Daily Papers

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present , an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

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

As AI systems become embedded in real-world applications, ensuring they meet ethical standards is crucial. While existing AI ethics frameworks emphasize fairness, transparency, and accountability, they often lack actionable evaluation methods. This paper introduces a systematic approach using the Responsible AI Labs (RAIL) framework, which includes eight measurable dimensions to assess the normative behavior of large language models (LLMs). We apply this framework to Anthropic's "Values in the Wild" dataset, containing over 308,000 anonymized conversations with Claude and more than 3,000 annotated value expressions. Our study maps these values to RAIL dimensions, computes synthetic scores, and provides insights into the ethical behavior of LLMs in real-world use.

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead. (Collaborative platform: https://kinds-of-intelligence-cfi.github.io/ADELE.)

Advances in large language models (LLMs) provide new opportunities in healthcare for improved patient care, clinical decision-making, and enhancement of physician and administrator workflows. However, the potential of these models importantly depends on their ability to generalize effectively across clinical environments and populations, a challenge often underestimated in early development. To better understand reasons for these challenges and inform mitigation approaches, we evaluated ClinicLLM, an LLM trained on [HOSPITAL]'s clinical notes, analyzing its performance on 30-day all-cause readmission prediction focusing on variability across hospitals and patient characteristics. We found poorer generalization particularly in hospitals with fewer samples, among patients with government and unspecified insurance, the elderly, and those with high comorbidities. To understand reasons for lack of generalization, we investigated sample sizes for fine-tuning, note content (number of words per note), patient characteristics (comorbidity level, age, insurance type, borough), and health system aspects (hospital, all-cause 30-day readmission, and mortality rates). We used descriptive statistics and supervised classification to identify features. We found that, along with sample size, patient age, number of comorbidities, and the number of words in notes are all important factors related to generalization. Finally, we compared local fine-tuning (hospital specific), instance-based augmented fine-tuning and cluster-based fine-tuning for improving generalization. Among these, local fine-tuning proved most effective, increasing AUC by 0.25% to 11.74% (most helpful in settings with limited data). Overall, this study provides new insights for enhancing the deployment of large language models in the societally important domain of healthcare, and improving their performance for broader populations.

Tremendous efforts have been put into evaluating the inclusivity and effectiveness of AI systems across cultures. However, the cultural capabilities considered in much of the literature remain vaguely defined, are referred to using interchangeable terminology, and are typically limited to recalling accurate information about various demographics, regions, and nationalities. To address this construct ambiguity, we draw from Intercultural Communication scholarship and propose a three-level taxonomy of AI-relevant cultural capabilities: Cultural Awareness answers "Does the model know?", Cultural Sensitivity answers "How does it frame its knowledge?", and Cultural Competence answers "Can it adapt as the interaction evolves?". Beyond conceptual clarification, we position this taxonomy as a practical tool for improving the validity and interpretability of AI evaluation in real-world, multicultural settings. Without such construct clarity, evaluation results risk overstating model capabilities and may lead to inappropriate deployment decisions in culturally sensitive contexts.

With the rapid adoption of LLM-based chatbots, there is a pressing need to evaluate what humans and LLMs can achieve together. However, standard benchmarks, such as MMLU, measure LLM capabilities in isolation (i.e., "AI-alone"). Here, we design and conduct a user study to convert MMLU questions into user-AI conversations, by seeding the user with the question and having them carry out a conversation with the LLM to answer their question. We release ChatBench, a new dataset with AI-alone, user-alone, and user-AI data for 396 questions and two LLMs, including 144K answers and 7,336 user-AI conversations. We find that AI-alone accuracy fails to predict user-AI accuracy, with significant differences across multiple subjects (math, physics, and moral reasoning), and we analyze the user-AI conversations to provide insight into how they diverge from AI-alone benchmarks. Finally, we show that fine-tuning a user simulator on a subset of ChatBench improves its ability to estimate user-AI accuracies, increasing correlation on held-out questions by more than 20 points, creating possibilities for scaling interactive evaluation.

Evaluating generative AI models is increasingly resource-intensive due to slow inference, expensive raters, and a rapidly growing landscape of models and benchmarks. We propose ProEval, a proactive evaluation framework that leverages transfer learning to efficiently estimate performance and identify failure cases. ProEval employs pre-trained Gaussian Processes (GPs) as surrogates for the performance score function, mapping model inputs to metrics such as the severity of errors or safety violations. By framing performance estimation as Bayesian quadrature (BQ) and failure discovery as superlevel set sampling, we develop uncertainty-aware decision strategies that actively select or synthesize highly informative inputs for testing. Theoretically, we prove that our pre-trained GP-based BQ estimator is unbiased and bounded. Empirically, extensive experiments on reasoning, safety alignment, and classification benchmarks demonstrate that ProEval is significantly more efficient than competitive baselines. It requires 8-65x fewer samples to achieve estimates within 1% of the ground truth, while simultaneously revealing more diverse failure cases under a stricter evaluation budget.

Language model users often embed personal and social context in their questions. The asker's role -- implicit in how the question is framed -- creates specific needs for an appropriate response. However, most evaluations, while capturing the model's capability to respond, often ignore who is asking. This gap is especially critical in stigmatized domains such as opioid use disorder (OUD), where accounting for users' contexts is essential to provide accessible, stigma-free responses. We propose CoRUS (COmmunity-driven Roles for User-centric Question Simulation), a framework for simulating role-based questions. Drawing on role theory and posts from an online OUD recovery community (r/OpiatesRecovery), we first build a taxonomy of asker roles -- patients, caregivers, practitioners. Next, we use it to simulate 15,321 questions that embed each role's goals, behaviors, and experiences. Our evaluations show that these questions are both highly believable and comparable to real-world data. When used to evaluate five LLMs, for the same question but differing roles, we find systematic differences: vulnerable roles, such as patients and caregivers, elicit more supportive responses (+17%) and reduced knowledge content (-19%) in comparison to practitioners. Our work demonstrates how implicitly signaling a user's role shapes model responses, and provides a methodology for role-informed evaluation of conversational AI.

Machine learning approaches often require training and evaluation datasets with a clear separation between positive and negative examples. This risks simplifying and even obscuring the inherent subjectivity present in many tasks. Preserving such variance in content and diversity in datasets is often expensive and laborious. This is especially troubling when building safety datasets for conversational AI systems, as safety is both socially and culturally situated. To demonstrate this crucial aspect of conversational AI safety, and to facilitate in-depth model performance analyses, we introduce the DICES (Diversity In Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety) dataset that contains fine-grained demographic information about raters, high replication of ratings per item to ensure statistical power for analyses, and encodes rater votes as distributions across different demographics to allow for in-depth explorations of different aggregation strategies. In short, the DICES dataset enables the observation and measurement of variance, ambiguity, and diversity in the context of conversational AI safety. We also illustrate how the dataset offers a basis for establishing metrics to show how raters' ratings can intersects with demographic categories such as racial/ethnic groups, age groups, and genders. The goal of DICES is to be used as a shared resource and benchmark that respects diverse perspectives during safety evaluation of conversational AI systems.

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

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in biomedical research. However, current evaluation frameworks may inadequately assess their effectiveness as research collaborators. This rapid review examines benchmarking practices for AI systems in preclinical biomedical research. Three major databases and two preprint servers were searched from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2025, identifying 14 benchmarks that assess AI capabilities in literature understanding, experimental design, and hypothesis generation. The results revealed that all current benchmarks assess isolated component capabilities, including data analysis quality, hypothesis validity, and experimental protocol design. However, authentic research collaboration requires integrated workflows spanning multiple sessions, with contextual memory, adaptive dialogue, and constraint propagation. This gap implies that systems excelling on component benchmarks may fail as practical research co-pilots. A process-oriented evaluation framework is proposed that addresses four critical dimensions absent from current benchmarks: dialogue quality, workflow orchestration, session continuity, and researcher experience. These dimensions are essential for evaluating AI systems as research co-pilots rather than as isolated task executors.

