Daily Papers

We study the optimal portfolio selection problem under relative performance criteria in the market model with random coefficients from the perspective of many players game theory. We consider five random coefficients which consist of three market parameters which are used in the risky asset price modeling and two preference parameters which are related to risk attitude and impact of relative performance. We focus on two cases; either all agents have Constant Absolute Risk Aversion (CARA) risk preferences or all agents have Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) risk preferences for their investment optimization problem. For each case, we show that the forward Nash equilibrium and the mean field equilibrium exist for the n-agent game and the corresponding mean field stochastic optimal control problem, respectively. To extend the n-agent game to the continuum of players game, we introduce a measure dependent forward relative performance process and apply an optimization over controlled dynamics of McKean-Vlasov type. We conclude that our optimal portfolio formulas extend the corresponding results of the market model with constant coefficients.

Graphon games have been introduced to study games with many players who interact through a weighted graph of interaction. By passing to the limit, a game with a continuum of players is obtained, in which the interactions are through a graphon. In this paper, we focus on a graphon game for optimal investment under relative performance criteria, and we propose a deep learning method. The method builds upon two key ingredients: first, a characterization of Nash equilibria by forward-backward stochastic differential equations and, second, recent advances of machine learning algorithms for stochastic differential games. We provide numerical experiments on two different financial models. In each model, we compare the effect of several graphons, which correspond to different structures of interactions.

We evaluate a range of recent LLMs on English creative writing, a challenging and complex task that requires imagination, coherence, and style. We use a difficult, open-ended scenario chosen to avoid training data reuse: an epic narration of a single combat between Ignatius J. Reilly, the protagonist of the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel A Confederacy of Dunces (1980), and a pterodactyl, a prehistoric flying reptile. We ask several LLMs and humans to write such a story and conduct a human evalution involving various criteria such as fluency, coherence, originality, humor, and style. Our results show that some state-of-the-art commercial LLMs match or slightly outperform our writers in most dimensions; whereas open-source LLMs lag behind. Humans retain an edge in creativity, while humor shows a binary divide between LLMs that can handle it comparably to humans and those that fail at it. We discuss the implications and limitations of our study and suggest directions for future research.

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

We present MÖVE (Modelle für die Öffentliche Verwaltung Evaluieren), a holistic benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the context of the German public sector. While LLMs are increasingly adopted in public administration, model selection remains largely ad hoc, and existing benchmarks offer limited guidance: they are predominantly English-centric, US-centric in content, and focus exclusively on task performance. MÖVE addresses these gaps by evaluating 39 models across two complementary dimensions. Performance criteria cover summarization, question answering, and topic extraction. Governance criteria assess hallucination tendencies, energy consumption, provider transparency, and alignment with German constitutional values and knowledge about positions by German political parties. In total, we utilize ten German-language datasets, including gold- and silverstandard datasets that we constructed to reflect public-administration domains. We employ a multi-metric evaluation strategy combining classical NLP metrics, embedding-based methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Our results show that no single model dominates across all criteria: top performers differ between tasks, and model size alone is a poor predictor of quality. We further evaluate the benchmark itself, analyzing its statistical precision, LLM judge reliability, the impact of our private datasets on model rankings, the sensitivity of our results to prompt formulation, and the validity of our energy consumption estimates. MÖVE is designed as a living benchmark under active development; results are publicly available at https://moeve.bundesdruckerei.de/.

Rerankers decide which documents users and LLMs see, yet their standard metric, nDCG, relies on human relevance labels that are costly, sparse, noisy, and discretely graded. As rerankers approach each other in quality, nDCG on these labels therefore increasingly fails to separate them. LLM judges could supply dense labels. Relative judgments within one query tell even close candidates apart, yet their scores share no scale across queries. Absolute grades share one scale but are too coarse to distinguish documents of similar relevance. We propose Rubric-Calibrated Preferences (RCP), which combine both kinds of judgment. A listwise Bradley-Terry tournament orders each query's documents, and a rubric of yes/no criteria of increasing stringency provides an absolute standard. Item Response Theory (IRT), which scores test-takers based on their answers to common questions, then uses the shared criteria to put all queries' tournament scores on one scale. RCP's retrieval metric, RCP-nDCG, replaces nDCG's discrete labels with the resulting calibrated relevance probabilities. Against blind grades from 46 external annotators, calibration raises the correlation between a query's mean score and its mean human grade from 0.538 to 0.795. The probabilities rank a useful document above a non-useful one with probability 0.910 (AUC, chance 0.5), versus 0.651 for the benchmark labels. When the annotators' grades prefer one of two rerankers and exactly one metric agrees, that metric is RCP-nDCG in 72.4% of 185 comparisons (chance about 53%). On TREC-DL, RCP-nDCG sides with NIST assessors' grades on every reranker pair that these grades separate significantly. RCP-nDCG also resolves many of nDCG's ties and separates 1.9 times as many reranker pairs on NanoBEIR. Rubric calibration thus turns relative LLM judgments into dense relevance labels that are comparable across queries and agree with human judgment.

Deploying Large Language Model-based agents (LLM agents) in the public sector requires assuring that they meet the stringent legal, procedural, and structural requirements of public-sector institutions. Practitioners and researchers often turn to benchmarks for such assessments. However, it remains unclear what criteria benchmarks must meet to ensure they adequately reflect public-sector requirements, or how many existing benchmarks do so. In this paper, we first define such criteria based on a first-principles survey of public administration literature: benchmarks must be process-based, realistic, public-sector-specific and report metrics that reflect the unique requirements of the public sector. We analyse more than 1,300 benchmark papers for these criteria using an expert-validated LLM-assisted pipeline. Our results show that no single benchmark meets all of the criteria. Our findings provide a call to action for both researchers to develop public sector-relevant benchmarks and for public-sector officials to apply these criteria when evaluating their own agentic use cases.

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

Leaderboards rank long-horizon agents by their final outputs. Yet a higher score alone does not establish whether two systems are comparable or which stage accounts for the difference. Unequal evidence, inputs, or budgets can affect scores, and statistical corrections do not remove this mismatch. We introduce compositional controllability to address these questions. A comparison window covers one stage, several stages, or the whole agent. Our central result bounds the gap between observed and controlled score differences using only nuisance outside the window. This yields an admissibility test applied before scores are inspected. Inadmissible comparisons are refused. For admissible pairs, an ordering is certified only when the score gap exceeds the combined sampling and nuisance radii; otherwise, it remains undecided. These decisions give each system a rank interval. We introduce BioLitBench, a benchmark of 2,042 biomedical articles represented as structured claim graphs. Among seven published pipelines, a conventional statistical analysis declares a winner in 14 of 21 pairwise comparisons. Yet the top-ranked system alone received the target review's bibliography. To isolate pipeline performance, our test requires matched inputs and a fixed backbone model. It refuses 11 of the 21 comparisons, including every comparison involving the top-ranked system. Seven of the 14 conventional conclusions fall within these refused pairs. The same comparison windows support stage-level training. We train SCRIBE on Qwen3.8-27B using rewards measured at each stage's exit. Under matched evidence, SCRIBE achieves a certified rank interval of [1,2], with certified advantages over all evaluated published pipelines and the evaluated Claude and OpenAI agents. Under same pool, SCRIBE matches the strongest published retriever and is certified above three published pipelines.

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

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

Deep Research Systems (DRS) aim to help users search the web, synthesize information, and deliver comprehensive investigative reports. However, how to rigorously evaluate these systems remains under-explored. Existing deep-research benchmarks often fall into two failure modes. Some do not adequately test a system's ability to analyze evidence and write coherent reports. Others rely on evaluation criteria that are either overly coarse or directly defined by LLMs (or both), leading to scores that can be biased relative to human experts and are hard to verify or interpret. To address these issues, we introduce Deep Research Bench II, a new benchmark for evaluating DRS-generated reports. It contains 132 grounded research tasks across 22 domains; for each task, a system must produce a long-form research report that is evaluated by a set of 9430 fine-grained binary rubrics in total, covering three dimensions: information recall, analysis, and presentation. All rubrics are derived from carefully selected expert-written investigative articles and are constructed through a four-stage LLM+human pipeline that combines automatic extraction with over 400 human-hours of expert review, ensuring that the criteria are atomic, verifiable, and aligned with human expert judgment. We evaluate several state-of-the-art deep-research systems on Deep Research Bench II and find that even the strongest models satisfy fewer than 50% of the rubrics, revealing a substantial gap between current DRSs and human experts.

In Brazil, all legal professionals must demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application by passing the OAB exams, the national bar exams. The OAB exams therefore provide an excellent benchmark for the performance of legal information systems since passing the exam would arguably signal that the system has acquired capacity of legal reasoning comparable to that of a human lawyer. This article describes the construction of a new data set and some preliminary experiments on it, treating the problem of finding the justification for the answers to questions. The results provide a baseline performance measure against which to evaluate future improvements. We discuss the reasons to the poor performance and propose next steps.

Similar agent skills can share instructions but differ in their conditions of use. Query-based text selection may retain shared instructions and omit these distinctions. We introduce SkillContrast, a training-free selector that compares retrieved skills and retains their differing text with local context for a pretrained reranker. On 1,235 requests from SameCapRisk-Bench, it yields 54-72 more clean hits (requests that retrieve a helpful skill without its marked risky sibling) than TF-IDF query selection at identical per-candidate input lengths, across 2 retrievers and 2 reranker sizes. Length-matched component replacements identify differing text as the main contributor in the primary setting, with smaller, mixed context effects. Relative to full skill bodies, SkillContrast uses 51.1-58.8% fewer model-input tokens, with 10-18 fewer clean hits at 0.6B and matching or higher observed clean-hit counts at 4B. Candidate-relative differences thus complement query relevance in selecting compact reranking inputs.

While Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) offers a powerful framework for LLM post-training, its effectiveness in open-ended domains like Machine Translation hinges on accurate intra-group ranking. We identify that standard Scalar Quality Metrics (SQM) fall short in this context; by evaluating candidates in isolation, they lack the comparative context necessary to distinguish fine-grained linguistic nuances. To address this, we introduce the Group Quality Metric (GQM) paradigm and instantiate it via the Group Relative Reward Model (GRRM). Unlike traditional independent scorers, GRRM processes the entire candidate group jointly, leveraging comparative analysis to rigorously resolve relative quality and adaptive granularity. Empirical evaluations confirm that GRRM achieves competitive ranking accuracy among all baselines. Building on this foundation, we integrate GRRM into the GRPO training loop to optimize the translation policy. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework not only improves general translation quality but also unlocks reasoning capabilities comparable to state-of-the-art reasoning models. We release codes, datasets, and model checkpoints at https://github.com/NJUNLP/GRRM.

In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end. Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines

Deep research -- producing comprehensive, citation-grounded reports by searching and synthesizing information from hundreds of live web sources -- marks an important frontier for agentic systems. To rigorously evaluate this ability, four principles are essential: tasks should be (1) user-centric, reflecting realistic information needs, (2) dynamic, requiring up-to-date information beyond parametric knowledge, (3) unambiguous, ensuring consistent interpretation across users, and (4) multi-faceted and search-intensive, requiring search over numerous web sources and in-depth analysis. Existing benchmarks fall short of these principles, often focusing on narrow domains or posing ambiguous questions that hinder fair comparison. Guided by these principles, we introduce LiveResearchBench, a benchmark of 100 expert-curated tasks spanning daily life, enterprise, and academia, each requiring extensive, dynamic, real-time web search and synthesis. Built with over 1,500 hours of human labor, LiveResearchBench provides a rigorous basis for systematic evaluation. To evaluate citation-grounded long-form reports, we introduce DeepEval, a comprehensive suite covering both content- and report-level quality, including coverage, presentation, citation accuracy and association, consistency and depth of analysis. DeepEval integrates four complementary evaluation protocols, each designed to ensure stable assessment and high agreement with human judgments. Using LiveResearchBench and DeepEval, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 17 frontier deep research systems, including single-agent web search, single-agent deep research, and multi-agent systems. Our analysis reveals current strengths, recurring failure modes, and key system components needed to advance reliable, insightful deep research.

