle to provide objective, fine-grained assessments of critical dimensions. To bridge this gap, we introduce Wiki Live Challenge (WLC), a live benchmark that leverages the newest Wikipedia Good Articles (GAs) as expert-level references. Wikipedia's strict standards for neutrality, comprehensiveness, and verifiability serve as a great challenge for DRAs, with GAs representing the pinnacle of which. We curate a dataset of 100 recent Good Articles and propose Wiki Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising a fine-grained evaluation method with 39 criteria for writing quality and rigorous metrics for factual verifiability. Extensive experiments on various DRA systems demonstrate a significant gap between current DRAs and human expert-level Wikipedia articles, validating the effectiveness of WLC in advancing agent research. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/WangShao2000/Wiki_Live_Challenge

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly automated the process of scientific discovery over the past few years. However, existing systems share one core limitation: they generate and optimize ideas independently for either Quality or Diversity. This often leads to the generation of ideas in close proximity to one another or to a large set of trivial, unsound, or unclear concepts. In this work, we instead argue that research ideation should be treated as a conjunction of both objectives and framed as a Quality-Diversity (QD) search. In line with this perspective, we introduce IDEAgent, a multi-agent framework that manages the evolution of ideas through lineages. We jointly drive Quality using multi-objective feedback for dedicated repair and refinement, while Diversity is achieved through lightweight sequential memory and explicit comparison against completed ideas, their historical ancestors, and rejected proposals. To systematically evaluate this QD conjunction, we develop Yield, a joint metric that computes the largest set of mutually diverse ideas that satisfy a predetermined quality threshold. Finally, through evaluations across 32 topics spanning 8 domains of Computer Science, we show that IDEAgent outperforms the best baseline by 3.89x on Yield, while achieving non-zero Yield on 8x more topics. We further corroborate these findings through an analysis of quality improvements, showing that repair and refinement are crucial for building logical rigor and clarity while preserving non-obviousness. To encourage future research on QD-search-based ideation, we open-source IDEAgent at https://github.com/declare-lab/IDEAgent.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

Retrieved scientific literature can serve as inspiration for both human and AI scientists. Inspiration can take different forms: prior work may directly suggest how to address a problem, or surface directions at different levels of abstraction - zooming out to a more general view or zooming in to a concrete realization. We introduce RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations), a large-scale benchmark in which relevance is defined by three operations which we name ideation moves: Address retrieves potential approaches for stated problems, Broaden retrieves more general formulations, and Specify retrieves concrete instantiations. RATIO is constructed from millions of full-text scientific papers across CS literature via a general recipe that extends discourse-marker distant supervision - previously used only for classification - to corpus-scale retrieval, combined with extensive LLM and human vetting. Experiments show that operation-specific fine-tuning substantially boosts retrievers but leaves much room for further improvements. RATIO provides a scalable training and evaluation framework for retrieval components that support literature-grounded ideation, opening up new research avenues on scientific inspiration retrieval.

Agents are widely deployed as assistants over documents, tools, and code. However, they typically act only on explicit user requests, which surface only the problems the user has noticed, while many other important problems coexist, hidden in plain sight, within the broader user context, with their total number unknown in advance. We frame this as the task of discovering multiple hidden problems from context, in which coexisting problems should be uncovered, grounded in supporting evidence, and paired with concrete actions. To this end, we introduce TIDE, a template-guided iterative framework with two complementary mechanisms. Specifically, motivated by the observation that single-pass prediction anchors on the most salient cases and yields generic claims, we propose iterative discovery, which surfaces a small batch of candidates per round while conditioning on what has already been found, so subsequent rounds extend coverage; and thought templates, reusable schemas distilled from previously solved cases that specify what contextual signals to attend to and how to connect them, anchoring each prediction in a recognizable problem class. We validate TIDE on two realistic settings, personal workspaces and software repositories, across four model backbones, showing substantial gains over single-shot and parallel multi-agent baselines on task coverage, identification, and resolution.