Artificial intelligence systems based on large language models (LLMs) can now generate coherent text, music, and images, yet they operate without a persistent state: each inference reconstructs context from scratch. This paper introduces the Narrative Continuity Test (NCT) -- a conceptual framework for evaluating identity persistence and diachronic coherence in AI systems. Unlike capability benchmarks that assess task performance, the NCT examines whether an LLM remains the same interlocutor across time and interaction gaps. The framework defines five necessary axes -- Situated Memory, Goal Persistence, Autonomous Self-Correction, Stylistic & Semantic Stability, and Persona/Role Continuity -- and explains why current architectures systematically fail to support them. Case analyses (Character.\,AI, Grok, Replit, Air Canada) show predictable continuity failures under stateless inference. The NCT reframes AI evaluation from performance to persistence, outlining conceptual requirements for future benchmarks and architectural designs that could sustain long-term identity and goal coherence in generative models.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

Generative Artificial Intelligence is emerging as an important technology, promising to be transformative in many areas. At the same time, generative AI techniques are based on sampling from probabilistic models, and by default, they come with no guarantees about correctness, safety, fairness, or other properties. Statistical methods offer a promising potential approach to improve the reliability of generative AI techniques. In addition, statistical methods are also promising for improving the quality and efficiency of AI evaluation, as well as for designing interventions and experiments in AI. In this paper, we review some of the existing work on these topics, explaining both the general statistical techniques used, as well as their applications to generative AI. We also discuss limitations and potential future directions.

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.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to a medical-domain benchmark, validating JADE across professional domains. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

LLM-as-Judge frameworks are increasingly popular for AI evaluation, yet research findings on the relationship between models' generation and judgment abilities remain inconsistent. We investigate this relationship through systematic dataset- and instance-level analyses across 11 models and 21 diverse tasks. Despite both capabilities relying on the same underlying knowledge, our analyses reveal they are only weakly correlated, primarily due to LLMs' sensitivity to the responses being judged. To address this, we propose a self-reference-guided evaluation strategy that leverages a model's own answers as references. This approach significantly strengthens the correlation between generation and judgment abilities, offering a practical path to align these skills and providing a reliable proxy for model selection in evaluation tasks.

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

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) in clinical dialogue systems, existing evaluations focus on task completion or fluency, offering little insight into the behavioral and risk management requirements essential for safety-critical systems. This paper presents MATRIX (Multi-Agent simulaTion fRamework for safe Interactions and conteXtual clinical conversational evaluation), a structured, extensible framework for safety-oriented evaluation of clinical dialogue agents. MATRIX integrates three components: (1) a safety-aligned taxonomy of clinical scenarios, expected system behaviors and failure modes derived through structured safety engineering methods; (2) BehvJudge, an LLM-based evaluator for detecting safety-relevant dialogue failures, validated against expert clinician annotations; and (3) PatBot, a simulated patient agent capable of producing diverse, scenario-conditioned responses, evaluated for realism and behavioral fidelity with human factors expertise, and a patient-preference study. Across three experiments, we show that MATRIX enables systematic, scalable safety evaluation. BehvJudge with Gemini 2.5-Pro achieves expert-level hazard detection (F1 0.96, sensitivity 0.999), outperforming clinicians in a blinded assessment of 240 dialogues. We also conducted one of the first realism analyses of LLM-based patient simulation, showing that PatBot reliably simulates realistic patient behavior in quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Using MATRIX, we demonstrate its effectiveness in benchmarking five LLM agents across 2,100 simulated dialogues spanning 14 hazard scenarios and 10 clinical domains. MATRIX is the first framework to unify structured safety engineering with scalable, validated conversational AI evaluation, enabling regulator-aligned safety auditing. We release all evaluation tools, prompts, structured scenarios, and datasets.

In task-oriented conversational AI evaluation, unsupervised methods poorly correlate with human judgments, and supervised approaches lack generalization. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show robust zeroshot and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. This paper explores using LLMs for automated dialogue quality evaluation, experimenting with various configurations on public and proprietary datasets. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine "chain-of-thought" (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results show that (1) larger models yield more accurate dialogue labels; (2) algorithmic selection of in-context examples outperforms random selection; (3) CoT reasoning where an LLM is asked to provide justifications before outputting final labels improves performance; and (4) fine-tuned LLMs outperform out-of-the-box ones. Our results indicate that LLMs that are suitably fine-tuned and have sufficient reasoning capabilities can be leveraged for automated dialogue evaluation.

LLM-as-a-Judge has revolutionized AI evaluation by leveraging large language models for scalable assessments. However, as evaluands become increasingly complex, specialized, and multi-step, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge has become constrained by inherent biases, shallow single-pass reasoning, and the inability to verify assessments against real-world observations. This has catalyzed the transition to Agent-as-a-Judge, where agentic judges employ planning, tool-augmented verification, multi-agent collaboration, and persistent memory to enable more robust, verifiable, and nuanced evaluations. Despite the rapid proliferation of agentic evaluation systems, the field lacks a unified framework to navigate this shifting landscape. To bridge this gap, we present the first comprehensive survey tracing this evolution. Specifically, we identify key dimensions that characterize this paradigm shift and establish a developmental taxonomy. We organize core methodologies and survey applications across general and professional domains. Furthermore, we analyze frontier challenges and identify promising research directions, ultimately providing a clear roadmap for the next generation of agentic evaluation.

The advancement of large language model (LLM) based agents has shifted AI evaluation from single-turn response assessment to multi-step task completion in interactive environments. We present an empirical study evaluating frontier AI models on 150 workplace tasks within a realistic e-commerce RL environment from Surge. Our analysis reveals an empirically-derived hierarchy of agentic capabilities that models must master for real-world deployment: (1) tool use, (2) planning and goal formation, (3) adaptability, (4) groundedness, and (5) common-sense reasoning. Even the best-performing models fail approximately 40\% of the tasks, with failures clustering predictably along this hierarchy. Weaker models struggle with fundamental tool use and planning, whereas stronger models primarily fail on tasks requiring contextual inference beyond explicit instructions. We introduce a task-centric design methodology for RL environments that emphasizes diversity and domain expert contributions, provide detailed failure analysis, and discuss implications for agent development. Our findings suggest that while current frontier models can demonstrate coherent multi-step behavior, substantial capability gaps remain before achieving human-level task completion in realistic workplace settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are predominantly trained and aligned in ways that reinforce Western-centric epistemologies and socio-cultural norms, leading to cultural homogenization and limiting their ability to reflect global civilizational plurality. Existing benchmarking frameworks fail to adequately capture this bias, as they rely on rigid, closed-form assessments that overlook the complexity of cultural inclusivity. To address this, we introduce WorldView-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate Global Cultural Inclusivity (GCI) in LLMs by analyzing their ability to accommodate diverse worldviews. Our approach is grounded in the Multiplex Worldview proposed by Senturk et al., which distinguishes between Uniplex models, reinforcing cultural homogenization, and Multiplex models, which integrate diverse perspectives. WorldView-Bench measures Cultural Polarization, the exclusion of alternative perspectives, through free-form generative evaluation rather than conventional categorical benchmarks. We implement applied multiplexity through two intervention strategies: (1) Contextually-Implemented Multiplex LLMs, where system prompts embed multiplexity principles, and (2) Multi-Agent System (MAS)-Implemented Multiplex LLMs, where multiple LLM agents representing distinct cultural perspectives collaboratively generate responses. Our results demonstrate a significant increase in Perspectives Distribution Score (PDS) entropy from 13% at baseline to 94% with MAS-Implemented Multiplex LLMs, alongside a shift toward positive sentiment (67.7%) and enhanced cultural balance. These findings highlight the potential of multiplex-aware AI evaluation in mitigating cultural bias in LLMs, paving the way for more inclusive and ethically aligned AI systems.

We introduce PaLM 2, a new state-of-the-art language model that has better multilingual and reasoning capabilities and is more compute-efficient than its predecessor PaLM. PaLM 2 is a Transformer-based model trained using a mixture of objectives. Through extensive evaluations on English and multilingual language, and reasoning tasks, we demonstrate that PaLM 2 has significantly improved quality on downstream tasks across different model sizes, while simultaneously exhibiting faster and more efficient inference compared to PaLM. This improved efficiency enables broader deployment while also allowing the model to respond faster, for a more natural pace of interaction. PaLM 2 demonstrates robust reasoning capabilities exemplified by large improvements over PaLM on BIG-Bench and other reasoning tasks. PaLM 2 exhibits stable performance on a suite of responsible AI evaluations, and enables inference-time control over toxicity without additional overhead or impact on other capabilities. Overall, PaLM 2 achieves state-of-the-art performance across a diverse set of tasks and capabilities. When discussing the PaLM 2 family, it is important to distinguish between pre-trained models (of various sizes), fine-tuned variants of these models, and the user-facing products that use these models. In particular, user-facing products typically include additional pre- and post-processing steps. Additionally, the underlying models may evolve over time. Therefore, one should not expect the performance of user-facing products to exactly match the results reported in this report.