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

Matching submissions with suitable reviewers at scale is a growing challenge for major venues, yet existing approaches either rely on coarse proxy signals that conflate general relatedness with true suitability, or require expensive human annotations that are difficult to scale for training. We propose MERIT, a two-stage framework that bridges this gap by converting criterion-level expertise matching into scalable suitability supervision. In the first stage, we train a reviewer assessor via reinforcement learning to identify the expertise dimensions a paper requires, match them against the reviewer's prior work, and produce a suitability decision, with rewards provided by an LLM judge guided by paper-specific expertise rubrics. In the second stage, we distill the assessor's predictions into an embedding-based retriever for efficient large-scale assignment. Experiments show that our 4B reviewer assessor outperforms larger general-purpose LLMs on suitability classification, and the resulting retriever achieves state-of-the-art performance across LR-Bench and the CMU Gold dataset. Our code is available at https://github.com/Luli3220/MERIT.

Understanding the quality of a performance evaluation metric is crucial for ensuring that model outputs align with human preferences. However, it remains unclear how well each metric captures the diverse aspects of these preferences, as metrics often excel in one particular area but not across all dimensions. To address this, it is essential to systematically calibrate metrics to specific aspects of human preference, catering to the unique characteristics of each aspect. We introduce MetaMetrics, a calibrated meta-metric designed to evaluate generation tasks across different modalities in a supervised manner. MetaMetrics optimizes the combination of existing metrics to enhance their alignment with human preferences. Our metric demonstrates flexibility and effectiveness in both language and vision downstream tasks, showing significant benefits across various multilingual and multi-domain scenarios. MetaMetrics aligns closely with human preferences and is highly extendable and easily integrable into any application. This makes MetaMetrics a powerful tool for improving the evaluation of generation tasks, ensuring that metrics are more representative of human judgment across diverse contexts.

Many language tasks have no single answer that can be checked automatically. Rubrics provide criteria for judging responses to these tasks. For reinforcement learning, the resulting verdicts must be combined into a scalar reward. A common approach sums the points assigned to satisfied criteria. Distinct verdict patterns can thus receive the same reward, and the fixed points encode how much each criterion should count, not how strongly its verdict distinguishes the current rollouts. Beyond this aggregation problem, judging the full rubric needs more judge requests as the criterion count grows. To address these limitations, Rubric Response Theory (RRT) measures quality and selects criteria when rubric criteria are monotone indicators of a shared target. Rather than adding assigned points, RRT uses a two parameter item response model that treats the verdict pattern as evidence about scalar quality specific to the rubric. Under this model, its likelihood score maximizes the local signal-to-noise ratio for quality. Its Response Parameter Network (RPN) reads the prompt and criterion text to predict criterion difficulty and discrimination. As the policy distribution changes during training, RRT uses online expectation maximization to update the RPN from current rollout verdicts. With Qwen3.5-4B as the policy, RRT's macro criterion score across Medical, Science, Rubrics as Rewards Science, and RubricBench is 1.7 points above that of group relative policy optimization (GRPO). On hard and very hard criteria in Medical and Science, RRT gains 2.8 to 5.6 points over GRPO. At half the criterion budget, adaptive Fisher selection with a frozen RPN keeps the macro criterion score across four datasets within 0.1 points of GRPO with full judging. These results show RRT can reduce judge requests while remaining competitive with GRPO.

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

What makes a good Large Language Model (LLM)? That it performs well on the relevant benchmarks -- which hopefully measure, with some validity, the presence of capabilities that are also challenged in real application. But what makes the model perform well? What gives a model its abilities? We take a recently introduced type of benchmark that is meant to challenge capabilities in a goal-directed, agentive context through self-play of conversational games, and analyse how performance develops as a function of model characteristics like number of parameters, or type of training. We find that while there is a clear relationship between number of parameters and performance, there is still a wide spread of performance points within a given size bracket, which is to be accounted for by training parameters such as fine-tuning data quality and method. From a more practical angle, we also find a certain degree of unpredictability about performance across access methods, possible due to unexposed sampling parameters, and a, very welcome, performance stability against at least moderate weight quantisation during inference.

Agent skill libraries are becoming routable software assets: a retrieved skill can contribute instructions, scripts, resource bindings, and execution assumptions to an agent. This makes retrieval failures more specific than broad irrelevance. A system can find the right capability family yet expose the wrong same-capability representative. We study this failure as same-capability risk-exposure retrieval. Each benchmark unit pairs a helpful skill with a query-specific risky sibling that shares the capability family but differs on an execution-controlling contract, such as the required resource, precondition, procedure, or artifact. We introduce SameCapRisk-Bench, an auditable benchmark with 1,190 skill-risk units and 1,686 evaluation query cases: 694 marked-sibling units under public library pressure and 496 hard role-flip units where the same two skills swap helpful/risky roles across paired queries. The release records admission evidence, cue/leakage checks, source hashes, family relations, and fixed candidate pools. The benchmark reports helpful ranking together with harmful sibling rate (HSR@K), the top-K exposure of the marked risky sibling. On this benchmark, public SkillRouter, SkillRet, and R3-Skill retrieve helpful skills at high Recall@3 (0.848--0.888) but also expose marked risky siblings frequently (HSR@3 0.346--0.372). A fully public score-and-cluster pipeline lowers HSR@3 to 0.128--0.182, with Recall@3 of 0.713--0.776. Under a benchmark-trained reference scorer, public text-cluster and controlled resolvers reach HSR@3 0.012 and 0.007; the latter attains Recall@3 0.833. Skill retrieval should therefore report both capability matching and same-family risk exposure, with HSR serving as a targeted exposure certificate for fixed skill libraries.

A large share of day-to-day work in professional domains happens inside PDF files: benefits packets, leases, datasheets, clinical guidelines, construction plans. Benchmarks for document AI have generally measured the required capabilities in isolation: OCR, layout analysis, chart reasoning, table QA, document VQA. A high score on any one of them does not necessarily reveal whether a model can answer a realistic question that someone in the field would actually ask about a specific PDF. GDP_pdf is a benchmark built to measure this directly. It consists of question-document pairs authored by working professionals in ten fields, and a candidate question was kept only when at least two frontier multimodal models failed it in a way that mattered: a wrong answer, missed decisive evidence, or a fabricated claim, rather than a superficial difference such as style. Each item comes with a rubric of atomic criteria, so we can report a graded rubric score as well as a strict task-level pass rate, and each item is tagged against a taxonomy of eleven capabilities in three tiers, spanning text extraction and grounding, table and chart comprehension, cross-referencing, spatial reasoning, and abstention on unsupported queries. We report results for seventeen frontier models on the 100-item benchmark: the best model passes only 30.7% of the items and the worst passes 2%. Most errors trace back to a small set of recurring loss patterns: misaligned tables, misread charts, skipped footnotes and exclusions, miscounted floor-plan symbols, scan noise, and amendments that supersede earlier text.

WANDR (Wide ANd Deep Research) is a benchmark of 500 realistic, challenging data-collection tasks for research agents. Each task requires a system to discover a large set of entities that satisfy specified criteria (breadth), investigate each entity through multiple coordinated web searches (depth), and return independently verifiable records with supporting sources and excerpts. Tasks are represented as qualification key hierarchies that specify the entities, relationships, evidence, and required count at each level; a hierarchy with n companies, m employees per company, and k sources per employee requires n x m x k records. This structure supports diverse workflows such as market mapping, due diligence, literature review, product comparison, and talent sourcing, with targets ranging from dozens to thousands of records. WANDR replaces static gold answer sets with task-specific judges that refetch cited pages and verify each record against its evidence, allowing evaluation of current and changing facts. Record verdicts are aggregated into soft and hard precision, recall, and F1 scores that distinguish factual quality, coverage, and hierarchical completeness. The tasks are derived from de-identified product-usage logs and produced through a semi-automated pipeline with automated checks, empirical audits, and human review where needed. We evaluate six production research systems and find that the benchmark is far from saturated: at high effort, the strongest system reaches only 0.363 soft F1 and 0.133 hard F1. Performance degrades as target volume and hierarchy depth increase, with incomplete discovery, missing enrichment, and incomplete evidence construction remaining major bottlenecks. The benchmark and evaluation harness are available at https://github.com/perplexityai/wandr.

Qualitative comparison figures are central evidence in computer vision papers, and vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to judge them. Yet existing benchmarks score only scalar quality or overall preference, so a judge can be rewarded for picking the preferred image for the wrong visual reason. We introduce VisionQ, the first benchmark built from peer-reviewed CV comparison figures that grounds every judgment in a named visual criterion: each question states the criterion, and a judge is credited only when it selects the output the authors identify as best on that criterion. We call this task criterion-conditioned visual discrimination. VisionQ comprises (1) a corpus of 1,409 CVPR and ICCV papers with 1,800+ validated comparison figures and 3,911 hand-annotated data points linking method crops to author-stated visual claims; (2) a six-axis, 51-leaf taxonomy of the visual criteria behind qualitative judgment; (3) a criterion-conditioned evaluation protocol that hides method names, captions, and paper identity and reports accuracy per criterion; and (4) VisionQ-Judge, a DPO-tuned Gemma-4-E4B judge trained on symmetric evidence pairs, which reduces last-option predictions by 7.0pp and improves accuracy by 2.5pp on a held-out test set. Evaluating 20 open- and closed-source VLM judges, we find that the strongest reach only 63.1% accuracy (chance 32.2%) and that reliability varies sharply across criteria. Code: https://github.com/ReML-AI/visionq. Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/visionq-anon-2026/VisionQ-1k.

We present ExAct, a new video-language benchmark for expert-level understanding of skilled physical human activities. Our new benchmark contains 3521 expert-curated video question-answer pairs spanning 11 physical activities in 6 domains: Sports, Bike Repair, Cooking, Health, Music, and Dance. ExAct requires the correct answer to be selected from five carefully designed candidate options, thus necessitating a nuanced, fine-grained, expert-level understanding of physical human skills. Evaluating the recent state-of-the-art VLMs on ExAct reveals a substantial performance gap relative to human expert performance. Specifically, the best-performing GPT-4o model achieves only 44.70% accuracy, well below the 82.02% attained by trained human specialists/experts. We believe that ExAct will be beneficial for developing and evaluating VLMs capable of precise understanding of human skills in various physical and procedural domains. Dataset and code are available at https://texaser.github.io/exact_project_page/

Language-model agents are increasingly deployed under standing instructions: a system prompt, a policy file, or a skills document is placed in context, and the agent is trusted to let that document govern every action that follows. Existing benchmarks rarely test this deployment pattern directly; they measure whether an agent can complete a task, not whether a long, binding policy document constrains its behavior over an extended tool-use horizon. We present HANDBOOK_md, a benchmark of 65 agentic tasks modeled on how employees follow company handbooks. Each task places an agent in a self-contained company environment (a file workspace with mock email, chat, calendar, issue-tracking, and commerce services exposed over the Model Context Protocol) and instructs it to carry out routine professional work governed by an expert-written standard operating procedure of 20-124 pages. Tasks span five domains (finance, medical billing, insurance, logistics, and HR) and 10 fictional companies. To resist memorization, every task modifies one of 10 base handbooks, altering the specific rules and thresholds on which grading depends, so no two tasks share the same set of policies. Grading is fully deterministic: each task carries a rubric of programmatic criteria (824 in total) that check both that required actions occurred and that prohibited actions did not. Under strict grading, where a trial passes only if every criterion is satisfied, the strongest evaluated model passes 36.2% of trials, and most frontier models remain below 25%. Failures follow consistent patterns: agents let a plausible but unauthorized in-environment request override the standing policy, perform a required check and then act against its result, lose rule details over long horizons, and report compliance they did not achieve. We release the tasks, environments, and evaluation harness.