We propose CRAVE (Cluster-based Retrieval Augmented Verification with Explanation); a novel framework that integrates retrieval-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs) with clustering techniques to address fact-checking challenges on social media. CRAVE automatically retrieves multimodal evidence from diverse, often contradictory, sources. Evidence is clustered into coherent narratives, and evaluated via an LLM-based judge to deliver fact-checking verdicts explained by evidence summaries. By synthesizing evidence from both text and image modalities and incorporating agent-based refinement, CRAVE ensures consistency and diversity in evidence representation. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate CRAVE's efficacy in retrieval precision, clustering quality, and judgment accuracy, showcasing its potential as a robust decision-support tool for fact-checkers.

Evaluation is the baton for the development of large language models. Current evaluations typically employ a single-item assessment paradigm for each atomic test objective, which struggles to discern whether a model genuinely possesses the required capabilities or merely memorizes/guesses the answers to specific questions. To this end, we propose a novel evaluation framework referred to as StructEval. Starting from an atomic test objective, StructEval deepens and broadens the evaluation by conducting a structured assessment across multiple cognitive levels and critical concepts, and therefore offers a comprehensive, robust and consistent evaluation for LLMs. Experiments on three widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that StructEval serves as a reliable tool for resisting the risk of data contamination and reducing the interference of potential biases, thereby providing more reliable and consistent conclusions regarding model capabilities. Our framework also sheds light on the design of future principled and trustworthy LLM evaluation protocols.

Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific hypothesis generation, yet existing approaches primarily yield coarse-grained hypotheses lacking critical methodological and experimental details. We introduce and formally define the novel task of fine-grained scientific hypothesis discovery, which entails generating detailed, experimentally actionable hypotheses from coarse initial research directions. We frame this as a combinatorial optimization problem and investigate the upper limits of LLMs' capacity to solve it when maximally leveraged. Specifically, we explore four foundational questions: (1) how to best harness an LLM's internal heuristics to formulate the fine-grained hypothesis it itself would judge as the most promising among all the possible hypotheses it might generate, based on its own internal scoring-thus defining a latent reward landscape over the hypothesis space; (2) whether such LLM-judged better hypotheses exhibit stronger alignment with ground-truth hypotheses; (3) whether shaping the reward landscape using an ensemble of diverse LLMs of similar capacity yields better outcomes than defining it with repeated instances of the strongest LLM among them; and (4) whether an ensemble of identical LLMs provides a more reliable reward landscape than a single LLM. To address these questions, we propose a hierarchical search method that incrementally proposes and integrates details into the hypothesis, progressing from general concepts to specific experimental configurations. We show that this hierarchical process smooths the reward landscape and enables more effective optimization. Empirical evaluations on a new benchmark of expert-annotated fine-grained hypotheses from recent chemistry literature show that our method consistently outperforms strong baselines.

LLM search agents are often evaluated on final-answer accuracy, overlooking the process. Analyzing a search strategy requires understanding how credible evidence is retrieved to address question constraints. This valuable information is buried in raw search trajectories that are long and difficult to parse. We introduce SearchAtlas, a framework that converts search trajectories into structured graphs whose edges represent how evidence is propagated across the reasoning trace, from the query that retrieves it to the final answer. Our automated parsing pipeline achieves a mean edge F1 of 86.0% against human-annotated graphs and remains consistent across repeated runs. We analyze five search agents on three benchmarks, revealing systematic differences in search scale and evidence aggregation. SearchAtlas exposes fragmented answer support, question constraints that do not reach the answer, and unverified parametric knowledge entering the response. These process failures are strongly associated with incorrect answers, even more so than an LLM judge given either the raw trajectory or the ordered query list, suggesting that the constructed graphs provide useful interpretability. Moreover, an audit of cases in which process-diagnostic scores disagree with final-answer correctness shows that they capture information not reducible to answer accuracy.