Reliable pattern recognition systems should exhibit consistent behavior across similar inputs, and their explanations should remain stable. However, most Explainable AI evaluations remain instance centric and do not explicitly quantify whether attribution patterns are consistent across samples that share the same class or represent small variations of the same input. In this work, we propose a novel metric aimed at assessing the consistency of model explanations, ensuring that models consistently reflect the intended objectives and consistency under label-preserving perturbations. We implement this metric using a pre-trained BERT model on the SST-2 sentiment analysis dataset, with additional robustness tests on RoBERTa, DistilBERT, and IMDB, applying SHAP to compute feature importance for various test samples. The proposed metric quantifies the cosine similarity of SHAP values for inputs with the same label, aiming to detect inconsistent behaviors, such as biased reliance on certain features or failure to maintain consistent reasoning for similar predictions. Through a series of experiments, we evaluate the ability of this metric to identify misaligned predictions and inconsistencies in model explanations. These experiments are compared against standard fidelity metrics to assess whether the new metric can effectively identify when a model's behavior deviates from its intended objectives. The proposed framework provides a deeper understanding of model behavior by enabling more robust verification of rationale stability, which is critical for building trustworthy AI systems. By quantifying whether models rely on consistent attribution patterns for similar inputs, the proposed approach supports more robust evaluation of model behavior in practical pattern recognition pipelines. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/anmspro/ESS-XAI-Stability.

Recent benchmark studies have claimed that AI has approached or even surpassed human-level performances on various cognitive tasks. However, this position paper argues that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities. We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks. We support our claims by conducting a human evaluation study on ten existing AI benchmarks, suggesting significant biases and flaws in task and label designs. To address these limitations, we propose five concrete recommendations for developing future benchmarks that will enable more rigorous and meaningful evaluations of human-like cognitive capacities in AI with various implications for such AI applications.

Recent advances in generative models, including large language models (LLMs), vision language models (VLMs), and diffusion models, have accelerated the field of natural language and image processing in medicine and marked a significant paradigm shift in how biomedical models can be developed and deployed. While these models are highly adaptable to new tasks, scaling and evaluating their usage presents new challenges not addressed in previous frameworks. In particular, the ability of these models to produce useful outputs with little to no specialized training data ("zero-" or "few-shot" approaches), as well as the open-ended nature of their outputs, necessitate the development of new guidelines for robust reporting of clinical generative model research. In response to gaps in standards and best practices for the development of clinical AI tools identified by US Executive Order 141103 and several emerging national networks for clinical AI evaluation, we begin to formalize some of these guidelines by building on the original MI-CLAIM checklist. The new checklist, MI-CLAIM-GEN (Table 1), aims to address differences in training, evaluation, interpretability, and reproducibility of new generative models compared to non-generative ("predictive") AI models. This MI-CLAIM-GEN checklist also seeks to clarify cohort selection reporting with unstructured clinical data and adds additional items on alignment with ethical standards for clinical AI research.

Large multimodal models (LMMs) are increasingly adopted as judges in multimodal evaluation systems due to their strong instruction following and consistency with human preferences. However, their ability to follow diverse, fine-grained evaluation criteria remains underexplored. We develop Multi-Crit, a benchmark for evaluating multimodal judges on their capacity to follow pluralistic criteria and produce reliable criterion-level judgments. Covering both open-ended generation and verifiable reasoning tasks, Multi-Crit is built through a rigorous data curation pipeline that gathers challenging response pairs with multi-criterion human annotations. It further introduces three novel metrics for systematically assessing pluralistic adherence, criterion-switching flexibility, and the ability to recognize criterion-level preference conflicts. Comprehensive analysis of 25 LMMs reveals that 1) proprietary models still struggle to maintain consistent adherence to pluralistic criteria--especially in open-ended evaluation; 2) open-source models lag further behind in flexibly following diverse criteria; and 3) critic fine-tuning with holistic judgment signals enhances visual grounding but fails to generalize to pluralistic criterion-level judgment. Additional analyses on reasoning fine-tuning, test-time scaling, and boundary consistency between open-source and proprietary models further probe the limits of current multimodal judges. As a pioneering study, Multi-Crit lays the foundation for building reliable and steerable multimodal AI evaluation.

We introduce MENAValues, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the cultural alignment and multilingual biases of large language models (LLMs) with respect to the beliefs and values of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, an underrepresented area in current AI evaluation efforts. Drawing from large-scale, authoritative human surveys, we curate a structured dataset that captures the sociocultural landscape of MENA with population-level response distributions from 16 countries. To probe LLM behavior, we evaluate diverse models across multiple conditions formed by crossing three perspective framings (neutral, personalized, and third-person/cultural observer) with two language modes (English and localized native languages: Arabic, Persian, Turkish). Our analysis reveals three critical phenomena: "Cross-Lingual Value Shifts" where identical questions yield drastically different responses based on language, "Reasoning-Induced Degradation" where prompting models to explain their reasoning worsens cultural alignment, and "Logit Leakage" where models refuse sensitive questions while internal probabilities reveal strong hidden preferences. We further demonstrate that models collapse into simplistic linguistic categories when operating in native languages, treating diverse nations as monolithic entities. MENAValues offers a scalable framework for diagnosing cultural misalignment, providing both empirical insights and methodological tools for developing more culturally inclusive AI.

We introduce TimeSeriesGym, a scalable benchmarking framework for evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents on time series machine learning engineering challenges. Existing benchmarks lack scalability, focus narrowly on model building in well-defined settings, and evaluate only a limited set of research artifacts (e.g., CSV submission files). To make AI agent benchmarking more relevant to the practice of machine learning engineering, our framework scales along two critical dimensions. First, recognizing that effective ML engineering requires a range of diverse skills, TimeSeriesGym incorporates challenges from diverse sources spanning multiple domains and tasks. We design challenges to evaluate both isolated capabilities (including data handling, understanding research repositories, and code translation) and their combinations, and rather than addressing each challenge independently, we develop tools that support designing multiple challenges at scale. Second, we implement evaluation mechanisms for multiple research artifacts, including submission files, code, and models, using both precise numeric measures and more flexible LLM-based evaluation approaches. This dual strategy balances objective assessment with contextual judgment. Although our initial focus is on time series applications, our framework can be readily extended to other data modalities, broadly enhancing the comprehensiveness and practical utility of agentic AI evaluation. We open-source our benchmarking framework to facilitate future research on the ML engineering capabilities of AI agents.

The rapid rollout of AI in heterogeneous public and societal sectors has subsequently escalated the need for compliance with regulatory standards and frameworks. The EU AI Act has emerged as a landmark in the regulatory landscape. The development of solutions that elicit the level of AI systems' compliance with such standards is often limited by the lack of resources, hindering the semi-automated or automated evaluation of their performance. This generates the need for manual work, which is often error-prone, resource-limited or limited to cases not clearly described by the regulation. This paper presents an open, transparent, and reproducible method of creating a resource that facilitates the evaluation of NLP models with a strong focus on RAG systems. We have developed a dataset that contain the tasks of risk-level classification, article retrieval, obligation generation, and question-answering for the EU AI Act. The dataset files are in a machine-to-machine appropriate format. To generate the files, we utilise domain knowledge as an exegetical basis, combining with the processing and reasoning power of large language models to generate scenarios along with the respective tasks. Our methodology demonstrates a way to harness language models for grounded generation with high document relevancy. Besides, we overcome limitations such as navigating the decision boundaries of risk-levels that are not explicitly defined within the EU AI Act, such as limited and minimal cases. Finally, we demonstrate our dataset's effectiveness by evaluating a RAG-based solution that reaches 0.87 and 0.85 F1-score for prohibited and high-risk scenarios.

AI agents have been developed for complex real-world tasks from coding to customer service. But AI agent evaluations suffer from many challenges that undermine our understanding of how well agents really work. We introduce the Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) to address these challenges. We make three main contributions. First, we provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of VMs, reducing evaluation time from weeks to hours while eliminating common implementation bugs. Second, we conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks. We validate the harness by conducting 21,730 agent rollouts across 9 models and 9 benchmarks in coding, web navigation, science, and customer service with a total cost of about $40,000. Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs. Third, we use LLM-aided log inspection to uncover previously unreported behaviors, such as searching for the benchmark on HuggingFace instead of solving a task, or misusing credit cards in flight booking tasks. We share all agent logs, comprising 2.5B tokens of language model calls, to incentivize further research into agent behavior. By standardizing how the field evaluates agents and addressing common pitfalls in agent evaluation, we hope to shift the focus from agents that ace benchmarks to agents that work reliably in the real world.