In passage reranking, response ranking and multi-document question answering, LLMs can score several candidate documents or responses together in one prompt, each still receiving its own score. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or which chosen/rejected pair enters preference training. Because the candidates share that prompt, reordering them changes their scores. The same query over the same candidates should still yield the same decision. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. No prompt-time change we test resolves that dependence: the only one that improves ranking quality does not measurably improve decision stability. We introduce order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT), which attenuates it in the weights by penalizing disagreement between a candidate's scores across orderings. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks. It is also more stable on 12 base models than order-averaged distillation, which trains on labels averaged across permutations. One OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison of such scorers should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.

Benchmarks play a central role in the development and governance of models, yet it is often unclear whether they actually measure the concepts they purport to measure (e.g., reasoning, refusal). We adapt convergent and discriminant validity from the social sciences into an approach for interrogating AI benchmarks, applying it to 56 capability and safety benchmarks across 53 models. We label benchmarks with substantively similar purported concepts to a shared assigned concept, and ask whether model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned concept correlate more strongly than rankings on benchmarks with different assigned concepts. We ask analogous questions at the item level using item response theory (IRT) models. We find that correlations between model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned safety concepts are often weak, suggesting these concepts may be conceptualized inconsistently across benchmarks. For assigned capability concepts (e.g., reasoning, knowledge), model rankings are often as strongly correlated among benchmarks with the same assigned concept as between benchmarks with different assigned concepts, suggesting these capability concepts may not discriminate well from one another. In some cases, benchmarks that share design elements (e.g., score format) correlate more strongly than benchmarks with the same assigned concept. Finally, some individual benchmarks correlate more strongly with benchmarks assigned a different concept than with benchmarks sharing their own assigned concept, suggesting they may measure a different concept than they purport to. For example, BBQ-accuracy correlates more strongly with benchmarks labeled reasoning than with benchmarks that share its assigned concept, bias. To support future empirical work on benchmark validity, we release our extensive dataset of model outputs and scores at the item- and benchmark-level.

A benchmark score compares a system output against a reference, and methodological attention falls almost entirely on the first term. We measure the second. The retained annotation record of a six-language benchmark for personally identifiable information contains two independent annotator labellings, the aggregate shipped as gold, and a reviewer gold from independent expert re-annotation of a sample. Using it, we hold the scored output fixed and exchange the reference. The score moves by 4.95 F1 points for one output and 2.00 for the other (95% CIs [3.23, 6.27] and [0.26, 3.37]), and by 7.55 in the worst language. The comparison between two outputs moves as well: the paired interaction between reference and system is +2.95 points (CI [+1.97, +3.87]), survives correction for multiple testing, and changes one language's margin outright. The cause is an undocumented aggregation default that usually kept one annotator when adjudication did not fire, making the shipped reference a partial copy of an output being scored. We report the resulting reference-sensitivity band, show how to compute one from any retained annotation record, and argue that the quantity belongs beside the score.

Reality may establish that an outcome occurred without identifying which evolving procedure produced it or why. This distinction matters in production ML systems whose code, configuration, and artifacts change while external feedback accumulates. We examine it in a human-directed, agent-engineered quantitative trading system, using oracle to mean an external source of realized outcomes rather than a complete correctness specification. Across one year, the account gained and outperformed a broad market index, while annual alpha was not statistically distinguishable from zero under the main retrospective specification. Retrospectively selected subperiods include adverse relative performance and conditional candidate-level weakness under declared approximate references. Engineering records document changes during the episode, and complete recommendation-to-runtime binding is unavailable. The archive does not establish a common frozen instance or a unique cause. The case motivates an outcome--diagnosis gap: outcome evidence, evaluated-object identity, and causal explanation support distinct claims. We distinguish frozen instances, pre-specified adaptive procedures, and ad-hoc development; organize archive-relative claim identifiability and an evidence hierarchy; and propose a prospective production-binding protocol. An illustrative compatible-history example shows how factual binding can resolve a recommendation's referent without supplying its counterfactual effect. The protocol is proposed rather than prospectively validated. External feedback constrains outcome claims, while provenance and additional identification structure determine the resolution of diagnosis.

Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.

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

We introduce MURA, a large dataset of musculoskeletal radiographs containing 40,561 images from 14,863 studies, where each study is manually labeled by radiologists as either normal or abnormal. To evaluate models robustly and to get an estimate of radiologist performance, we collect additional labels from six board-certified Stanford radiologists on the test set, consisting of 207 musculoskeletal studies. On this test set, the majority vote of a group of three radiologists serves as gold standard. We train a 169-layer DenseNet baseline model to detect and localize abnormalities. Our model achieves an AUROC of 0.929, with an operating point of 0.815 sensitivity and 0.887 specificity. We compare our model and radiologists on the Cohen's kappa statistic, which expresses the agreement of our model and of each radiologist with the gold standard. Model performance is comparable to the best radiologist performance in detecting abnormalities on finger and wrist studies. However, model performance is lower than best radiologist performance in detecting abnormalities on elbow, forearm, hand, humerus, and shoulder studies. We believe that the task is a good challenge for future research. To encourage advances, we have made our dataset freely available at https://stanfordmlgroup.github.io/competitions/mura .

An agent that inherits six one-line memories may pull at most one archived source record before acting; a directive written into the store can steer that choice: a pointer to the record, a criterion that identifies it, or both. Across twelve registered studies on one instrument lineage (14,760 attempts) we measured where the request goes under each form. On six direct-provider models a length-matched criterion exceeded a bare id by +35.0 points [+31.2, +38.8] (Study D); the contrast failed its registered superiority rule on a nine-model OpenRouter-served panel (Study E). Appending the id cancelled the criterion on three Claude models (Opus 5: 40/40 to 0/40; Study F-x); six byte-matched edits gave each exact string its own effect (Study G), and a re-run at eighty runs per cell left fifteen of thirty replication contrasts within the margin, fifteen unresolved and none beyond (Study G'). A ratification line (+96.0 points on Opus 5) and a budget of two credits restored the target on all three (Study J); across five criterion strings the suffix's cancellation held for four of the five wordings on Opus 5 and all five wordings on Fable 5.1 (Study H2); in a second store every model followed the criterion (Study H1). Continued into a decision, the criterion moved the choice toward the current record (+100.0 points, Opus 5) and away from it on Fable 5.1 (Study I). A one-character plan pointer's effect (+78.0 points; Study B, after a correction of its first repository report) returned the same verdict under a prospectively registered re-run (+81.7 points; Study B'). All results are descriptive effects of exact edits on fixed panels with registered intervals and no mechanism claim.

Reinforcement learning has become a cornerstone for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models, where group-based approaches such as GRPO have emerged as efficient paradigms that optimize policies by leveraging intra-group performance differences. However, these methods typically rely on absolute numerical rewards, introducing intrinsic limitations. In verifiable tasks, identical group evaluations often result in sparse supervision, while in open-ended scenarios, the score range instability of reward models undermines advantage estimation based on group means. To address these limitations, we propose Reinforcement Learning with Relative Rewards (RLRR), a framework that shifts reward shaping from absolute scoring to relative ranking. Complementing this framework, we introduce the Ranking Reward Model, a listwise preference model tailored for group-based optimization to directly generate relative rankings. By transforming raw evaluations into robust relative signals, RLRR effectively mitigates signal sparsity and reward instability. Experimental results demonstrate that RLRR yields consistent performance improvements over standard group-based baselines across reasoning benchmarks and open-ended generation tasks.

Pairwise re-ranking models predict which of two documents is more relevant to a query and then aggregate a final ranking from such preferences. This is often more effective than pointwise re-ranking models that directly predict a relevance value for each document. However, the high inference overhead of pairwise models limits their practical application: usually, for a set of k documents to be re-ranked, preferences for all k^2-k comparison pairs excluding self-comparisons are aggregated. We investigate whether the efficiency of pairwise re-ranking can be improved by sampling from all pairs. In an exploratory study, we evaluate three sampling methods and five preference aggregation methods. The best combination allows for an order of magnitude fewer comparisons at an acceptable loss of retrieval effectiveness, while competitive effectiveness is already achieved with about one third of the comparisons.

AI evaluation suites often report many scores without checking whether those scores carry independent information. We introduce Effective Dimensionality (ED), the participation ratio of a centered benchmark-score spectrum, as a fast, population-conditional upper-bound diagnostic of measurement breadth. Applied at per-instance granularity to 22 benchmarks across 8 domains and more than 8,400 model evaluations, ED reveals substantial redundancy: the six-score Open LLM Leaderboard behaves like roughly two effective measurement axes (ED = 1.7), BBH and MMLU-Pro are near-interchangeable (rho = 0.96, stable across seven subpopulations), and measurement breadth varies more than 20x across current benchmarks. We show that relative ED rankings are stable under matched-dimension controls and that ED can flag redundant suite components, monitor performance-conditional compression, and guide benchmark maintenance. Because binary spectra overestimate absolute latent dimensionality, we interpret ED as a screening statistic rather than a literal factor count and complement it with null, reliability, and saturation analyses. We provide a 22-benchmark reference atlas and a four-step diagnostic workflow that benchmark maintainers can run with a score matrix and a few lines of code.

Benchmarks shape scientific conclusions about model capabilities and steer model development. This creates a feedback loop: stronger benchmarks drive better models, and better models demand more discriminative benchmarks. Ensuring benchmark reliability is therefore essential for trustworthy evaluation and meaningful progress. In this work, we study benchmark reliability from a distributional perspective and introduce benchmark harmony, which measures how uniformly a model's performance is distributed across the subdomains of a benchmark. We posit that high harmony is a desirable benchmark property, indicating that the aggregate metric reflects uniform competence across subdomains. Across 19 multiple-choice benchmarks and five model families, we map each benchmark onto a mean-variance plane of harmony computed across models, where high mean and low variance signal more reliable evaluation. Our analysis shows that less harmonious benchmarks can give misleading results, since overall accuracy may be disproportionately influenced by specific subdomains. For instance, ARC-Easy is overwhelmed by questions on Biological Concepts, overshadowing other critical subdomains such as Geography, Physics, Chemistry, and Environmental Science. By recommending that harmony should be reported alongside accuracy, we reframe evaluation from simple performance averages to a more robust, distributionally reliable measurement of performance.