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

AI evaluation is undergoing a structural change. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents, while many evaluation practices still inherit assumptions from response-centered benchmarks (e.g., fixed inputs, isolated outputs, and outcome judgments that can be made from a single response). The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented: benchmarks differ in what interaction artifacts they admit, how trajectories are scored, and what claims their results support. This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm, not merely a new family of agent benchmarks. Simply adopting previous evaluation paradigms does not suffice. We define evaluation as an autonomous mapping from evidence to judgments, and show that interactive evaluation changes both sides of this mapping: the evidence becomes interaction-generated trajectories, while the evaluation procedure must assess process, recoverability, coordination, robustness, and system-level performance. Building on this definition, we propose a two-axis taxonomy, derive design principles and reporting standards, examine representative scenarios, and analyze how longstanding evaluation challenges reappear at the trajectory level.

Deep search agents answer difficult information-seeking questions by iteratively issuing search queries to gather supporting evidence, but it remains unclear whether and how greater search effort leads to better answers. We study these questions through a trajectory-level diagnosis of long-horizon search agents. Using human-annotated document-level relevance judgments, we evaluate the evidence retrieved at each search step and separate two stages of agent behavior: what evidence an agent retrieves and how effectively it uses that evidence. This distinction further allows us to decompose failures into retrieval gaps, where the necessary evidence is never found, and utilization gaps, where relevant evidence is retrieved but not used correctly. With the retrieval model and evaluation harness held fixed, we compare six agents on BrowseComp-Plus and further validate our findings on BrowseComp with an open-web search API. Across settings, we find that search effort and answer quality are only weakly aligned. Answer accuracy is better correlated with the quality of retrieved evidence, especially cumulative retrieval recall, than with the number of searches or the amount of context consumed. Useful evidence often appears early in the trajectory, yet agents tend to continue searching, producing a long tail of low-yield retrieval steps. At the query level, exploratory reformulations remain useful, but the best-performing agents issue far fewer redundant queries. Overall, by systematically characterizing the search behavior and failure modes of long-horizon search agents, this work points to practical directions for building better deep research systems, including stronger query formulation, more effective evidence selection and context management, and stopping criteria based on whether sufficient supporting evidence has been retrieved.

Recent Long-Context Language Models (LCLMs) can process hundreds of thousands of tokens in a single prompt, enabling new opportunities for knowledge-intensive multi-hop reasoning by integrating large sets of retrieved documents or, in some cases, directly all necessary information. However, simply feeding more documents into the context window fails to capture how evidence should be connected. We address this gap with thought templates, which recast reasoning as reusable thought caches, derived from prior problem solving traces, structuring how evidence is combined and guiding multi-hop inference with factual documents. To keep these templates effective, we propose an update strategy that iteratively refines templates derived from training data through natural-language feedback. Across diverse benchmarks and LCLM families, our approach delivers consistent gains over strong baselines in both retrieval-based and retrieval-free settings. Furthermore, we show that optimized templates can be distilled into smaller open-source models, demonstrating its broad applicability and transparent reasoning reuse. We refer to our framework as Thought Template Augmented LCLMs (ToTAL).

Medical systematic reviews typically require assessing all the documents retrieved by a search. The reason is two-fold: the task aims for ``total recall''; and documents retrieved using Boolean search are an unordered set, and thus it is unclear how an assessor could examine only a subset. Screening prioritisation is the process of ranking the (unordered) set of retrieved documents, allowing assessors to begin the downstream processes of the systematic review creation earlier, leading to earlier completion of the review, or even avoiding screening documents ranked least relevant. Screening prioritisation requires highly effective ranking methods. Pre-trained language models are state-of-the-art on many IR tasks but have yet to be applied to systematic review screening prioritisation. In this paper, we apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task, both directly and fine-tuned. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. We also investigate different types of document representations for neural methods and their impact on ranking performance. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods. However, BERT rankers and existing methods can actually be complementary, and thus, further improvements may be achieved if used in conjunction.