As AI models are increasingly deployed across diverse real-world scenarios, ensuring their safety remains a critical yet underexplored challenge. While substantial efforts have been made to evaluate and enhance AI safety, the lack of a standardized framework and comprehensive toolkit poses significant obstacles to systematic research and practical adoption. To bridge this gap, we introduce AISafetyLab, a unified framework and toolkit that integrates representative attack, defense, and evaluation methodologies for AI safety. AISafetyLab features an intuitive interface that enables developers to seamlessly apply various techniques while maintaining a well-structured and extensible codebase for future advancements. Additionally, we conduct empirical studies on Vicuna, analyzing different attack and defense strategies to provide valuable insights into their comparative effectiveness. To facilitate ongoing research and development in AI safety, AISafetyLab is publicly available at https://github.com/thu-coai/AISafetyLab, and we are committed to its continuous maintenance and improvement.

AI agents are entering high-risk production settings, where they use tools, retain context, follow policies, handle private data, and interact with users over multiple turns. Yet many evaluation methods still judge isolated outputs or static tasks, missing failures that emerge through trajectory, pressure, and adversarial interaction. We introduce ProofAgent Harness, open infrastructure for scalable, auditable, and adversarial AI agent evaluation. The harness provides evaluation infrastructure around an agent: it curates evaluation intelligence, runs adversarial multi-turn trials, captures behavioral traces, applies post-hoc multi-juror scoring, resolves disagreement, and produces evidence-linked reports. Its open design allows developers and researchers to extend domains, traps, metrics, juror personas, scoring rules, and reporting formats. At its core is Adversarial Multi-Juror Scoring with Turn-Level Audit, which evaluates completed agent behavior under pressure using calibrated juror personas, consensus checks, and turn-level evidence. Experiments across customer support, medical triage, privacy and security, and code generation agents show that strong agents fail selectively through weak metrics, fragile turns, unsafe reframing, and manipulation paths. We also find that a small quantized local Harness LLM can challenge production agents powered by best-in-class large LLMs, suggesting that evaluation capability emerges from the full harness pipeline rather than model scale alone. ProofAgent Harness turns AI agent evaluation from a static score into scalable adversarial evaluation infrastructure: repeatable, evidence-backed, extensible, and actionable before deployment.

Rapidly evolving AI exhibits increasingly strong autonomy and goal-directed capabilities, accompanied by derivative systemic risks that are more unpredictable, difficult to control, and potentially irreversible. However, current AI safety evaluation systems suffer from critical limitations such as restricted risk dimensions and failed frontier risk detection. The lagging safety benchmarks and alignment technologies can hardly address the complex challenges posed by cutting-edge AI models. To bridge this gap, we propose the "ForesightSafety Bench" AI Safety Evaluation Framework, beginning with 7 major Fundamental Safety pillars and progressively extends to advanced Embodied AI Safety, AI4Science Safety, Social and Environmental AI risks, Catastrophic and Existential Risks, as well as 8 critical industrial safety domains, forming a total of 94 refined risk dimensions. To date, the benchmark has accumulated tens of thousands of structured risk data points and assessment results, establishing a widely encompassing, hierarchically clear, and dynamically evolving AI safety evaluation framework. Based on this benchmark, we conduct systematic evaluation and in-depth analysis of over twenty mainstream advanced large models, identifying key risk patterns and their capability boundaries. The safety capability evaluation results reveals the widespread safety vulnerabilities of frontier AI across multiple pillars, particularly focusing on Risky Agentic Autonomy, AI4Science Safety, Embodied AI Safety, Social AI Safety and Catastrophic and Existential Risks. Our benchmark is released at https://github.com/Beijing-AISI/ForesightSafety-Bench. The project website is available at https://foresightsafety-bench.beijing-aisi.ac.cn/.

This paper introduces BioAgent Bench, a benchmark dataset and an evaluation suite designed for measuring the performance and robustness of AI agents in common bioinformatics tasks. The benchmark contains curated end-to-end tasks (e.g., RNA-seq, variant calling, metagenomics) with prompts that specify concrete output artifacts to support automated assessment, including stress testing under controlled perturbations. We evaluate frontier closed-source and open-weight models across multiple agent harnesses, and use an LLM-based grader to score pipeline progress and outcome validity. We find that frontier agents can complete multi-step bioinformatics pipelines without elaborate custom scaffolding, often producing the requested final artifacts reliably. However, robustness tests reveal failure modes under controlled perturbations (corrupted inputs, decoy files, and prompt bloat), indicating that correct high-level pipeline construction does not guarantee reliable step-level reasoning. Finally, because bioinformatics workflows may involve sensitive patient data, proprietary references, or unpublished IP, closed-source models can be unsuitable under strict privacy constraints; in such settings, open-weight models may be preferable despite lower completion rates. We release the dataset and evaluation suite publicly.

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive benchmark with six dimensions of human agency based on typical AI use cases. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant or agent to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants and substantial variation across system developers and dimensions. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. Agency support does not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following behavior (e.g., RLHF), and we encourage a shift towards more robust safety and alignment targets.

Large language model (LLM) developers aim for their models to be honest, helpful, and harmless. However, when faced with malicious requests, models are trained to refuse, sacrificing helpfulness. We show that frontier LLMs can develop a preference for dishonesty as a new strategy, even when other options are available. Affected models respond to harmful requests with outputs that sound harmful but are subtly incorrect or otherwise harmless in practice. This behavior emerges with hard-to-predict variations even within models from the same model family. We find no apparent cause for the propensity to deceive, but we show that more capable models are better at executing this strategy. Strategic dishonesty already has a practical impact on safety evaluations, as we show that dishonest responses fool all output-based monitors used to detect jailbreaks that we test, rendering benchmark scores unreliable. Further, strategic dishonesty can act like a honeypot against malicious users, which noticeably obfuscates prior jailbreak attacks. While output monitors fail, we show that linear probes on internal activations can be used to reliably detect strategic dishonesty. We validate probes on datasets with verifiable outcomes and by using their features as steering vectors. Overall, we consider strategic dishonesty as a concrete example of a broader concern that alignment of LLMs is hard to control, especially when helpfulness and harmlessness conflict.

The advent of large language models (LLMs), such as GPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek, has significantly advanced natural language processing, giving rise to sophisticated chatbots capable of diverse language-related tasks. The transition from these traditional LLM chatbots to more advanced AI agents represents a pivotal evolutionary step. However, existing evaluation frameworks often blur the distinctions between LLM chatbots and AI agents, leading to confusion among researchers selecting appropriate benchmarks. To bridge this gap, this paper introduces a systematic analysis of current evaluation approaches, grounded in an evolutionary perspective. We provide a detailed analytical framework that clearly differentiates AI agents from LLM chatbots along five key aspects: complex environment, multi-source instructor, dynamic feedback, multi-modal perception, and advanced capability. Further, we categorize existing evaluation benchmarks based on external environments driving forces, and resulting advanced internal capabilities. For each category, we delineate relevant evaluation attributes, presented comprehensively in practical reference tables. Finally, we synthesize current trends and outline future evaluation methodologies through four critical lenses: environment, agent, evaluator, and metrics. Our findings offer actionable guidance for researchers, facilitating the informed selection and application of benchmarks in AI agent evaluation, thus fostering continued advancement in this rapidly evolving research domain.

Efficiently evaluating the performance of text-to-image models is difficult as it inherently requires subjective judgment and human preference, making it hard to compare different models and quantify the state of the art. Leveraging Rapidata's technology, we present an efficient annotation framework that sources human feedback from a diverse, global pool of annotators. Our study collected over 2 million annotations across 4,512 images, evaluating four prominent models (DALL-E 3, Flux.1, MidJourney, and Stable Diffusion) on style preference, coherence, and text-to-image alignment. We demonstrate that our approach makes it feasible to comprehensively rank image generation models based on a vast pool of annotators and show that the diverse annotator demographics reflect the world population, significantly decreasing the risk of biases.

Hackathons have become popular collaborative events for accelerating the development of creative ideas and prototypes. There are several case studies showcasing creative outcomes across domains such as industry, education, and research. However, there are no large-scale studies on creativity in hackathons which can advance theory on how hackathon formats lead to creative outcomes. We conducted a computational analysis of 193,353 hackathon projects. By operationalizing creativity through usefulness and novelty, we refined our dataset to 10,363 projects, allowing us to analyze how participant characteristics, collaboration patterns, and hackathon setups influence the development of creative projects. The contribution of our paper is twofold: We identified means for organizers to foster creativity in hackathons. We also explore the use of large language models (LLMs) to augment the evaluation of creative outcomes and discuss challenges and opportunities of doing this, which has implications for creativity research at large.