In this paper, we systematically investigate the mechanisms, scaling behavior, and generalization of physical Recursive self-improvement. We introduce PhysRSI-eval to quantify physical RSI through a five-axis metric: First-Attempt Performance, Efficiency, Success, Budget and Improvement from failure. Different VLMs are evaluated on 18 manipulation tasks under a fixed interaction budget. The analysis of experimental results motivates the Physical Barrel Hypothesis: different capabilities may constrain different parts of improvement. The five-axis metrics also distinguish systems with close public benchmark averages and show that high scores need not come with early or efficient gains. We study observational scaling from two perspectives: predicting the relative performance of VLM agents from their public capabilities, and forecasting later progress from early physical feedback. Together, these analyses ask how quickly and how far an agent can improve. Moreover, we conduct workspace interventions and then analyze what improvement leaves behind. Removing history reduces late-round success, frozen workspaces remain useful on unseen layouts, and three cross-task cases achieve success earlier. The results suggest that scene-specific adaptation and reusable experience can coexist.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning (Rubric-RL) trains language models where no verifier exists. A judge checks each criterion of a rubric, and the verdicts are aggregated into a reward, most often by a weighted sum. We show that this additive aggregation is the weak point. Under a sum, criteria compensate for one another: a policy that misses the one decision that matters can buy the points back with advice nobody asked for. On clinical consultation, such a policy scores higher and answers worse. Rubric coverage rises while appropriateness on held-out physician criteria falls below the untrained model. The medical criteria are not to blame. Grouped so that they must hold together, the same criteria, unchanged to the word, recover a third of the loss; shorter answers recover almost none. We therefore propose Protocol-level Rubrics (ProRubric), which keeps what the criteria ask for and changes how they are aggregated. It groups a checklist into a few protocol-level dimensions. A dimension counts only when all of its criteria hold and its failure clause does not fire. The grouping is done once, offline, and leaves the optimizer unchanged. ProRubric raises appropriateness by 10.8 points without losing coverage and has the best seven-benchmark average at both scales. Reward validity is set not only by what a rubric verifies, but by how it aggregates. Code is available at https://github.com/Estrellajer/ProRubric

Large language model (LLM) assistants are being deployed to clinicians across health systems, and judgments about their readiness rest largely on benchmark scores, most of them derived from examination questions or curated cases. A benchmark predicts performance in deployment only to the extent that its items resemble real use, yet whether benchmarks reflect the work these systems receive has rarely been measured. Here we analyze 127,833 queries sent by 6,342 physicians, advanced practice providers and nurses in 35 specialties to an institutional assistant during an eight-month roll-out. We characterize each query with RCQ-Map, a clinician-validated framework grounded in taxonomies of clinical questions and of LLM evaluation, which records its task, intent, answerability, missing information and potential harm. Documentation and administration (36.2%) and knowledge retrieval (28.9%) made up nearly two-thirds of use, and diagnosis 3.7%; more than a third of queries could not be answered well as posed. Applying RCQ-Map to 58 public benchmarks drawn from major evaluation suites and frontier model reports, which we assemble into the Clinical AI Benchmark Atlas, showed that the median benchmark contained no documentation requests and shared 31% of the task mix of real use, less than an even spread across task categories would. Benchmarks in suites designed to resemble clinical practice were individually no closer to real use than those used in frontier model reports. Benchmark scores therefore say little about how clinical AI performs on most of the work it is actually given, and evaluation should be matched to real clinical use.

Thousands of diverse benchmarks have been developed to measure the quality of large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work has demonstrated that LLM performance is often sufficiently explained by a small set of latent factors, or abilities. This suggests the potential for more efficient and principled benchmarking, but it remains difficult to compare the quality of different methods. Motivated by predictive validity, we argue that the quality of a benchmarking framework should be grounded in how efficiently it enables the prediction of model performance on unseen tasks. To analyze this objective, we collect the "Wide-scale Item Level Dataset" (WILD), a dataset of item-model response pairs, comprising evaluations of 65 models on 109,564 unique items spanning 163 tasks drawn from 27 datasets. This dataset enables the first analysis of how different techniques can predict a model's performance on a large, diverse collection of unseen tasks under different budget constraints. We demonstrate that combining a modified multidimensional item response theory (IRT) model with adaptive item selection driven by optimal experimental design can predict performance on 112 held-out benchmark tasks with a mean absolute error (MAE) of less than 7%, and can do so after observing only 16 items. We further demonstrate that incorporating cost-aware discount factors into our selection criteria can reduce the total tokens needed to reach 7% MAE from 141,000 tokens to only 22,000, an 85% reduction in evaluation cost.

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

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation (N=100,000 iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score (E[S_m]), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity (T_k), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

Deep research (DR) agents address open-ended information needs through multi-step reasoning, long-horizon web search, and evidence synthesis. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on academic research or synthetic tasks, leaving DR agents' capabilities in real-world life and professional productivity settings insufficiently evaluated. To bridge this gap, we introduce LifeSearch, a challenging benchmark comprising 203 Chinese and English tasks derived from real-user query seeds across 7 concrete life and productivity domains. With more than 4,500 hours of human annotation, we construct over 4,000 expert-written, fine-grained rubrics, covering both report-content criteria for coverage and accuracy and concrete criteria specifying values, units, dates, and URLs. We conduct extensive experiments on 12 advanced DR agents under a unified evaluation harness, systematically analyzing their performance patterns and failure modes. We find that even the best-performing frontier agent, GPT-5.6 Sol, achieves a score of only 63.4%, leaving substantial room for improvement on realistic life and professional DR tasks. We select the grading configuration by comparing candidate LLM judges against human rubric labels, and a human ranking study shows strong alignment between aggregate benchmark scores and human judgments (Spearman's ρ= 0.89, Kendall's τ= 0.81). LifeSearch provides a rigorous evaluation framework and foundation for advancing DR agents toward real-world life and productivity.

Comprehensively understanding and accurately predicting the performance of large language models across diverse downstream tasks has emerged as a pivotal challenge in NLP research. The pioneering scaling law on downstream works demonstrated intrinsic similarities within model families and utilized such similarities for performance prediction. However, they tend to overlook the similarities between model families and only consider design factors listed in the original scaling law. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel framework, Collaborative Performance Prediction (CPP), which significantly enhances prediction accuracy by leveraging the historical performance of various models on downstream tasks and other design factors for both model and task. We also collect a collaborative data sourced from online platforms containing both historical performance and additional design factors. With the support of the collaborative data, CPP not only surpasses traditional scaling laws in predicting the performance of scaled LLMs but also facilitates a detailed analysis of factor importance, an area previously overlooked.

We introduce the Agent GPA (Goal-Plan-Action) framework: an evaluation paradigm based on an agent's operational loop of setting goals, devising plans, and executing actions. The framework includes five evaluation metrics: Goal Fulfillment, Logical Consistency, Execution Efficiency, Plan Quality, and Plan Adherence. Logical Consistency checks that an agent's actions are consistent with its prior actions. Execution Efficiency checks whether the agent executes in the most efficient way to achieve its goal. Plan Quality checks whether an agent's plans are aligned with its goals; Plan Adherence checks if an agent's actions are aligned with its plan; and Goal Fulfillment checks that agent's final outcomes match the stated goals. Our experimental results on two benchmark datasets - the public TRAIL/GAIA dataset and an internal dataset for a production-grade data agent - show that this framework (a) provides a systematic way to cover a broad range of agent failures, including all agent errors on the TRAIL/GAIA benchmark dataset; (b) supports LLM-judges that exhibit strong agreement with human annotation, covering 80% to over 95% errors; and (c) localizes errors with 86% agreement to enable targeted improvement of agent performance.

Relevance and fairness are two major objectives of recommender systems (RSs). Recent work proposes measures of RS fairness that are either independent from relevance (fairness-only) or conditioned on relevance (joint measures). While fairness-only measures have been studied extensively, we look into whether joint measures can be trusted. We collect all joint evaluation measures of RS relevance and fairness, and ask: How much do they agree with each other? To what extent do they agree with relevance/fairness measures? How sensitive are they to changes in rank position, or to increasingly fair and relevant recommendations? We empirically study for the first time the behaviour of these measures across 4 real-world datasets and 4 recommenders. We find that most of these measures: i) correlate weakly with one another and even contradict each other at times; ii) are less sensitive to rank position changes than relevance- and fairness-only measures, meaning that they are less granular than traditional RS measures; and iii) tend to compress scores at the low end of their range, meaning that they are not very expressive. We counter the above limitations with a set of guidelines on the appropriate usage of such measures, i.e., they should be used with caution due to their tendency to contradict each other and of having a very small empirical range.

Many peer-review venues are using algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score" -- a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper -- and many algorithms have been proposed to compute these scores. However, these algorithms have not been subjected to a principled comparison, making it difficult for stakeholders to choose the algorithm in an evidence-based manner. The key challenge in comparing existing algorithms and developing better algorithms is the lack of publicly available gold-standard data. We address this challenge by collecting a novel dataset of similarity scores that we release to the research community. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers who evaluated their expertise in reviewing papers they have read previously. Using our dataset, we compare several widely used similarity algorithms and offer key insights. First, all algorithms exhibit significant error, with misranking rates between 12%-30% in easier cases and 36%-43% in harder ones. Second, most specialized algorithms are designed to work with titles and abstracts of papers, and in this regime the SPECTER2 algorithm performs best. Interestingly, classical TF-IDF matches SPECTER2 in accuracy when given access to full submission texts. In contrast, off-the-shelf LLMs lag behind specialized approaches.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has made post-training highly effective when correctness can be checked automatically. However, many important model behaviors require satisfying several qualitative criteria at once. Rubric-based rewards address this setting by grading prompt-specific criteria and aggregating them into a scalar reward. Yet standard static aggregations conflate a criterion's human-assigned importance with its current usefulness as an optimization signal. We show that this assumption breaks down in rubric RL: many important criteria are already saturated or currently unreachable, while criteria that distinguish rollouts are not necessarily those with the largest human weights. We introduce POW3R, a policy-aware rubric reward framework that preserves human weights and category balance as the rubric objective while adapting criterion-level reward weights during training. POW3R uses rollout-level contrast to emphasize criteria that currently separate the policy's outputs, making the GRPO reward more informative without changing the underlying evaluation target. Across three base policies on two datasets spanning multimodal and text-only settings, POW3R wins 24 of 30 base-policy/metric comparisons, improving both mean rubric reward and strict completion (the fraction of prompts whose response satisfies every required rubric criterion) over vanilla GRPO with rubric rewards, and reaches the same plateau in 2.5--4times fewer training steps. Rubric rewards should therefore distinguish what should matter in the final answer from what can teach the current policy.

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

Robots that store past experiences must select which one to reuse in a new scene. Most systems select by visual similarity, and most evaluations report only the success of the selected experience. That number does not show whether the selection was good: a rule can score well by repeatedly using one broadly transferable experience, or poorly because its preferred experience is weak. Since robots increasingly adapt by reuse rather than retraining, a score that describes the library rather than the rule misleads what the field builds next. We contribute an audit methodology: execute every stored experience in every query scene, over two manipulation tasks, three reuse mechanisms, and libraries of K=3, 10, and 50. Because every alternative's outcome is known, a score can be traced to per-scene selection or to library quality. The audited rules select by nearest-neighbor distance in five visual embeddings, from raw pixels to CLIP. (1) One fixed experience, chosen with hindsight, captures 30-58% of the gap between random selection and an oracle; per-scene selection competes for the remaining 0.07-0.15 in success rate. (2) At Kge10, visual rules concentrate on one experience 1.5-3 times more than the oracle does, and their scores then follow that experience's quality. (3) Wherever a rule differs significantly from a shuffle that keeps its selection rates but pairs them with scenes at random, the rule is worse, for every learned image policy. (4) Visual distance predicts well whether a given pair will succeed (AUROC up to 0.96), yet ranks the candidates within one scene no better than chance for four of five embeddings at K=50 (AUROC 0.45-0.52). Exhaustive execution is usually infeasible, so the audit reduces to two cheap reports any study can give: the distribution of selected experiences, and the success of the best single experience in hindsight.

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

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

Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.