Literature-Based Discovery (LBD) aims to discover new scientific knowledge by mining papers and generating hypotheses. Standard LBD is limited to predicting pairwise relations between discrete concepts (e.g., drug-disease links), and ignores critical contexts like experimental settings (e.g., a specific patient population where a drug is evaluated) and background motivations (e.g., to find drugs without specific side effects). We address these limitations with a novel formulation of contextualized-LBD (C-LBD): generating scientific hypotheses in natural language, while grounding them in a context that controls the hypothesis search space. We present a modeling framework using retrieval of ``inspirations'' from past scientific papers. Our evaluations reveal that GPT-4 tends to generate ideas with overall low technical depth and novelty, while our inspiration prompting approaches partially mitigate this issue. Our work represents a first step toward building language models that generate new ideas derived from scientific literature.

Dense retrieval has become a prominent method to obtain relevant context or world knowledge in open-domain NLP tasks. When we use a learned dense retriever on a retrieval corpus at inference time, an often-overlooked design choice is the retrieval unit in which the corpus is indexed, e.g. document, passage, or sentence. We discover that the retrieval unit choice significantly impacts the performance of both retrieval and downstream tasks. Distinct from the typical approach of using passages or sentences, we introduce a novel retrieval unit, proposition, for dense retrieval. Propositions are defined as atomic expressions within text, each encapsulating a distinct factoid and presented in a concise, self-contained natural language format. We conduct an empirical comparison of different retrieval granularity. Our results reveal that proposition-based retrieval significantly outperforms traditional passage or sentence-based methods in dense retrieval. Moreover, retrieval by proposition also enhances the performance of downstream QA tasks, since the retrieved texts are more condensed with question-relevant information, reducing the need for lengthy input tokens and minimizing the inclusion of extraneous, irrelevant information.

Benchmark contamination has become a significant concern in the LLM evaluation community. Previous Agents-as-an-Evaluator address this issue by involving agents in the generation of questions. Despite their success, the biases in Agents-as-an-Evaluator methods remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a theoretical formulation of evaluation bias, providing valuable insights into designing unbiased evaluation protocols. Furthermore, we identify two type of bias in Agents-as-an-Evaluator through carefully designed probing tasks on a minimal Agents-as-an-Evaluator setup. To address these issues, we propose the Unbiased Evaluator, an evaluation protocol that delivers a more comprehensive, unbiased, and interpretable assessment of LLMs.Extensive experiments reveal significant room for improvement in current LLMs. Additionally, we demonstrate that the Unbiased Evaluator not only offers strong evidence of benchmark contamination but also provides interpretable evaluation results.

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.

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

Concept guidance has emerged as a cheap and simple way to control the behavior of language models by probing their hidden representations for concept vectors and using them to perturb activations at inference time. While the focus of previous work has largely been on truthfulness, in this paper we extend this framework to a richer set of concepts such as appropriateness, humor, creativity and quality, and explore to what degree current detection and guidance strategies work in these challenging settings. To facilitate evaluation, we develop a novel metric for concept guidance that takes into account both the success of concept elicitation as well as the potential degradation in fluency of the guided model. Our extensive experiments reveal that while some concepts such as truthfulness more easily allow for guidance with current techniques, novel concepts such as appropriateness or humor either remain difficult to elicit, need extensive tuning to work, or even experience confusion. Moreover, we find that probes with optimal detection accuracies do not necessarily make for the optimal guides, contradicting previous observations for truthfulness. Our work warrants a deeper investigation into the interplay between detectability, guidability, and the nature of the concept, and we hope that our rich experimental test-bed for guidance research inspires stronger follow-up approaches.

Evaluations are critical for understanding the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Fundamentally, evaluations are experiments; but the literature on evaluations has largely ignored the literature from other sciences on experiment analysis and planning. This article shows researchers with some training in statistics how to think about and analyze data from language model evaluations. Conceptualizing evaluation questions as having been drawn from an unseen super-population, we present formulas for analyzing evaluation data, measuring differences between two models, and planning an evaluation experiment. We make a number of specific recommendations for running language model evaluations and reporting experiment results in a way that minimizes statistical noise and maximizes informativeness.