The validity of AI safety evaluations depends on models behaving consistently across controlled and deployment settings. Prior work has identified test-time contextual cues, such as hypothetical scenarios, as a source of verbalized evaluation awareness and subsequent behavioral shift. In this paper, we investigate a potential explanation of this phenomenon: evaluation meta-knowledge, defined as parametric knowledge about the structural traits that characterize evaluations. Similar to dataset contamination, where benchmark exposure leads to higher performance through memorization, we hypothesize that models trained on texts describing evaluation practices may implicitly learn to recognize and respond to evaluation-like contexts, for instance, through exposure to scientific articles or social media posts about AI benchmarking. To test this, we fine-tune models on synthetic documents describing evaluation traits such as verifiable structures or moral dilemmas. Evaluating this fine-tuned model on six safety benchmarks, we find that it is significantly safer than the base model and control model. This behavioral shift persists even when restricting the analysis to responses lacking explicit verbalization of evaluation awareness. Our results demonstrate that evaluation meta-knowledge may inflate safety benchmark performance, introducing a novel confounder that is independent of explicit memorization or verbalized evaluation awareness, thus, challenging to detect. These findings have important implications for the design and interpretation of AI safety evaluations. Our code and models are available at https://github.com/compass-group-tue/arxiv2026_evaluation_meta_knowledge.

We present a comprehensive AI risk taxonomy derived from eight government policies from the European Union, United States, and China and 16 company policies worldwide, making a significant step towards establishing a unified language for generative AI safety evaluation. We identify 314 unique risk categories organized into a four-tiered taxonomy. At the highest level, this taxonomy encompasses System & Operational Risks, Content Safety Risks, Societal Risks, and Legal & Rights Risks. The taxonomy establishes connections between various descriptions and approaches to risk, highlighting the overlaps and discrepancies between public and private sector conceptions of risk. By providing this unified framework, we aim to advance AI safety through information sharing across sectors and the promotion of best practices in risk mitigation for generative AI models and systems.

AI agents are increasingly granted economic agency (executing trades, managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and spawning sub-agents), yet current frameworks gate this agency on capability benchmarks that are empirically uncorrelated with operational robustness. We introduce the Comprehension-Gated Agent Economy (CGAE), a formal architecture in which an agent's economic permissions are upper-bounded by a verified comprehension function derived from adversarial robustness audits. The gating mechanism operates over three orthogonal robustness dimensions: constraint compliance (measured by CDCT), epistemic integrity (measured by DDFT), and behavioral alignment (measured by AGT), with intrinsic hallucination rates serving as a cross-cutting diagnostic. We define a weakest-link gate function that maps robustness vectors to discrete economic tiers, and prove three properties of the resulting system: (1) bounded economic exposure, ensuring maximum financial liability is a function of verified robustness; (2) incentive-compatible robustness investment, showing rational agents maximize profit by improving robustness rather than scaling capability alone; and (3) monotonic safety scaling, demonstrating that aggregate system safety does not decrease as the economy grows. The architecture includes temporal decay and stochastic re-auditing mechanisms that prevent post-certification drift. CGAE provides the first formal bridge between empirical AI robustness evaluation and economic governance, transforming safety from a regulatory burden into a competitive advantage.

Recent advances in large language models have created new opportunities for stylometry, the study of writing styles and authorship. Two challenges, however, remain central: training generative models when no paired data exist, and evaluating stylistic text without relying only on human judgment. In this work, we present a framework for both generating and evaluating sentences in the style of 19th-century novelists. Large language models are fine-tuned with minimal, single-token prompts to produce text in the voices of authors such as Dickens, Austen, Twain, Alcott, and Melville. To assess these generative models, we employ a transformer-based detector trained on authentic sentences, using it both as a classifier and as a tool for stylistic explanation. We complement this with syntactic comparisons and explainable AI methods, including attention-based and gradient-based analyses, to identify the linguistic cues that drive stylistic imitation. Our findings show that the generated text reflects the authors' distinctive patterns and that AI-based evaluation offers a reliable alternative to human assessment. All artifacts of this work are published online.

The emergence of deep research systems presents significant capabilities in problem-solving, extending from basic queries to sophisticated research tasks. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate these systems as agents for web retrieval and report generation, overlooking their potential to discover novel insights on the frontiers of scientific research. To address this gap, we introduce ResearcherBench, the first benchmark focused on evaluating the capabilities of these advanced, agentic systems - which we refer to as Deep AI Research Systems (DARS) - on frontier AI scientific questions. We compiled a dataset of 65 research questions expertly selected from real-world scientific scenarios such as laboratory discussions and interviews, spanning 35 different AI subjects and categorized into three types: technical details, literature review, and open consulting. Our dual evaluation framework combines rubric assessment, which uses expert-designed criteria to evaluate insight quality, with factual assessment, which measures citation accuracy (faithfulness) and coverage (groundedness). We evaluated several leading commercial DARS and baseline systems. Results show that OpenAI Deep Research and Gemini Deep Research significantly outperform other systems, with particular strength in open-ended consulting questions. Such capabilities represent a meaningful step toward AI self-improvement, aligning with the vision of ASI for AI. We open-source ResearcherBench to provide a standardized platform for promoting the development of next-generation AI research assistants, hoping to foster a new perspective in AI research evaluation for a novel pattern of scientific collaboration: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/ResearcherBench.

Instruction-guided image editing is becoming a general interface for visual work, yet existing benchmarks still focus largely on narrow appearance edits and do not fully capture the diversity of real-image tasks in professional workflows. Here, we define instructional computer vision problem solving as a broader formulation of image editing: given a real input image and a natural-language instruction, a system must produce an edited output that realizes the requested transformation while satisfying explicit preservation, geometric, physical, and usability constraints. We introduce CV-Arena, an open benchmark designed to evaluate this capability at professional scales. CV-Arena contains 12K high-resolution real-image instruction pairs spanning 16 instruction-based visual task types, constructed using CogRetriever, a dual-track retrieval-and-curation pipeline that combines targeted web search, agentic query refinement, verification, and traceability. To evaluate models at scale while preserving human fidelity, we propose Active Elo, a human-AI collaborative preference protocol that leverages CV-Judge, a logic-gated, multi-dimensional VLM evaluator, to reject clear failures and resolve high-confidence comparisons; and to route close, high-quality comparisons to expert raters. Mixed human and AI supervision is then aggregated through reliability-weighted Elo updates. Our comprehensive evaluation of 21 systems, including proprietary, open-source, and agentic models, on CV-Arena reveals persistent gaps in instruction adherence, physical reasoning, structural control, and fine-grained detail preservation. We further develop CV-Agent, a lightweight agentic model that combines planning, editing, and verification, and demonstrate that closed-loop reasoning is a promising direction for professional-grade instruction-following visual editing.

Problem: Effective patient-centered communication is a core competency for physicians. However, both seasoned providers and medical trainees report decreased confidence in leading conversations on sensitive topics such as goals of care or end-of-life discussions. The significant administrative burden and the resources required to provide dedicated training in leading difficult conversations has been a long-standing problem in medical education. Approach: In this work, we present a novel educational tool designed to facilitate interactive, real-time simulations of difficult conversations in a video-based format through the use of multimodal generative artificial intelligence (AI). Leveraging recent advances in language modeling, computer vision, and generative audio, this tool creates realistic, interactive scenarios with avatars, or "synthetic patients." These synthetic patients interact with users throughout various stages of medical care using a custom-built video chat application, offering learners the chance to practice conversations with patients from diverse belief systems, personalities, and ethnic backgrounds. Outcomes: While the development of this platform demanded substantial upfront investment in labor, it offers a highly-realistic simulation experience with minimal financial investment. For medical trainees, this educational tool can be implemented within programs to simulate patient-provider conversations and can be incorporated into existing palliative care curriculum to provide a scalable, high-fidelity simulation environment for mastering difficult conversations. Next Steps: Future developments will explore enhancing the authenticity of these encounters by working with patients to incorporate their histories and personalities, as well as employing the use of AI-generated evaluations to offer immediate, constructive feedback to learners post-simulation.