Research planning is the decisive capability of AI scientists. Yet a research plan admits no verifiable answer, so reinforcement learning lacks the environment it requires: tasks paired with a critic. Rubrics extracted from scientific papers can supply the critic. Existing pipelines, however, draw the question and the criteria from the same content, so the reward can be earned by paraphrase. The rubric is further compressed into a single scalar per rollout. We introduce PaperGym, a unified framework that turns each research paper into a complete training environment. PaperGym exploits the structure of a paper: the question is synthesized from the research goal and background, while the criteria are derived from the method and experiments. The criteria span methodological innovation and experimental design, and criterion leakage falls to 3.7%, versus 11.90% to 34.10% in existing datasets. Training uses the rubric twice: first as privileged context for OPSD's self-teacher, then as the reward for GRPO. Across Qwen3-1.7B/4B/8B, this schedule outperforms supervised fine-tuning, either stage alone, and the reverse ordering, improving five-benchmark averages by +5.6, +5.0, and +4.8 points. With the recipe held fixed, models trained on PaperGym-20k win 58.1% of three-way comparisons, against 28.2% for RubricHub Science. The trained Qwen3-8B reaches 73.48 on ResearchQA, above the far larger Kimi K2.6. We release the pipeline, the 20,000-instance corpus PaperGym-20k, and the benchmarks PaperGym-Innov and PaperGym-Design.

We propose Fuzzy Group Relative Policy Reward (FGRPR), a novel framework that integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a fuzzy reward function to enhance learning efficiency. Unlike the conventional binary 0/1 accuracy reward, our fuzzy reward model provides nuanced incentives, encouraging more precise outputs. Experimental results demonstrate that GRPO with a standard 0/1 accuracy reward underperforms compared to supervised fine-tuning (SFT). In contrast, FGRPR, applied to Qwen2.5-VL(3B and 7B), surpasses all baseline models, including GPT4o, LLaMA2(90B), and SFT, across five in-domain datasets. On an out-of-domain dataset, FGRPR achieves performance comparable to SFT but excels when target values are larger, as its fuzzy reward function assigns higher rewards to closer approximations. This approach is broadly applicable to tasks where the precision of the answer is critical. Code and data: https://github.com/yeyimilk/CrowdVLM-R1

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) relies on evaluation feedback to assess progress and guide further research, yet repeatedly running complex benchmarks is costly and slows iteration. Human experts reduce this cost by selecting benchmark subsets or designing compact suites. We ask whether AI agents can automate this design process and introduce EvalResearchBench (ERB), a benchmark for autonomous evaluation research. Given target materials, development references, candidate APIs, and fixed time and API budgets, an agent called the researcher selects or synthesizes tasks, implements graders, and revises them in pilot tests before freezing an executable evaluator for coding, co-work, and reasoning. We study 9 researchers and 13 candidate models and compare each frozen evaluator with 14 target benchmarks on score concordance and pairwise agreement. The best evaluators order about 75\% of candidate pairs as the targets do, below the 91\% ceiling set by disagreements among the targets. No researcher leads on every metric, and the best evaluator on development targets is not the best on sealed targets hidden from the researcher. A human-designed sample of public tasks remains a strong baseline, and the evaluator with the lowest recorded execution cost attains the highest pairwise agreement. Agents repair tasks and graders through pilot feedback, yet their evaluators can still truncate answers, exhaust the evaluation budget, or let a few questions dominate a domain score.

With the recent development of large language models (LLMs), models that focus on certain domains and languages have been discussed for their necessity. There is also a growing need for benchmarks to evaluate the performance of current LLMs in each domain. Therefore, in this study, we constructed a benchmark comprising multiple tasks specific to the Japanese and financial domains and performed benchmark measurements on some models. Consequently, we confirmed that GPT-4 is currently outstanding, and that the constructed benchmarks function effectively. According to our analysis, our benchmark can differentiate benchmark scores among models in all performance ranges by combining tasks with different difficulties.

We consider strategy proof mechanisms for facility location which maximize equitability between agents. As is common in the literature, we measure equitability with the Gini index. We first prove a simple but fundamental impossibility result that no strategy proof mechanism can bound the approximation ratio of the optimal Gini index of utilities for one or more facilities. We propose instead computing approximation ratios of the complemented Gini index of utilities, and consider how well both deterministic and randomized mechanisms approximate this. In addition, as Nash welfare is often put forwards as an equitable compromise between egalitarian and utilitarian outcomes, we consider how well mechanisms approximate the Nash welfare.

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench Verified uses insufficient test cases, while TAU-bench counts empty responses as successful. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces the performance overestimation by 33%.

Individual user fairness is commonly understood as treating similar users similarly. In Recommender Systems (RSs), several evaluation measures exist for quantifying individual user fairness. These measures evaluate fairness via either: (i) the disparity in RS effectiveness scores regardless of user similarity, or (ii) the disparity in items recommended to similar users regardless of item relevance. Both disparity in recommendation effectiveness and user similarity are very important in fairness, yet no existing individual user fairness measure simultaneously accounts for both. In brief, current user fairness evaluation measures implement a largely incomplete definition of fairness. To fill this gap, we present Pairwise User unFairness (PUF), a novel evaluation measure of individual user fairness that considers both effectiveness disparity and user similarity. PUF is the only measure that can express this important distinction. We empirically validate that PUF does this consistently across 4 datasets and 7 rankers, and robustly when varying user similarity or effectiveness. In contrast, all other measures are either almost insensitive to effectiveness disparity or completely insensitive to user similarity. We contribute the first RS evaluation measure to reliably capture both user similarity and effectiveness in individual user fairness. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/PUF-individual-user-fairness-recsys.

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

Methodological progress in artificial intelligence (AI) for electronic health records (EHRs) depends on our ability to determine which algorithms work better, and under which conditions. However, such progress is thought to be hindered by difficulties in reproducibility and in defining clinically meaningful evaluation tasks. We empirically study these barriers by re-implementing 12 historical and recent algorithms within a shared evaluation framework and evaluating them on two clinical datasets, MIMIC-IV and NWICU. We compare two complementary task families: expert-authored clinically meaningful tasks and generated tasks defined from randomly sampled event codes and prediction horizons. We ask whether relative algorithms comparisons transfer across task families and datasets, whether residual task heterogeneity contains useful methodological structure, and what a controlled comparison reveals about progress over the last decade. We find that aggregate pairwise comparisons transfer strongly across evaluation settings, including from randomly generated tasks to clinically meaningful tasks and across datasets. At the same time, clinically meaningful tasks exhibit greater task-method interaction, providing preliminary evidence that task properties can help explain when particular modeling choices are advantageous. Finally, newer algorithms do not consistently outperform earlier approaches: gradient-boosted trees remain highly competitive when paired with a modern, wide and sparse representation of the EHR. Together, these results suggest that useful methodological knowledge may require less task engineering than commonly assumed, while highlighting the importance of understanding the structured heterogeneity that remains across tasks and methods.

Large language model (LLM) judges are often used as rewards to train policies on objectives that deterministic verifiers cannot capture. However, these rewards are often collapsed to pass/fail ({0, 1}), which reports the verdict but not how well a response met each criterion. We model each pass/fail verdict as a score on an unreported scale, compared with one cutoff. A stretch of that scale moves every score proportionally toward or away from the cutoff, but never across it, so no verdict changes. A policy is therefore free to apply any stretch without changing anything the panel reports. Under a joint-Gaussian model, a third grade adds a second threshold and removes this affine stretch ambiguity. On MATH and SciBench outputs from one seven-criterion judge, all 14 constructed criterionwise stretches were invisible after binarization but visible with three grades. At n=1{,}024, a test given both population laws had at least 96.5% power at a 1.5times stress. Retaining grades closes one blind spot created by binarization, but verdicts alone remain insufficient as some changes are still indistinguishable from genuine improvement. These include arbitrary within-grade changes and fixed-covariance, loading-aligned mean shifts -- the signature of a sycophancy-shaped lift the panel reads as competence. The shared-factor reference approximation fit MATH and SciBench but not HealthBench, delineating its empirical scope. We recommend keeping at least three grades (for example, asking the judge whether each criterion is fully, partially, or not met and rewarding {0, 0.5, 1}), and externally validating gains along the remaining direction, which no finer scale removes.

Frontier model progress is often measured by academic benchmarks, which offer a limited view of performance in real-world professional contexts. Existing evaluations often fail to assess open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes domains like Legal and Finance, where practical returns are paramount. To address this, we introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it, to our knowledge, the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed tasks inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Our analysis shows that models with similar overall scores can diverge significantly on specific capabilities. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.

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

A paraphrase-quality audit of MathCheck (ICLR 2025) detected 4 semantically incorrect paraphrases in 129 groups (3.1%); removing them drops GPT-4o from rank 2 to rank 4 and elevates Claude Haiku and DeepSeek V3 above it; these ranking changes are invisible to any single-model evaluation. Cross-model unanimity found these errors automatically (>= 3/4 models for MathCheck; >= 6/9 for our primary evaluation) for under $10; in our own dataset the same protocol found that 47% of auto-generated connective-variation paraphrases were semantically incorrect. That flaw compounds a deeper measurement gap: Claude Haiku 4.5 achieves 86% accuracy yet SCR=50%, meaning half its theorems are answered differently under semantically equivalent restatements, while aggregate accuracy across 9 models spans only 86-96% yet Semantic Consistency Rates (SCR) span 50-82% -- a 32-point gap invisible to standard benchmarks. Formally, for any target ranking over 9 frontier models there exists a weighting over paraphrase families that realizes it (No-Free-Benchmark corollary), because no model Pareto-dominates all families -- so benchmark designers who select families are implicitly choosing which model wins. FormInv supplies the audit protocol (replicated on external benchmarks at 100% recall), SCR and per-theorem Cochran's Q as primary invariance measures evaluated on 9 models across 366-811 items (on Lean4-verified theorems), and FormInvSelector for regime-aware model selection.

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.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

Existing long-horizon agent benchmarks often emphasize final task success while providing limited assessment of intermediate execution validity. Yet real-world business operations require agents to navigate extensive, potentially outdated or conflicting policies while satisfying critical constraints throughout execution. These requirements are particularly consequential in high-stakes domains such as payments, where intermediate violations can incur financial losses or regulatory consequences regardless of the final outcome. To bridge this evaluation gap, we introduce BizBench, a multi-turn benchmark grounded in real-world procedures from a leading payments company. Its executable environment integrates 789 knowledge documents and 601 discoverable business tools, with consistent policies, states, and tool behavior. The benchmark comprises 50 tasks involving resource constraints, temporal dependencies, prior commitments, and conflicting or outdated guidance. Each task is validated through reference execution, while deterministic checks assess both goal attainment and execution validity without prescribing a single solution path. Experiments reveal substantial limitations even among frontier models: Claude Opus 5 and GPT-6 Sol achieve strict success rates of only 64.0% and 61.3%, respectively. For Qwen3.8-27B, goal attainment reaches 42.0%, but strict success drops to 32.7%, demonstrating how outcome-based evaluation can mask invalid execution. Beyond success rates, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash averages 191.3 tool calls per run, approximately 70% more than reference executions, revealing substantial execution overhead. Overall, BizBench establishes a testbed for evaluating and advancing long-horizon agents beyond task completion, toward reliable and constraint-compliant execution in complex business environments.

Existing benchmarks have proven effective for assessing the performance of fully trained large language models. However, we find striking differences in the early training stages of small models, where benchmarks often fail to provide meaningful or discriminative signals. To explore how these differences arise, this competition tackles the challenge of designing scientific knowledge evaluation tasks specifically tailored for measuring early training progress of language models. Participants are invited to develop novel evaluation methodologies or adapt existing benchmarks to better capture performance differences among language models. To support this effort, we provide three pre-trained small models (0.5B, 1B, and 3B parameters), along with intermediate checkpoints sampled during training up to 200B tokens. All experiments and development work can be run on widely available free cloud-based GPU platforms, making participation accessible to researchers with limited computational resources. Submissions will be evaluated based on three criteria: the quality of the performance signal they produce, the consistency of model rankings at 1 trillion tokens of training, and their relevance to the scientific knowledge domain. By promoting the design of tailored evaluation strategies for early training, this competition aims to attract a broad range of participants from various disciplines, including those who may not be machine learning experts or have access to dedicated GPU resources. Ultimately, this initiative seeks to make foundational LLM research more systematic and benchmark-informed from the earliest phases of model development.