With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), general-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements. However, evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks. We observe that current agent benchmarks are heavily confounded by extraneous factors, including system prompts, toolset configurations, and environmental dynamics. Existing evaluations often rely on fragmented, researcher-specific frameworks where the prompt engineering for reasoning and tool usage varies significantly, making it difficult to attribute performance gains to the model itself. Additionally, the lack of standardized environmental data leads to untraceable errors and non-reproducible results. This lack of standardization introduces substantial unfairness and opacity into the field. We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation. To this end, we introduce a proposal aimed at standardizing agent evaluation.

Generating novel and creative scientific hypotheses is a cornerstone in achieving Artificial General Intelligence. Large language and reasoning models have the potential to aid in the systematic creation, selection, and validation of scientifically informed hypotheses. However, current foundation models often struggle to produce scientific ideas that are both novel and feasible. One reason is the lack of a dedicated dataset that frames Scientific Hypothesis Generation (SHG) as a Natural Language Generation (NLG) task. In this paper, we introduce HypoGen, the first dataset of approximately 5500 structured problem-hypothesis pairs extracted from top-tier computer science conferences structured with a Bit-Flip-Spark schema, where the Bit is the conventional assumption, the Spark is the key insight or conceptual leap, and the Flip is the resulting counterproposal. HypoGen uniquely integrates an explicit Chain-of-Reasoning component that reflects the intellectual process from Bit to Flip. We demonstrate that framing hypothesis generation as conditional language modelling, with the model fine-tuned on Bit-Flip-Spark and the Chain-of-Reasoning (and where, at inference, we only provide the Bit), leads to improvements in the overall quality of the hypotheses. Our evaluation employs automated metrics and LLM judge rankings for overall quality assessment. We show that by fine-tuning on our HypoGen dataset we improve the novelty, feasibility, and overall quality of the generated hypotheses. The HypoGen dataset is publicly available at huggingface.co/datasets/UniverseTBD/hypogen-dr1.

Peer review underpins scientific progress, but it is increasingly strained by reviewer shortages and growing workloads. Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically draft reviews now, but determining whether LLM-generated reviews are trustworthy requires systematic evaluation. Researchers have evaluated LLM reviews at either surface-level (e.g., BLEU and ROUGE) or content-level (e.g., specificity and factual accuracy). Yet it remains uncertain whether LLM-generated reviews attend to the same critical facets that human experts weigh -- the strengths and weaknesses that ultimately drive an accept-or-reject decision. We introduce a focus-level evaluation framework that operationalizes the focus as a normalized distribution of attention across predefined facets in paper reviews. Based on the framework, we developed an automatic focus-level evaluation pipeline based on two sets of facets: target (e.g., problem, method, and experiment) and aspect (e.g., validity, clarity, and novelty), leveraging 676 paper reviews (https://figshare.com/s/d5adf26c802527dd0f62) from OpenReview that consists of 3,657 strengths and weaknesses identified from human experts. The comparison of focus distributions between LLMs and human experts showed that the off-the-shelf LLMs consistently have a more biased focus towards examining technical validity while significantly overlooking novelty assessment when criticizing papers.

Building training-ready multi-hop question answering (QA) datasets that truly stress a model's retrieval and reasoning abilities remains highly challenging recently. While there have been a few recent evaluation datasets that capture the characteristics of hard-to-search but easy-to-verify problems -- requiring the integration of ambiguous, indirect, and cross-domain cues -- these data resources remain scarce and are mostly designed for evaluation, making them unsuitable for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) or reinforcement learning (RL). Meanwhile, manually curating non-trivially retrievable questions -- where answers cannot be found through a single direct query but instead require multi-hop reasoning over oblique and loosely connected evidence -- incurs prohibitive human costs and fails to scale, creating a critical data bottleneck for training high-capability retrieval-and-reasoning agents. To address this, we present an automated framework for generating high-difficulty, training-ready multi-hop questions from semi-structured knowledge sources. The system (i) grows diverse, logically labeled evidence clusters through Natural Language Inference (NLI)-based relation typing and diversity-aware expansion; (ii) applies reverse question construction to compose oblique cues so that isolated signals are underinformative but their combination uniquely identifies the target entity; and (iii) enforces quality with a two-step evaluation pipeline that combines multi-model consensus filtering with structured constraint decomposition and evidence-based matching. The result is a scalable process that yields complex, retrieval-resistant yet verifiable questions suitable for SFT/RL training as well as challenging evaluation, substantially reducing human curation effort while preserving the difficulty profile of strong evaluation benchmarks.