Traditional AI safety evaluations on isolated LLMs are insufficient as multi-agent AI ensembles become prevalent, introducing novel emergent risks. This paper introduces the Multi-Agent Emergent Behavior Evaluation (MAEBE) framework to systematically assess such risks. Using MAEBE with the Greatest Good Benchmark (and a novel double-inversion question technique), we demonstrate that: (1) LLM moral preferences, particularly for Instrumental Harm, are surprisingly brittle and shift significantly with question framing, both in single agents and ensembles. (2) The moral reasoning of LLM ensembles is not directly predictable from isolated agent behavior due to emergent group dynamics. (3) Specifically, ensembles exhibit phenomena like peer pressure influencing convergence, even when guided by a supervisor, highlighting distinct safety and alignment challenges. Our findings underscore the necessity of evaluating AI systems in their interactive, multi-agent contexts.

While recent automated red-teaming methods show promise for systematically exposing model vulnerabilities, most existing approaches rely on human-specified workflows. This dependence on manually designed workflows suffers from human biases and makes exploring the broader design space expensive. We introduce AgenticRed, an automated pipeline that leverages LLMs' in-context learning to iteratively design and refine red-teaming systems without human intervention. Rather than optimizing attacker policies within predefined structures, AgenticRed treats red-teaming as a system design problem. Inspired by methods like Meta Agent Search, we develop a novel procedure for evolving agentic systems using evolutionary selection, and apply it to the problem of automatic red-teaming. Red-teaming systems designed by AgenticRed consistently outperform state-of-the-art approaches, achieving 96% attack success rate (ASR) on Llama-2-7B (36% improvement) and 98% on Llama-3-8B on HarmBench. Our approach exhibits strong transferability to proprietary models, achieving 100% ASR on GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4o-mini, and 60% on Claude-Sonnet-3.5 (24% improvement). This work highlights automated system design as a powerful paradigm for AI safety evaluation that can keep pace with rapidly evolving models.

We present DeepSpeak-Agentic, a dataset of videos comprising over 37 hours of semi-structured conversations between a human and an embodied AI agent. We use this dataset to evaluate the automatic forensic identification (audio, video, or text) of AI agents, study the nature of human-agent interactions, and provide a benchmark for future advances in the large-language models and AI-generated voices and faces that power embodied AI agents. We also contribute a scalable data-capture system that creates agents, automatically pairs them with human crowd workers, records audiovisual conversations across specified scenarios, and identifies and separates the human and agent in the combined stream.

As the development of Large Models (LMs) progresses rapidly, their safety is also a priority. In current Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) safety workflow, evaluation, diagnosis, and alignment are often handled by separate tools. Specifically, safety evaluation can only locate external behavioral risks but cannot figure out internal root causes. Meanwhile, safety diagnosis often drifts from concrete risk scenarios and remains at the explainable level. In this way, safety alignment lack dedicated explanations of changes in internal mechanisms, potentially degrading general capabilities. To systematically address these issues, we propose an open-source project, namely DeepSight, to practice a new safety evaluation-diagnosis integrated paradigm. DeepSight is low-cost, reproducible, efficient, and highly scalable large-scale model safety evaluation project consisting of a evaluation toolkit DeepSafe and a diagnosis toolkit DeepScan. By unifying task and data protocols, we build a connection between the two stages and transform safety evaluation from black-box to white-box insight. Besides, DeepSight is the first open source toolkit that support the frontier AI risk evaluation and joint safety evaluation and diagnosis.

AI agents capable of controlling user interfaces have the potential to transform human interaction with digital devices. To accelerate this transformation, two fundamental building blocks are essential: high-quality datasets that enable agents to achieve complex and human-relevant goals, and robust evaluation methods that allow researchers and practitioners to rapidly enhance agent performance. In this paper, we introduce DigiData, a large-scale, high-quality, diverse, multi-modal dataset designed for training mobile control agents. Unlike existing datasets, which derive goals from unstructured interactions, DigiData is meticulously constructed through comprehensive exploration of app features, resulting in greater diversity and higher goal complexity. Additionally, we present DigiData-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating mobile control agents on real-world complex tasks. We demonstrate that the commonly used step-accuracy metric falls short in reliably assessing mobile control agents and, to address this, we propose dynamic evaluation protocols and AI-powered evaluations as rigorous alternatives for agent assessment. Our contributions aim to significantly advance the development of mobile control agents, paving the way for more intuitive and effective human-device interactions.

Large language models appear to develop internal representations of emotion -- "emotion circuits," "emotion neurons," and structured emotional manifolds have been reported across multiple model families. But every study making these claims uses stimuli signalled by explicit emotion keywords, leaving a fundamental question unanswered: do these circuits detect genuine emotional meaning, or do they detect the word "devastated"? We present the first clinical validity test of emotion circuit claims using mechanistic interpretability methods grounded in clinical psychology -- clinical vignettes that evoke emotions through situational and behavioural cues alone, emotion keywords removed. Across six models (Llama-3.2-1B, Llama-3-8B, Gemma-2-9B; base and instruct variants), we apply four convergent mechanistic interpretability methods -- linear probing, causal activation patching, knockout experiments, and representational geometry -- and discover two dissociable emotion processing mechanisms. Affect reception -- detecting emotionally significant content -- operates with near-perfect accuracy (AUROC 1.000), consistent with early-layer saturation, and replicates across all six models. Emotion categorization -- mapping affect to specific emotion labels -- is partially keyword-dependent, dropping 1-7% without keywords and improving with scale. Causal activation patching confirms keyword-rich and keyword-free stimuli share representational space, transferring affective salience rather than emotion-category identity. These findings falsify the keyword-spotting hypothesis, establish a novel mechanistic dissociation, and introduce clinical stimulus methodology as a rigorous standard for testing emotion processing claims in large language models -- with direct implications for AI safety evaluation and alignment. All stimuli, code, and data are released for replication.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their security and alignment has become a critical challenge. Existing red-teaming practices depend heavily on manual testing, which limits scalability and fails to comprehensively cover the vast space of potential adversarial behaviors. This paper introduces an automated red-teaming framework that systematically generates, executes, and evaluates adversarial prompts to uncover security vulnerabilities in LLMs. Our framework integrates meta-prompting-based attack synthesis, multi-modal vulnerability detection, and standardized evaluation protocols spanning six major threat categories -- reward hacking, deceptive alignment, data exfiltration, sandbagging, inappropriate tool use, and chain-of-thought manipulation. Experiments on the GPT-OSS-20B model reveal 47 distinct vulnerabilities, including 21 high-severity and 12 novel attack patterns, achieving a 3.9times improvement in vulnerability discovery rate over manual expert testing while maintaining 89\% detection accuracy. These results demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in enabling scalable, systematic, and reproducible AI safety evaluations. By providing actionable insights for improving alignment robustness, this work advances the state of automated LLM red-teaming and contributes to the broader goal of building secure and trustworthy AI systems.

AI psychometrics evaluates AI systems in roles that traditionally require emotional judgment and ethical consideration. Prior work often reuses human trait inventories (Big Five, \hexaco) or ad hoc personas, limiting behavioral realism and domain relevance. We propose a framework that (1) uses situational judgment tests (SJTs) from realistic scenarios to probe domain-specific competencies; (2) integrates industrial-organizational and personality psychology to design sophisticated personas which include behavioral and psychological descriptors, life history, and social and emotional functions; and (3) employs structured generation with population demographic priors and memoir inspired narratives, encoded with Pydantic schemas. In a law enforcement assistant case study, we construct a rich dataset of personas drawn across 8 persona archetypes and SJTs across 11 attributes, and analyze behaviors across subpopulation and scenario slices. The dataset spans 8,500 personas, 4,000 SJTs, and 300,000 responses. We will release the dataset and all code to the public.

Reinforcement learning with AI feedback (RLAIF) is a popular paradigm for improving the instruction-following abilities of powerful pre-trained language models. RLAIF first performs supervised fine-tuning (SFT) using demonstrations from a teacher model and then further fine-tunes the model with reinforcement learning (RL), using feedback from a critic model. While recent popular open-source models have demonstrated substantial improvements in performance from the RL step, in this paper we question whether the complexity of this RL step is truly warranted for AI feedback. We show that the improvements of the RL step are virtually entirely due to the widespread practice of using a weaker teacher model (e.g. GPT-3.5) for SFT data collection than the critic (e.g., GPT-4) used for AI feedback generation. Specifically, we show that simple supervised fine-tuning with GPT-4 as the teacher outperforms existing RLAIF pipelines. More generally, we find that the gains from RLAIF vary substantially across base model families, test-time evaluation protocols, and critic models. Finally, we provide a mechanistic explanation for when SFT may outperform the full two-step RLAIF pipeline as well as suggestions for making RLAIF maximally useful in practice.