The effectiveness of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) depends on preference data that reflect the quality differences that matter in multimodal tasks. Existing pipelines often rely on off-policy perturbations or coarse outcome-based signals, which are not well suited to fine-grained visual reasoning. We propose rDPO, a preference optimization framework based on instance-specific rubrics. For each image-instruction pair, we create a checklist-style rubric of essential and additional criteria to score responses from any possible policies. The instruction-rubric pool is built offline and reused during the construction of on-policy data. On public reward modeling benchmarks, rubric-based prompting massively improves a 30B-A3B judge and brings it close to GPT-5.4. On public downstream benchmarks, rubric-based filtering raises the macro average to 82.69, whereas outcome-based filtering drops it to 75.82 from 81.14. When evaluating scalability on a comprehensive benchmark, rDPO achieves 61.01, markedly outperforming the style-constrained baseline (52.36) and surpassing the 59.48 base model. Together, these results show that visual preference optimization benefits from combining on-policy data construction with instance-specific criterion-level feedback.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

We present ORQA, a method for testing occupation-level knowledge in large language models. Prior methods either map abstract LLM skills to occupations via task definitions or utilize expert knowledge which is difficult to obtain at scale and expensive. ORQA complements both of these methods by connecting O*NET occupations to trusted occupation-specific websites (such as regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, professional organizations, and government publications) and converting these into source-traceable question-answer pairs. A combination of an automated pipeline and human review produces a set of high quality questions about occupations. The question set created via our method covers 116 occupations from all 21 major groups in the SOC, with 480 questions sourced from 187 different websites. Each question is designed to probe a real-world skill question that is relevant to the occupation in question. We test 15 state-of-the-art frontier and open-weight models via this method. Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 all perform the best at approximately 58-62% while smaller open-weight models achieve approximately 33-41% performance. Performance varies significantly across occupations. Healthcare-related occupations achieve the highest performance (78%) while Office and Administrative Support achieve approximately 40%. Performance on individual occupations (e.g. Sheet Metal Workers and Fish and Game Wardens) is essentially zero. We also find that open-ended questions and weighting by wage bill do not significantly affect the ranking of models on this benchmark. We believe that leveraging existing trusted occupation-specific information to test LLM knowledge in professional domains may be a scalable and useful method for evaluating occupation-level AI performance in the future. Results and data are available at orqabench.org.

Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub criteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears dependent on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined a priori), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.

We present EBench, a simulation benchmark that diagnoses generalist mobile manipulation policies beyond a single success-rate scalar. EBench comprises 26 diverse and challenging manipulation tasks annotated along 5 capability dimensions and 4 generalization dimensions. We evaluate state-of-the-art generalist manipulation models including π_0, π_{0.5}, XVLA, and InternVLA-A1, and reveal that models with near success rates exhibit strikingly different capability profiles: π_{0.5} achieves the highest test success rate and the best train--test retention, whereas InternVLA-A1 dominates mobile manipulation but collapses on dexterous tasks, and XVLA exhibits strengths on a disjoint set of atomic skills compared to other policies. Beyond capability profiling, EBench analyzes the generalization ability from 4 representative perspectives, identifying the impact of different distribution shift factors. The results reveal strengths and weaknesses of models behind an overall score. We hope this benchmark offers a broad set of diagnostic signals to guide iteration on generalist manipulation models.

Language model (LM) benchmarking faces several challenges: comprehensive evaluations are costly, benchmarks often fail to measure the intended capabilities, and evaluation quality can degrade due to labeling errors and benchmark saturation. Although various strategies have been proposed to mitigate these issues, they tend to address individual aspects in isolation, neglecting broader questions about overall evaluation quality. Here, we introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions. Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level, suggesting that evaluation should adapt to each LM. Methodologically, Fluid Benchmarking estimates an item response model based on existing LM evaluation results and uses the inferred quantities to select evaluation items dynamically, similar to computerized adaptive testing in education. In our experiments, we compare Fluid Benchmarking against the common practice of random item sampling as well as more sophisticated baselines, including alternative methods grounded in item response theory. We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them (e.g., higher validity and less variance on MMLU with fifty times fewer items). Our analysis shows that the two components of Fluid Benchmarking have distinct effects: item response theory, used to map performance into a latent ability space, increases validity, while dynamic item selection reduces variance. Overall, our results suggest that LM benchmarking can be substantially improved by moving beyond static evaluation.

We introduce MetroLLM-Bench, a 955-case benchmark for testing language models as the policy layer of a transit kiosk. It covers six real metro systems, ranging from 37 to 414 stations, and eleven categories that include routing, fare calculation, disruptions, accessibility, and adversarial input. In each case, the model must call structured tools and submit a machine-renderable terminal state containing an outcome, a per-ticket fare quote when applicable, and a kiosk action. Fourteen deterministic scoring components form Tier 1; eight semantic-quality components form Tier 2, six of which use a language-model judge. We report Tier 1 and the combined score of both tiers. A stratified 75/25 split reserves 717 cases for training-data generation and 238 for held-out evaluation. We evaluate twenty-six models from six vendors, of which twenty-three are ranked. On the held-out partition, a 4B Qwen 3.5 student trained through parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) exceeds both GPT-5.6 tiers on Tier 1 (91.3 against 90.6 and 90.0) and matches GPT-5.4 full at maximum reasoning effort (91.4), with a 2.6 GB Q4_K_M footprint. Larger 9B and 27B students provide no further Tier 1 improvement over the 4B student at this training scale. Across the four Qwen sizes, the PEFT gain over the corresponding base model decreases from +7.03 points at 2B (three training seeds) to -0.91 at 27B; every seed shows the same direction at every size. A deterministic rule-based baseline reaches 84.6 on Tier 1, with the remaining language-model advantage concentrated in policy adaptation, compound scenarios, accessibility, and temporal reasoning. Muse Glimmer 30B leads the composite ranking, and serving configuration alone moves the Qwen 3.5-to-3.8 comparison by 2.7 Tier 1 points. The benchmark, harness, reproduction guide, and fine-tuned students are released at https://github.com/continker/metrollm-bench.

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.

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

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

This study evaluates Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents for Dhumbal, a culturally significant multiplayer card game with imperfect information, through a systematic comparison of rule-based, search-based, and learning-based strategies. We formalize Dhumbal's mechanics and implement diverse agents, including heuristic approaches (Aggressive, Conservative, Balanced, Opportunistic), search-based methods such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) and Information Set Monte Carlo Tree Search (ISMCTS), and reinforcement learning approaches including Deep Q-Network (DQN) and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), and a random baseline. Evaluation involves within-category tournaments followed by a cross-category championship. Performance is measured via win rate, economic outcome, Jhyap success, cards discarded per round, risk assessment, and decision efficiency. Statistical significance is assessed using Welch's t-test with Bonferroni correction, effect sizes via Cohen's d, and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Across 1024 simulated rounds, the rule-based Aggressive agent achieves the highest win rate (88.3%, 95% CI: [86.3, 90.3]), outperforming ISMCTS (9.0%) and PPO (1.5%) through effective exploitation of Jhyap declarations. The study contributes a reproducible AI framework, insights into heuristic efficacy under partial information, and open-source code, thereby advancing AI research and supporting digital preservation of cultural games.

Transfer learning is crucial for medical imaging, yet the selection of source datasets - which can impact the generalizability of algorithms, and thus patient outcomes - often relies on researchers' intuition rather than systematic principles. This study investigates these decisions through a task-based survey with machine learning practitioners. Unlike prior work that benchmarks models and experimental setups, we take a human-centered HCI perspective on how practitioners select source datasets. Our findings indicate that choices are task-dependent and influenced by community practices, dataset properties, and computational (data embedding), or perceived visual or semantic similarity. However, similarity ratings and expected performance are not always aligned, challenging a traditional "more similar is better" view. Participants often used ambiguous terminology, which suggests a need for clearer definitions and HCI tools to make them explicit and usable. By clarifying these heuristics, this work provides practical insights for more systematic source selection in transfer learning.

On-premise assistants can give factory workers conversational access to machine documentation, but models capable of the task rarely fit shop-floor hardware. We show that after structural compression and retrieval-grounded adaptation, model size is no longer a reliable predictor of adapted answer quality: general capability falls almost linearly with parameter count, while judged retrieval-augmented answer quality does not. We therefore treat deployment as a post-adaptation selection problem, committing one sub-network per device on judged answer quality and measured on-device throughput under a configurable general-capability floor and memory budget; rules that optimize size, speed, or quality alone each give up capability or throughput. A weight-shared supernetwork trained with sandwich-style in-place distillation keeps this selection inexpensive. In a manufacturing-manual case study, extraction costs 13.7 percent of the unpruned model's judged quality and retrieval-grounded distillation returns it to within 4.6 percent, recovering two thirds of the loss, and the same assistant runs across three heterogeneous edge tiers at 1.3 to 5 watts standby.

Financial-research answers are decision-relevant only when another analyst can audit how they were produced: which source was chosen, which period and accounting definition were used, which assumptions were made, and how the calculation was performed. Existing finance benchmarks largely evaluate isolated subskills or final answers, leaving the auditable derivation itself under-measured. We introduce BigFinanceBench, a 928-item expert-authored benchmark of open-ended financial-research tasks in which each item pairs a ground-truth reference answer with a point-weighted rubric that decomposes the derivation into independently checkable steps. BigFinanceBench is workflow-grounded in that it evaluates the full derivation rather than only the final output. Across 36,241 rubric points, the benchmark supports partial-credit evaluation and localization of failures across the analyst workflow. Evaluating ten current frontier and open-weight agents, we find substantial headroom: the best system reaches only 58.8% rubric score, final-answer accuracy is a useful but lossy proxy for derivation quality, and model capability varies non-uniformly across financial workflows.

Neural information retrieval (IR) systems have progressed rapidly in recent years, in large part due to the release of publicly available benchmarking tasks. Unfortunately, some dimensions of this progress are illusory: the majority of the popular IR benchmarks today focus exclusively on downstream task accuracy and thus conceal the costs incurred by systems that trade away efficiency for quality. Latency, hardware cost, and other efficiency considerations are paramount to the deployment of IR systems in user-facing settings. We propose that IR benchmarks structure their evaluation methodology to include not only metrics of accuracy, but also efficiency considerations such as a query latency and the corresponding cost budget for a reproducible hardware setting. For the popular IR benchmarks MS MARCO and XOR-TyDi, we show how the best choice of IR system varies according to how these efficiency considerations are chosen and weighed. We hope that future benchmarks will adopt these guidelines toward more holistic IR evaluation.

Recruitment applications span diverse operations, from drafting job descriptions and interpreting queries to organizing profiles, assessing fit, and recommending candidates and jobs. Systematic LLM evaluation therefore requires task coverage that reflects this range of business needs. We introduce EHR-Bench, an open Chinese benchmark comprising twelve tasks across six capability families and five recruitment scenarios. The tasks cover generation, extraction, classification, retrieval, semantic similarity, and reciprocal ranking within one evaluation framework. An internal recruitment dataset guides task definitions, the occupation taxonomy and sampling targets, output requirements, and scoring protocols. Following these specifications, we construct 8,336 task instances from public materials and controlled augmentation, with source-aware expert review and documented provenance. We evaluate twelve LLMs through task-level, capability-level, and aggregate comparisons. Closely ranked models exhibit distinct task strengths, and performance varies across input sources, reference evidence, and candidate pools. Five shared models retain the same observed Overall ordering on a private operational reference, with variation in capability and task correspondence. EHR-Bench provides a reproducible foundation for systematic model assessment, task-specific model selection, and further research on LLMs for recruitment. The project repository is available at https://github.com/EhrBench/EHR-Bench.