Using Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as judges to achieve precise and consistent evaluations has gradually become an emerging paradigm across various domains. Evaluating the capability and reliability of MLLM-as-a-judge systems is therefore essential for ensuring trustworthy assessment. Existing judge benchmarks categorize samples by task types but fail to capture the fundamental judgment capabilities required for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce M-JudgeBench, a ten-dimensional capability-oriented benchmark designed to comprehensively assess the judgment abilities of MLLMs. Our benchmark decomposes evaluation into pairwise Chain-of-Thought (CoT) comparison, length bias avoidance, and process error detection tasks, jointly covering ten fine-grained subtasks. This design enables diagnosis of model reliability across reasoning styles, response lengths, and cross-model variations. Systematic evaluation uncovers the systematic weaknesses in existing MLLM-as-a-judge systems. To address this issue, we further propose Judge-MCTS, a data construction framework generating pairwise reasoning trajectories with various correctness and length. Using Judge-MCTS, we construct an MCTS-augmented dataset and train M-Judger, a series of strong judge models. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of M-Judger on existing judge benchmarks as well as M-JudgeBench. Overall, our work establishes a more principled foundation for evaluating MLLM-as-a-judge through M-JudgeBench and Judge-MCTS framework, paving the way for future research on judge model evaluation and capability-driven judge training.

This paper introduces LegalRikai: Open Benchmark, a new benchmark comprising four complex tasks that emulate Japanese corporate legal practices. The benchmark was created by legal professionals under the supervision of an attorney. This benchmark has 100 samples that require long-form, structured outputs, and we evaluated them against multiple practical criteria. We conducted both human and automated evaluations using leading LLMs, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.1. Our human evaluation revealed that abstract instructions prompted unnecessary modifications, highlighting model weaknesses in document-level editing that were missed by conventional short-text tasks. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that automated evaluation aligns well with human judgment on criteria with clear linguistic grounding, and assessing structural consistency remains a challenge. The result demonstrates the utility of automated evaluation as a screening tool when expert availability is limited. We propose a dataset evaluation framework to promote more practice-oriented research in the legal domain.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in Deep Research or Wide Search, their capacity to solve highly complex questions-those requiring long-horizon planning, massive evidence gathering, and synthesis across heterogeneous sources-remains largely unexplored. We introduce Super Research, a task for complex autonomous research tasks that integrates (i) structured decomposition into a research plan, (ii) super wide retrieval for diverse perspectives, and (iii) super deep investigation to resolve uncertainties through iterative queries. To evaluate this capability, we curated a benchmark of 300 expert-written questions across diverse domains, each requiring up to 100+ retrieval steps and 1,000+ web pages to reconcile conflicting evidence. Super Research produces verifiable reports with fine-grained citations and intermediate artifacts (e.g., outlines and tables) to ensure traceable reasoning. Furthermore, we present a graph-anchored auditing protocol that evaluates Super Research along five dimensions: Coverage, Logical Consistency, Report Utility, Objectivity and Citation Health. While super-complex questions may be infrequent in standard applications, Super Research serves as a critical ceiling evaluation and stress test for LLM capabilities. A model's proficiency within Super Research acts as a powerful proxy for its general research competence; success here suggests the robustness necessary to navigate nearly any subordinate research task. Leaderboard is available at: https://cnsdqd-dyb.github.io/Super-Research-Benchmark/