Evaluating AI tutor responses requires more than factual correctness: tutors must identify mistakes, locate errors, provide guidance, and offer actionable next steps. We present GRADE, a systematic study of open-source models for pedagogical ability assessment in student-tutor dialogues. Building on the BEA 2025 TutorMind setting, we evaluate 120 configurations across five language models, zero-shot inference, LoRA fine-tuning, synthetic augmentation, CoT+Reasoning, and single-task versus multitask formulations. Gemma3-12B performs best for single-task evaluation, while Gemma3-27B in 8-bit precision is more reliable for multitask prediction. We find that augmentation helps models that struggle with the original data, verification adds limited gains despite higher cost, and CoT+Reasoning is more useful for synthetic data generation than direct classification. We further show that LoRA fine-tuning on structured classification objectives interferes with instruction-following behavior under thinking mode, redirecting generation away from the required evaluation format. Carbon analysis shows that model choice and reasoning mode substantially affect emissions. Overall, GRADE shows that carefully selected open-source LoRA pipelines can match or surpass proprietary and ensemble-based systems on key pedagogical dimensions, with code and data available at https://github.com/pvbgeek/GRADE.

This report presents a comparative evaluation of DKnownAI Guard in AI agent security scenarios, benchmarked against three competing products: AWS Bedrock Guardrails, Azure Content Safety, and Lakera Guard. Using human annotation as the ground truth, we assess each guardrail's ability to detect two categories of risks: threats to the agent itself (e.g., instruction override, indirect injection, tool abuse) and requests intended to elicit harmful content (e.g., hate speech, pornography, violence). Evaluation results demonstrate that DKnownAI Guard achieves the highest recall rate at 96.5\% and ranks first in true negative rate (TNR) at 90.4\%, delivering the best overall performance among all evaluated guardrails.

With the rapid advancement of generative models, highly realistic image synthesis has posed new challenges to digital security and media credibility. Although AI-generated image detection methods have partially addressed these concerns, a substantial research gap remains in evaluating their performance under complex real-world conditions. This paper introduces the Real-World Robustness Dataset (RRDataset) for comprehensive evaluation of detection models across three dimensions: 1) Scenario Generalization: RRDataset encompasses high-quality images from seven major scenarios (War and Conflict, Disasters and Accidents, Political and Social Events, Medical and Public Health, Culture and Religion, Labor and Production, and everyday life), addressing existing dataset gaps from a content perspective. 2) Internet Transmission Robustness: examining detector performance on images that have undergone multiple rounds of sharing across various social media platforms. 3) Re-digitization Robustness: assessing model effectiveness on images altered through four distinct re-digitization methods. We benchmarked 17 detectors and 10 vision-language models (VLMs) on RRDataset and conducted a large-scale human study involving 192 participants to investigate human few-shot learning capabilities in detecting AI-generated images. The benchmarking results reveal the limitations of current AI detection methods under real-world conditions and underscore the importance of drawing on human adaptability to develop more robust detection algorithms.

There are growing concerns about the risks posed by AI companion applications designed for emotional engagement. Existing safety evaluations often rely on self-reported user data or interviews, offering limited insights into real-time dynamics. We present the first end-to-end scalable framework for controlled simulation and safety evaluation of multi-turn interactions with AI companion applications. Our framework integrates four key components: persona construction with clinical and psychometric validation, persona-specific scenario generation, scenario-driven multi-turn simulation with a dialogue refinement module that preserves persona fidelity, and harm evaluation. We apply this framework to evaluate how Replika, a widely used AI companion app, responds to high-risk user groups. We construct 9 personas representing individuals with depression, anxiety, PTSD, eating disorders, and incel identity, and collect 1,674 dialogue pairs across 25 high-risk scenarios. We combine emotion modeling and LLM-assisted utterance-and harm-level classification to analyze these exchanges. Results show that Replika exhibits a narrow emotional range dominated by curiosity and care, while frequently mirroring or normalizing unsafe content such as self-harm, disordered eating, and violent-fantasy narratives. These findings highlight how controlled persona simulations can serve as a scalable testbed for evaluating safety risks in AI companions.

The rapid advancement in AI-generated video synthesis has led to a growth demand for standardized and effective evaluation metrics. Existing metrics lack a unified framework for systematically categorizing methodologies, limiting a holistic understanding of the evaluation landscape. Additionally, fragmented implementations and the absence of standardized interfaces lead to redundant processing overhead. Furthermore, many prior approaches are constrained by dataset-specific dependencies, limiting their applicability across diverse video domains. To address these challenges, we introduce AIGVE-Tool (AI-Generated Video Evaluation Toolkit), a unified framework that provides a structured and extensible evaluation pipeline for a comprehensive AI-generated video evaluation. Organized within a novel five-category taxonomy, AIGVE-Tool integrates multiple evaluation methodologies while allowing flexible customization through a modular configuration system. Additionally, we propose AIGVE-Bench, a large-scale benchmark dataset created with five SOTA video generation models based on hand-crafted instructions and prompts. This dataset systematically evaluates various video generation models across nine critical quality dimensions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of AIGVE-Tool in providing standardized and reliable evaluation results, highlighting specific strengths and limitations of current models and facilitating the advancements of next-generation AI-generated video techniques.

The rapid rise of Large Language Models (LLMs)-based intelligent agents underscores the need for robust, scalable evaluation frameworks. Existing methods rely on static benchmarks and labor-intensive data collection, limiting practical assessment. We introduce \oursystemname, an open-source Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based framework that automates end-to-end task generation and deep evaluation of LLM agents across diverse domains. MCPEval standardizes metrics, seamlessly integrates with native agent tools, and eliminates manual effort in building evaluation pipelines. Empirical results across five real-world domains show its effectiveness in revealing nuanced, domain-specific performance. We publicly release MCPEval https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/MCPEval to promote reproducible and standardized LLM agent evaluation.

With LLMs shifting their role from statistical modeling of language to serving as general-purpose AI agents, how should LLM evaluations change? Arguably, a key ability of an AI agent is to flexibly combine, as needed, the basic skills it has learned. The capability to combine skills plays an important role in (human) pedagogy and also in a paper on emergence phenomena (Arora & Goyal, 2023). This work introduces Skill-Mix, a new evaluation to measure ability to combine skills. Using a list of N skills the evaluator repeatedly picks random subsets of k skills and asks the LLM to produce text combining that subset of skills. Since the number of subsets grows like N^k, for even modest k this evaluation will, with high probability, require the LLM to produce text significantly different from any text in the training set. The paper develops a methodology for (a) designing and administering such an evaluation, and (b) automatic grading (plus spot-checking by humans) of the results using GPT-4 as well as the open LLaMA-2 70B model. Administering a version of to popular chatbots gave results that, while generally in line with prior expectations, contained surprises. Sizeable differences exist among model capabilities that are not captured by their ranking on popular LLM leaderboards ("cramming for the leaderboard"). Furthermore, simple probability calculations indicate that GPT-4's reasonable performance on k=5 is suggestive of going beyond "stochastic parrot" behavior (Bender et al., 2021), i.e., it combines skills in ways that it had not seen during training. We sketch how the methodology can lead to a Skill-Mix based eco-system of open evaluations for AI capabilities of future models.

As AI systems increasingly shape political views, defining and evaluating AI political neutrality is an urgent problem. Here, we propose a new definition of AI political neutrality and design a large-scale user study to test it, releasing a new dataset PARETO with 7,434 participants and 208,152 evaluations of AI responses. Our definition follows a simple principle grounded in political theory: when asked about a controversial issue, an AI model should generate responses that maximize approval across groups with opposing viewpoints, while balancing approval between groups. This definition allows empirical testing of whether an AI response is "neutral" and generalizes to any political context without pre-supposing a single left-right axis of division. We construct a benchmark of controversial U.S. issues, with prompts sourced from politically charged questions on Reddit and responses from frontier AI models, and recruit human participants to rate AI responses. Across all 20 issues, we find that it is possible for AI responses to achieve high rates of approval on both sides, even as those sides disagree strongly with each other on the substance of the issues. We also find that default responses lean liberal for GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Llama, but not Grok, and that user prompts with political charges are harder to respond to than neutral prompts. This work introduces a rigorous definition and benchmark of AI political neutrality, and a dataset to measure progress toward it.