The effectiveness of recommendation systems is pivotal to user engagement and satisfaction in online platforms. As these recommendation systems increasingly influence user choices, their evaluation transcends mere technical performance and becomes central to business success. This paper addresses the multifaceted nature of recommendations system evaluation by introducing a comprehensive suite of metrics, each tailored to capture a distinct aspect of system performance. We discuss * Similarity Metrics: to quantify the precision of content-based filtering mechanisms and assess the accuracy of collaborative filtering techniques. * Candidate Generation Metrics: to evaluate how effectively the system identifies a broad yet relevant range of items. * Predictive Metrics: to assess the accuracy of forecasted user preferences. * Ranking Metrics: to evaluate the effectiveness of the order in which recommendations are presented. * Business Metrics: to align the performance of the recommendation system with economic objectives. Our approach emphasizes the contextual application of these metrics and their interdependencies. In this paper, we identify the strengths and limitations of current evaluation practices and highlight the nuanced trade-offs that emerge when optimizing recommendation systems across different metrics. The paper concludes by proposing a framework for selecting and interpreting these metrics to not only improve system performance but also to advance business goals. This work is to aid researchers and practitioners in critically assessing recommendation systems and fosters the development of more nuanced, effective, and economically viable personalization strategies. Our code is available at GitHub - https://github.com/aryan-jadon/Evaluation-Metrics-for-Recommendation-Systems.

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

The procure to pay process (P2P) in large enterprises is a back-end business process which deals with the procurement of products and services for enterprise operations. Procurement is done by issuing purchase orders to impaneled vendors and invoices submitted by vendors are paid after they go through a rigorous validation process. Agents orchestrating P2P process often encounter the problem of matching a product or service descriptions in the invoice to those in purchase order and verify if the ordered items are what have been supplied or serviced. For example, the description in the invoice and purchase order could be TRES 739mL CD KER Smooth and TRES 0.739L CD KER Smth which look different at word level but refer to the same item. In a typical P2P process, agents are asked to manually select the products which are similar before invoices are posted for payment. This step in the business process is manual, repetitive, cumbersome, and costly. Since descriptions are not well-formed sentences, we cannot apply existing semantic and syntactic text similarity approaches directly. In this paper, we present two approaches to solve the above problem using various types of available agent's recorded feedback data. If the agent's feedback is in the form of a relative ranking between descriptions, we use similarity ranking algorithm. If the agent's feedback is absolute such as match or no-match, we use classification similarity algorithm. We also present the threats to the validity of our approach and present a possible remedy making use of product taxonomy and catalog. We showcase the comparative effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed approaches over many benchmarks and real-world data sets.

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

As the focus in LLM-based coding shifts from static single-step code generation to multi-step agentic interaction with tools and environments, understanding which tasks will challenge agents and why becomes increasingly difficult. This is compounded by current practice: agent performance is typically measured by aggregate pass rates on benchmarks, but single-number metrics obscure the diversity of tasks within a benchmark. We present a framework for predicting success or failure on individual tasks tailored to the agentic coding regime. Our approach augments Item Response Theory (IRT) with rich features extracted from tasks, including issue statements, repository contexts, solutions, and test cases, and introduces a novel decomposition of agent ability into LLM and scaffold ability components. This parameterization enables us to aggregate evaluation data across heterogeneous leaderboards and accurately predict task-level performance for unseen benchmarks, as well as unseen LLM-scaffold combinations. Our methods have practical utility for benchmark designers, who can better calibrate the difficulty of their new tasks without running computationally expensive agent evaluations.

Evaluating software agents on a full benchmark is expensive. A small task subset can preserve agent rankings while yielding inaccurate scores. Historical responses provide useful structure, but tasks with identical source responses can have different outcomes for a new target agent. We introduce Hierarchical Score Posterior Recovery (HSPR), which combines source-fitted response factors with uncertain group success rates. Observed target outcomes update the posteriors over the target latent state and group rates; posterior-guided acquisition selects subsequent tasks. Its score-based criterion equals the expected one-step reduction in full-score posterior variance. Observed successes and posterior-predictive counts for unqueried tasks yield a full-score posterior. The final estimate uses its median with source-selected calibration. At a 10% task budget on four task banks from the SWE-bench family, HSPR achieves the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) on three banks and the lowest maximum absolute error (MaxErr) on all four among the methods compared. Removing group uncertainty or replacing adaptive queries increases macro MAE in the respective controls. Macro MAE decreases across 5-20% budgets.

We investigate large language model performance across five orders of magnitude of compute scaling in eleven recent model architectures. We show that average benchmark performance, aggregating over many individual tasks and evaluations as in the commonly-used BIG-Bench dataset, is decently predictable as a function of training compute scale. Specifically, when extrapolating BIG-Bench Hard performance across one order of magnitude in compute, we observe average absolute errors of 6 percentage points (pp). By contrast, extrapolation for individual BIG-Bench tasks across an order of magnitude in compute yields higher average errors of 18pp. Nonetheless, individual task performance remains significantly more predictable than chance. Overall, our work suggests compute scaling provides a promising basis to forecast AI capabilities in diverse benchmarks, though predicting performance in specific tasks poses challenges.

Enterprise adoption of LLMs in agentic workflows is gated by evaluations that span a wide arc of abilities: CRM operations, heterogeneous-document retrieval, personal data understanding, multi-turn planning, tool use, function calling, long-horizon research, and long-context software engineering. These evaluations live today in separate repositories with divergent runners, dependencies, and scoring conventions, which makes cross-benchmark comparison difficult and obscures what a single aggregate number actually represents. We release EGI-BENCH, a unified LLM agent benchmark suite that consolidates eight enterprise facing agent benchmarks (CRMARENA, HERB, PERSONABENCH, USERBENCH, MCP-UNIVERSE, MCPEVAL, BENCHFORCE, LOCOBENCH) behind a single command-line interface with two runtime-budgeted execution modes. On top of the suite we define the Enterprise General Intelligence (EGI) Score, a six-dimensional framework (M1-M6) whose buckets are populated by fine-grained sub-metrics routed from each benchmark rather than by benchmark-level averages. We describe the suite, the sub-metric routing, and the quick/deep budgets, and report results for fourteen frontier and cost-efficient LLMs spanning the GPT, Claude, and Gemini families under quick mode. Top-line EGI ranges from 39.6 (GPT-4o mini) to 65.6 (gpt-5.5), and no single model dominates every capability axis: gpt-5.5 leads task outcome, planning, and retrieval grounding; Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads tool actioning and safety/abstention; and Claude Haiku 4.5 leads engineering quality. Code is available at https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/egi-bench.

Code models are increasingly trained with execution feedback, but most training signals still stop at correctness. This leaves an important gap for systems code: two programs can pass the same tests while differing greatly in runtime. We study how to train code agents to prefer faster correct implementations, rather than treating efficiency only as an evaluation metric. The key difficulty is that runtime is a fragile reward. It is meaningful only after a program is correct, varies across tasks, and gives little guidance when most sampled programs fail to compile or run. We propose RLPF, reinforcement learning from performance feedback, which turns execution outcomes into a staged reward. Failed programs are ordered by execution progress, while correct programs are ranked by their relative improvement from the baseline toward the expert reference. This gives useful feedback before correctness and performance-sensitive feedback after correctness. Fine-tuning Qwen3-32B with RLPF on PerfCodeBench raises correct-and-runnable solutions from 11.1% to 54.6% and improves relative efficiency from 8.1% to 38.6%. The trained model becomes competitive with stronger open-weight systems, and its optimization behavior transfers modestly to EffiBench-X. Additional studies show that model-generated references provide useful but weaker supervision, and that the full composite reward is more reliable than correctness-only or runtime-only baselines. These results suggest that code agents can be trained not only to pass tests, but also to optimize the programs they write.

Production large language-model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed not as lone problem-solvers but as managers: a main model creates specialized subagents, delegates work, and orchestrates their parallel, asynchronous returns through dynamic workflows. Whether one model can actually run such a team is largely unmeasured: existing benchmarks score a policy's own task-solving or a fixed multi-agent system's emergent behavior, but none isolate the management ability of the single LLM acting as leader. We introduce ClawArena-Team, a benchmark of 41 multi-turn, multimodal, multi-directory scenarios spanning 258 evaluation rounds and 72 staged updates that measures this management ability. The main agent is deliberately constrained: it natively perceives only text and directly accesses only part of the workspace. It commands a fixed, locally served subagent pool, so score differences reflect management skill, not raw capability. All scoring is execution-based with no LLM judge: an overall score -- the Subagent-Management Score (SMS) -- multiplies task correctness by a least-privilege and modality-routing factor. Across twelve proprietary, community-hosted, and self-hosted models, experiments show that the management bottleneck is privilege granting rather than perception (no model exceeds 50% workspace-permission precision); that cost and management quality are decoupled (API cost spans over 100 times while the overall score spans under 4 times, with the cheapest open models on the Pareto frontier); and that most leaderboard scores cluster within a 9.9-point band while orchestration behaviors diverge by more than an order of magnitude. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/ClawArena.

Traditionally, data selection has been studied in settings where all samples from prospective sources are fully revealed to a machine learning developer. However, in practical data exchange scenarios, data providers often reveal only a limited subset of samples before an acquisition decision is made. Recently, there have been efforts to fit scaling laws that predict model performance at any size and data source composition using the limited available samples. However, these scaling functions are black-box, computationally expensive to fit, highly susceptible to overfitting, or/and difficult to optimize for data selection. This paper proposes a framework called <projektor>, which predicts model performance and supports data selection decisions based on partial samples of prospective data sources. Our approach distinguishes itself from existing work by introducing a novel *two-stage* performance inference process. In the first stage, we leverage the Optimal Transport distance to predict the model's performance for any data mixture ratio within the range of disclosed data sizes. In the second stage, we extrapolate the performance to larger undisclosed data sizes based on a novel parameter-free mapping technique inspired by neural scaling laws. We further derive an efficient gradient-based method to select data sources based on the projected model performance. Evaluation over a diverse range of applications demonstrates that <projektor> significantly improves existing performance scaling approaches in terms of both the accuracy of performance inference and the computation costs associated with constructing the performance predictor. Also, <projektor> outperforms by a wide margin in data selection effectiveness compared to a range of other off-the-shelf solutions.

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

We introduce DoGBENCH (Documentation Generation Benchmark), to our knowledge, the first benchmark for generating and maintaining real user-facing software documentation. It asks whether an agent can produce documentation that experienced technical writers would accept in review. The benchmark contains 292 items from open source projects, including Helm, PostHog, and Mautic. Each item gives the agent a pre-change repository and a trigger, such as a code pull request or a reported documentation gap. The agent must first decide whether the documentation needs an update. For items that need one, the agent must produce an acceptable patch in one attempt. For items that do not need updates, the agent must abstain. Task-specific rubrics, validated with project maintainers, score each patch on accuracy, completeness, reader guidance, placement, and repository conventions. The composite score combines patch quality with correct abstention, and a score of 100 means an agent meets every requirement for the task. Scores should not be interpreted as a percentage of an expert's capability. We evaluated seven agents. The highest-scoring agent reached 47.3 out of 100 on the 117-item held-out split. In a separate audit of 1,267 patches, the most common failure modes were task-completion gaps (45.5%), technical inaccuracies (36.6%), and incomplete conceptual or reference coverage (32.5%). Analysis of the corresponding trajectories identified three key patterns associated with these failures: (1) describing interfaces without examining how readers use them (36.0%), (2) missing decisive evidence and filling the gaps with plausible assumptions (33.1%), and (3) stopping after finding the first plausible documentation surface and leaving other affected pages stale (30.1%).