Existing datasets that contain boolean questions, such as BoolQ and TYDI QA , provide the user with a YES/NO response to the question. However, a one word response is not sufficient for an explainable system. We promote explainability by releasing a new set of annotations marking the evidence in existing TyDi QA and BoolQ datasets. We show that our annotations can be used to train a model that extracts improved evidence spans compared to models that rely on existing resources. We confirm our findings with a user study which shows that our extracted evidence spans enhance the user experience. We also provide further insight into the challenges of answering boolean questions, such as passages containing conflicting YES and NO answers, and varying degrees of relevance of the predicted evidence.

Proactive agents must decide whether, when, and how far to assist without an explicit request. Existing evaluations often rely on automated scores or binary verdicts, offering limited human diagnosis of evidence use and intervention quality. To address these gaps, we introduce HALO, Human-Grounded GrAnular EvaLuation of PrOactive Agents. HALO-Arena covers 4 proactive need types, Dependency, Blockage, Risk, and Opportunity, across 10 everyday domains and 50 personal environments. Scenarios require agents to retrieve evidence from structured databases or unstructured documents before judging whether assistance is warranted and choosing its scope. On HALO-Arena, we construct HALO-8K, a dataset of 8,000 responses from 10 models across 400 scenarios, annotated by 20 experts for action level, acceptability verdicts, and human diagnosis. For rejected responses, human diagnosis covers timing, intensity, and other issues. Recorded reasoning tokens and retrieval rounds measure the effort behind these responses. The best proprietary and open-source models achieve 72.88% and 56.63% acceptability, respectively. Our central finding is that over-proactivity is the dominant observed failure mode, with Premature timing or Excessive intensity accounting for 61.20% of rejected responses. Further analyses yield complementary findings on the balance between intervention and restraint, evidence acquisition, and the calibration of timing and intensity.

The Retrieval-Augmented Language Model (RALM) has shown remarkable performance on knowledge-intensive tasks by incorporating external knowledge during inference, which mitigates the factual hallucinations inherited in large language models (LLMs). Despite these advancements, challenges persist in the implementation of RALMs, particularly concerning their reliability and traceability. To be specific, the irrelevant document retrieval may result in unhelpful response generation or even deteriorate the performance of LLMs, while the lack of proper citations in generated outputs complicates efforts to verify the trustworthiness of the models. To this end, we propose a novel self-reasoning framework aimed at improving the reliability and traceability of RALMs, whose core idea is to leverage reasoning trajectories generated by the LLM itself. The framework involves constructing self-reason trajectories with three processes: a relevance-aware process, an evidence-aware selective process, and a trajectory analysis process. We have evaluated our framework across four public datasets (two short-form QA datasets, one long-form QA dataset, and one fact verification dataset) to demonstrate the superiority of our method, which can outperform existing state-of-art models and can achieve comparable performance with GPT-4, while only using 2,000 training samples.

AI co-scientists that generate hypotheses, retrieve related work, design experiments, execute code, and draft full papers are beginning to change how research is carried out. Despite this rapid progress, state-of-the-art systems remain researcher-agnostic: given a research goal, they optimize novelty, validity, or reviewer score while ignoring the individual scientist who will use the output. This overlooks a fundamental fact about research, namely, that what counts as novel, valuable, or feasible depends on the researcher, including their prior work, methodological repertoire, and the collaborators and communities in which they are embedded. In this work, we introduce the problem of personalized auto-research, which conditions every stage of the research process on a representation of the individual researcher. We argue that personalization is not a convenience layer, but rather the fundamental property that allows an AI system to serve as a genuine co-scientist rather than a generic instrument. To address this problem, we propose a general and flexible framework that threads a graph-grounded researcher context through retrieval, hypothesis search, experimentation, writing, and review. The framework consists of three fundamental components: (i) graph-grounded researcher representations, (ii) personalization across the full research pipeline, and (iii) evaluation grounded in the individual. Notably, we highlight a one-size-fits-all failure mode where distinct researchers issuing the same goal receive essentially the same research, erasing the tacit knowledge through which novel ideas arise. Finally, we discuss fundamental open problems and challenges.

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

We endow Large Language Models (LLMs) with fine-grained self-evaluation to refine multi-step reasoning inference. We propose an effective prompting approach that integrates self-evaluation guidance through stochastic beam search. Our approach explores the reasoning search space using a well-calibrated automatic criterion. This enables an efficient search to produce higher-quality final predictions. With the self-evaluation guided stochastic beam search, we also balance the quality-diversity trade-off in the generation of reasoning chains. This allows our approach to adapt well with majority voting and surpass the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines by 6.34%, 9.56%, and 5.46% on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA benchmarks, respectively, in few-shot accuracy. Analysis of our decompositional reasoning finds it pinpoints logic failures and leads to higher consistency and robustness. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YuxiXie/SelfEval-Guided-Decoding.

Authors seeking to communicate with broader audiences often share their ideas in various document formats, such as slide decks, newsletters, reports, and posters. Prior work on document generation has generally tackled the creation of each separate format to be a different task, leading to fragmented learning processes, redundancy in models and methods, and disjointed evaluation. We consider each of these documents as templatic views of the same underlying knowledge/content, and we aim to unify the generation and evaluation of these templatic views. We begin by showing that current LLMs are capable of generating various document formats with little to no supervision. Further, a simple augmentation involving a structured intermediate representation can improve performance, especially for smaller models. We then introduce a novel unified evaluation framework that can be adapted to measuring the quality of document generators for heterogeneous downstream applications. This evaluation is adaptable to a range of user defined criteria and application scenarios, obviating the need for task specific evaluation metrics. Finally, we conduct a human evaluation, which shows that people prefer 82% of the documents generated with our method, while correlating more highly with our unified evaluation framework than prior metrics in the literature.

We present RAG Playground, an open-source framework for systematic evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. The framework implements and compares three retrieval approaches: naive vector search, reranking, and hybrid vector-keyword search, combined with ReAct agents using different prompting strategies. We introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework with novel metrics and provide empirical results comparing different language models (Llama 3.1 and Qwen 2.5) across various retrieval configurations. Our experiments demonstrate significant performance improvements through hybrid search methods and structured self-evaluation prompting, achieving up to 72.7% pass rate on our multi-metric evaluation framework. The results also highlight the importance of prompt engineering in RAG systems, with our custom-prompted agents showing consistent improvements in retrieval accuracy and response quality.

Large language models (LLMs) solve complex problems yet fail on simpler variants, suggesting they achieve correct outputs through mechanisms fundamentally different from human reasoning. To understand this gap, we synthesize cognitive science research into a taxonomy of 28 cognitive elements spanning reasoning invariants, meta-cognitive controls, representations for organizing reasoning & knowledge, and transformation operations. We introduce a fine-grained evaluation framework and conduct the first large-scale empirical analysis of 192K traces from 18 models across text, vision, and audio, complemented by 54 human think-aloud traces, which we make publicly available. We find that models under-utilize cognitive elements correlated with success, narrowing to rigid sequential processing on ill-structured problems where diverse representations and meta-cognitive monitoring are critical. Human traces show more abstraction and conceptual processing, while models default to surface-level enumeration. Meta-analysis of 1.6K LLM reasoning papers reveals the research community concentrates on easily quantifiable elements (sequential organization: 55%, decomposition: 60%) but neglecting meta-cognitive controls (self-awareness: 16%) that correlate with success. Models possess behavioral repertoires associated with success but fail to deploy them spontaneously. Leveraging these patterns, we develop test-time reasoning guidance that automatically scaffold successful structures, improving performance by up to 66.7% on complex problems. By establishing a shared vocabulary between cognitive science and LLM research, our framework enables systematic diagnosis of reasoning failures and principled development of models that reason through robust cognitive mechanisms rather than spurious shortcuts, while providing tools to test theories of human cognition at scale.