Predictable behavior from scaling advanced AI systems is an extremely desirable property. Although a well-established literature exists on how pretraining performance scales, the literature on how particular downstream capabilities scale is significantly muddier. In this work, we take a step back and ask: why has predicting specific downstream capabilities with scale remained elusive? While many factors are certainly responsible, we identify a new factor that makes modeling scaling behavior on widely used multiple-choice question-answering benchmarks challenging. Using five model families and twelve well-established multiple-choice benchmarks, we show that downstream performance is computed from negative log likelihoods via a sequence of transformations that progressively degrade the statistical relationship between performance and scale. We then reveal the mechanism causing this degradation: downstream metrics require comparing the correct choice against a small number of specific incorrect choices, meaning accurately predicting downstream capabilities requires predicting not just how probability mass concentrates on the correct choice with scale, but also how probability mass fluctuates on specific incorrect choices with scale. We empirically study how probability mass on the correct choice co-varies with probability mass on incorrect choices with increasing compute, suggesting that scaling laws for incorrect choices might be achievable. Our work also explains why pretraining scaling laws are commonly regarded as more predictable than downstream capabilities and contributes towards establishing scaling-predictable evaluations of frontier AI models.

As LLM-based agents are deployed in complex, multi-step workflows, a critical evaluation gap has emerged: most existing benchmarks judge only final outcomes, unable to distinguish reliable reasoning from lucky success or attribute failures to specific process deficiencies, hindering attribution in long-horizon tasks. In this work, we present ClawTrack, a dual-assessment benchmark that simultaneously measures what an agent achieves (Task Score) and how it achieves it (Process Score). ClawTrack comprises 320 tasks across 8 domains with 25+ deterministic mock services. A Process Grader scores each reasoning turn along four dimensions (goal alignment, efficiency, information utilization, and result verification), anchored by 12,541 task-specific rubric items. Evaluating 21 models over 16,000+ trials, we find that: (1) process scores effectively attribute success and failure to specific reasoning dimensions, filtering lucky passes invisible to outcome-only evaluation; (2) the four dimensions are complementary, with result verification as the systematic bottleneck; (3) the framework is robust to evaluator choice across different judge LLMs; and (4) process-based trajectory filtering yields consistent post-training improvements across model scales.

The past two decades have witnessed the rapid development of personalized recommendation techniques. Despite significant progress made in both research and practice of recommender systems, to date, there is a lack of a widely-recognized benchmarking standard in this field. Many existing studies perform model evaluations and comparisons in an ad-hoc manner, for example, by employing their own private data splits or using different experimental settings. Such conventions not only increase the difficulty in reproducing existing studies, but also lead to inconsistent experimental results among them. This largely limits the credibility and practical value of research results in this field. To tackle these issues, we present an initiative project (namely BARS) aiming for open benchmarking for recommender systems. In comparison to some earlier attempts towards this goal, we take a further step by setting up a standardized benchmarking pipeline for reproducible research, which integrates all the details about datasets, source code, hyper-parameter settings, running logs, and evaluation results. The benchmark is designed with comprehensiveness and sustainability in mind. It covers both matching and ranking tasks, and also enables researchers to easily follow and contribute to the research in this field. This project will not only reduce the redundant efforts of researchers to re-implement or re-run existing baselines, but also drive more solid and reproducible research on recommender systems. We would like to call upon everyone to use the BARS benchmark for future evaluation, and contribute to the project through the portal at: https://openbenchmark.github.io/BARS.

Machine learning-based Type 2 diabetes risk prediction models obtain good internal validation results but lose effectiveness in real-world applications due to deficient external testing and fairness assessment. We developed a multi-dimensional framework evaluating discrimination, calibration, interpretability, and algorithmic fairness on nationally representative populations. An XGBoost model was trained on NHANES 2015-2020 (n=15,685) using eight non-laboratory predictors: age, sex, race/ethnicity, BMI, smoking status, physical activity, history of heart attack, and history of stroke. External validation was performed on BRFSS 2020-2022 (n=1,285,783) under realistic distribution shift. Internal validation showed good discrimination (AUC=0.794, 95% CI 0.788-0.800), with performance loss on external validation (AUC=0.717, relative decrease: -9.7%, p<0.001). Fairness analysis revealed severe bias: elderly adults (>=60) showed AUC=0.607 vs 0.742 for young adults (difference=0.135, p<0.001); obese individuals showed AUC=0.698 vs 0.735 for normal weight (difference=0.037, p<0.001). Gender showed comparable performance (male=0.723 vs female=0.712, p=0.142). Calibration revealed risk overestimation (Brier score=0.123). SHAP analysis identified age, BMI, and physical activity as primary risk drivers. Populations with highest diabetes risk receive the worst algorithmic performance, underscoring the need for fairness-aware, age-stratified deployment strategies before clinical use.

As claims about recursive self-improvement (RSI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI) proliferate, we ask a simple question: do frontier AI models have a sense of data, i.e., can they reliably select the right data for training? We introduce DataSense-Bench to study this capability through the fundamental problem of data selection and performance forecasting in machine learning. We ask AI agents to select and rank candidate training subsets that can be used to fine-tune a small LLM model. Agents are allowed to inspect the data, write and execute analysis code, and run model forward passes, but can not train the model or access the actual evaluation tasks. We then fine-tune the base model on each selected subset and evaluate its post-training performance under a standardized protocol. We instantiate the benchmark in terminal problem solving and tool use, selecting trajectories from OpenThoughts-Agent and EnvScaler and evaluating on TBLite and BFCL, respectively. We then evaluate the agents along two complementary dimensions: the post-training performance of the top-ranked subset, reflecting the ability to identify high-value training data, and ranking accuracy, reflecting the ability to predict the relative performance of the selected subsets. In our experiments, selection gains over random selection are limited; agents do not reliably rank their selected groups, and ranking ability does not hold consistently across tasks: Astra identifies the best group in all three tool-use runs but in only one of three terminal runs. Analysis of execution traces on both tasks shows that agents often use similar data signals while interpreting their training value differently.

Modern foundation models rely heavily on using scaling laws to guide crucial training decisions. Researchers often extrapolate the optimal architecture and hyper parameters settings from smaller training runs by describing the relationship between, loss, or task performance, and scale. All components of this process vary, from the specific equation being fit, to the training setup, to the optimization method. Each of these factors may affect the fitted law, and therefore, the conclusions of a given study. We discuss discrepancies in the conclusions that several prior works reach, on questions such as the optimal token to parameter ratio. We augment this discussion with our own analysis of the critical impact that changes in specific details may effect in a scaling study, and the resulting altered conclusions. Additionally, we survey over 50 papers that study scaling trends: while 45 of these papers quantify these trends using a power law, most under-report crucial details needed to reproduce their findings. To mitigate this, we we propose a checklist for authors to consider while contributing to scaling law research.

Many computer scientists use the aggregated answers of online workers to represent ground truth. Prior work has shown that aggregation methods such as majority voting are effective for measuring relatively objective features. For subjective features such as semantic connotation, online workers, known for optimizing their hourly earnings, tend to deteriorate in the quality of their responses as they work longer. In this paper, we aim to address this issue by proposing a quality-aware semantic data annotation system. We observe that with timely feedback on workers' performance quantified by quality scores, better informed online workers can maintain the quality of their labeling throughout an extended period of time. We validate the effectiveness of the proposed annotation system through i) evaluating performance based on an expert-labeled dataset, and ii) demonstrating machine learning tasks that can lead to consistent learning behavior with 70%-80% accuracy. Our results suggest that with our system, researchers can collect high-quality answers of subjective semantic features at a large scale.

Verifiable rewards have advanced reinforcement learning in mathematics and code. However, many valuable open-ended tasks share three properties: no automatic verifier of overall quality, multiple requirements to satisfy jointly, and multiple valid responses to each query. Training therefore needs feedback on requirement satisfaction across different valid responses. Rubric-based reinforcement learning provides this feedback by aggregating scores from explicit criteria. As learning progresses unevenly, some criteria become fully satisfied and lose discrimination while others remain informative. Dynamic methods revise shared rubrics or select evolving criteria to restore discrimination, but may also change useful criteria. To address this, we propose Reinforcement Learning with Adaptive Rubric Evolution (RARE). The core idea is to use current policy feedback to guide both which criteria change and what their replacements assess. Sample-level updates replace criteria fully satisfied across current outputs with checks of remaining quality differences, retaining all other criteria and scores. Within this rule, we compare rewarding desirable qualities with penalizing observed flaws. Video script generation exemplifies these properties and supports content production. Its demands for coherent, executable narratives under constraints make it a challenging testbed. Targeting flaws performs best across three video types with a mean gain of 3.82 points over matched static rubrics. Model and human preferences support these gains. Improvements also extend to writing and general generation benchmarks.

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

The BITEM team entered both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 R2C2 task with a single agentic pipeline, in which a model searches, reads and records evidence over a movie corpus while an orchestrator holds the record and rules on what may be submitted. A claim is admitted only once an entailment cascade has checked it against the passage it cites, and an answer is released only once enough checked evidence stands behind it. Each question is run three or four times, every pass retrieving from a corpus stripped of what the earlier passes have already seen. The confidence filed with each answer is computed by the orchestrator from what the run leaves behind and is never asked of the model, which is offered no way to rate itself. The two retrieval runs placed 4th and 5th of 22, pooling the passes was worth 0.0709 nDCG@20, and the gain was largest on the multi-hop and post-processing-heavy questions, where the organisers rank the pooled run top of the field. Sixteen of the 25 answer runs were built on passages these two runs supplied, 12 of them filed by other teams. HMR rewards a system whose confidence is high where it answers right and low where it answers wrong. The pipeline reached an accuracy of 0.9219, 6th of 25, while the confidence filed with those answers gave an HMR of 0.4915, 13th. A few rules crafted over those same recorded signals, with no further model call and no further retrieval, raise that to an accuracy of 0.9375, 5th, and an HMR of 0.6985, 9th. Ranking on HMR alone can reward a system for answering wrongly with low confidence, so we propose accHMR, the accuracy multiplied by HMR, which reports the reward in proportion to the accuracy, and on which the revised rules would have scored 0.6549, 5th. For future work, fitting a model on the numbers the pipeline already produces, rather than writing such rules by hand, would be a real step forward.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

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

Priorities in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) convey the relevance preference of one criterion over another, which is usually reflected by imposing the non-negativity and unit-sum constraints. The processing of such priorities is different than other unconstrained data, but this point is often neglected by researchers, which results in fallacious statistical analysis. This article studies three prevalent fallacies in group MCDM along with solutions based on compositional data analysis to avoid misusing statistical operations. First, we use a compositional approach to aggregate the priorities of a group of DMs and show that the outcome of the compositional analysis is identical to the normalized geometric mean, meaning that the arithmetic mean should be avoided. Furthermore, a new aggregation method is developed, which is a robust surrogate for the geometric mean. We also discuss the errors in computing measures of dispersion, including standard deviation and distance functions. Discussing the fallacies in computing the standard deviation, we provide a probabilistic criteria ranking by developing proper Bayesian tests, where we calculate the extent to which a criterion is more important than another. Finally, we explain the errors in computing the distance between priorities, and a clustering algorithm is specially tailored based on proper distance metrics.