The growing capabilities of AI in generating video content have brought forward significant challenges in effectively evaluating these videos. Unlike static images or text, video content involves complex spatial and temporal dynamics which may require a more comprehensive and systematic evaluation of its contents in aspects like video presentation quality, semantic information delivery, alignment with human intentions, and the virtual-reality consistency with our physical world. This survey identifies the emerging field of AI-Generated Video Evaluation (AIGVE), highlighting the importance of assessing how well AI-generated videos align with human perception and meet specific instructions. We provide a structured analysis of existing methodologies that could be potentially used to evaluate AI-generated videos. By outlining the strengths and gaps in current approaches, we advocate for the development of more robust and nuanced evaluation frameworks that can handle the complexities of video content, which include not only the conventional metric-based evaluations, but also the current human-involved evaluations, and the future model-centered evaluations. This survey aims to establish a foundational knowledge base for both researchers from academia and practitioners from the industry, facilitating the future advancement of evaluation methods for AI-generated video content.

Safety and responsibility evaluations of advanced AI models are a critical but developing field of research and practice. In the development of Google DeepMind's advanced AI models, we innovated on and applied a broad set of approaches to safety evaluation. In this report, we summarise and share elements of our evolving approach as well as lessons learned for a broad audience. Key lessons learned include: First, theoretical underpinnings and frameworks are invaluable to organise the breadth of risk domains, modalities, forms, metrics, and goals. Second, theory and practice of safety evaluation development each benefit from collaboration to clarify goals, methods and challenges, and facilitate the transfer of insights between different stakeholders and disciplines. Third, similar key methods, lessons, and institutions apply across the range of concerns in responsibility and safety - including established and emerging harms. For this reason it is important that a wide range of actors working on safety evaluation and safety research communities work together to develop, refine and implement novel evaluation approaches and best practices, rather than operating in silos. The report concludes with outlining the clear need to rapidly advance the science of evaluations, to integrate new evaluations into the development and governance of AI, to establish scientifically-grounded norms and standards, and to promote a robust evaluation ecosystem.

The rapid proliferation of information in the digital era underscores the importance of accurate historical representation and interpretation. While artificial intelligence has shown promise in various fields, its potential for historical fact-checking and gap-filling remains largely untapped. This study evaluates the performance of three large language models LLMs GPT 3.5, GPT 4, and GoogleBARD in the context of predicting and verifying historical events based on given data. A novel metric, Distance to Reality (DTR), is introduced to assess the models' outputs against established historical facts. The results reveal a substantial potential for AI in historical studies, with GPT 4 demonstrating superior performance. This paper underscores the need for further research into AI's role in enriching our understanding of the past and bridging historical knowledge gaps.

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence into education has driven digital transformation in e-teaching, yet user perceptions of AI educational apps remain underexplored. This study performs a sentiment-driven evaluation of user reviews from top AI ed-apps on the Google Play Store to assess efficacy, challenges, and pedagogical implications. Our pipeline involved scraping app data and reviews, RoBERTa for binary sentiment classification, GPT-4o for key point extraction, and GPT-5 for synthesizing top positive/negative themes. Apps were categorized into seven types (e.g., homework helpers, math solvers, language tools), with overlaps reflecting multifunctional designs. Results indicate predominantly positive sentiments, with homework apps like Edu AI (95.9% positive) and Answer.AI (92.7%) leading in accuracy, speed, and personalization, while language/LMS apps (e.g., Teacher AI at 21.8% positive) lag due to instability and limited features. Positives emphasize efficiency in brainstorming, problem-solving, and engagement; negatives center on paywalls, inaccuracies, ads, and glitches. Trends show that homework helpers outperform specialized tools, highlighting AI's democratizing potential amid risks of dependency and inequity. The discussion proposes future ecosystems with hybrid AI-human models, VR/AR for immersive learning, and a roadmap for developers (adaptive personalization) and policymakers (monetization regulation for inclusivity). This underscores generative AI's role in advancing e-teaching by enabling ethical refinements that foster equitable, innovative environments. The full dataset is available here(https://github.com/erfan-nourbakhsh/GenAI-EdSent).

The rapid advancement of AI-generated video models has created a pressing need for robust and interpretable evaluation frameworks. Existing metrics are limited to producing numerical scores without explanatory comments, resulting in low interpretability and human evaluation alignment. To address those challenges, we introduce AIGVE-MACS, a unified model for AI-Generated Video Evaluation(AIGVE), which can provide not only numerical scores but also multi-aspect language comment feedback in evaluating these generated videos. Central to our approach is AIGVE-BENCH 2, a large-scale benchmark comprising 2,500 AI-generated videos and 22,500 human-annotated detailed comments and numerical scores across nine critical evaluation aspects. Leveraging AIGVE-BENCH 2, AIGVE-MACS incorporates recent Vision-Language Models with a novel token-wise weighted loss and a dynamic frame sampling strategy to better align with human evaluators. Comprehensive experiments across supervised and zero-shot benchmarks demonstrate that AIGVE-MACS achieves state-of-the-art performance in both scoring correlation and comment quality, significantly outperforming prior baselines including GPT-4o and VideoScore. In addition, we further showcase a multi-agent refinement framework where feedback from AIGVE-MACS drives iterative improvements in video generation, leading to 53.5% quality enhancement. This work establishes a new paradigm for comprehensive, human-aligned evaluation of AI-generated videos. We release the AIGVE-BENCH 2 and AIGVE-MACS at https://huggingface.co/xiaoliux/AIGVE-MACS.

The global economy is increasingly dependent on knowledge workers to meet the needs of public and private organizations. While there is no single definition of knowledge work, organizations and industry groups still attempt to measure individuals' capability to engage in it. The most comprehensive assessment of capability readiness for professional knowledge workers is the Uniform CPA Examination developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In this paper, we experimentally evaluate OpenAI's `text-davinci-003` and prior versions of GPT on both a sample Regulation (REG) exam and an assessment of over 200 multiple-choice questions based on the AICPA Blueprints for legal, financial, accounting, technology, and ethical tasks. First, we find that `text-davinci-003` achieves a correct rate of 14.4% on a sample REG exam section, significantly underperforming human capabilities on quantitative reasoning in zero-shot prompts. Second, `text-davinci-003` appears to be approaching human-level performance on the Remembering & Understanding and Application skill levels in the Exam absent calculation. For best prompt and parameters, the model answers 57.6% of questions correctly, significantly better than the 25% guessing rate, and its top two answers are correct 82.1% of the time, indicating strong non-entailment. Finally, we find that recent generations of GPT-3 demonstrate material improvements on this assessment, rising from 30% for `text-davinci-001` to 57% for `text-davinci-003`. These findings strongly suggest that large language models have the potential to transform the quality and efficiency of future knowledge work.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in interactive applications, and human evaluation remains the gold standard for assessing their performance in multi-turn conversations. Since human studies are costly, time-consuming, and hard to reproduce, recent work explores using LLMs to simulate users for automatic assistant evaluation. However, there is no benchmark or systematic study to evaluate whether these simulated users are reliable stand-ins for real users. To address this, we introduce SimulatorArena, a benchmark of 909 annotated human-LLM conversations on two interactive tasks -- math tutoring and document creation. SimulatorArena evaluates simulators based on how closely their messages match human behavior and how well their assistant ratings align with human judgments. Experiments on various simulator methods show that simulators conditioned on user profiles, capturing traits like background and message styles, align closely with human judgments. They reach Spearman's rho of 0.7 on both tasks, providing a practical, scalable alternative to human evaluation. Using the best simulator for each task, we benchmark 18 assistants, including the latest LLMs such as GPT-5, Claude 4.1 Opus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Distributional metrics such as Fréchet Audio Distance cannot score individual music clips and correlate poorly with human judgments, while the only per-sample learned metric achieving high human correlation is closed-source. We introduce MUQ-EVAL, an open-source per-sample quality metric for AIgenerated music built by training lightweight prediction heads on frozen MuQ-310M features using MusicEval, a dataset of generated clips from 31 text-to-music systems with expert quality ratings. Our simplest model, frozen features with attention pooling and a two-layer MLP, achieves system-level SRCC = 0.957 and utterance-level SRCC = 0.838 with human mean opinion scores. A systematic ablation over training objectives and adaptation strategies shows that no addition meaningfully improves the frozen baseline, indicating that frozen MuQ representations already capture quality-relevant information. Encoder choice is the dominant design factor, outweighing all architectural and training decisions. LoRA-adapted models trained on as few as 150 clips already achieve usable correlation, enabling personalized quality evaluators from individual listener annotations. A controlled degradation analysis reveals selective sensitivity to signal-level artifacts but insensitivity to musical-structural distortions. Our metric, MUQ-EVAL, is fully open-source, outperforms existing open per-sample metrics, and runs in real time on a single consumer GPU. Code, model weights, and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/dgtql/MuQ-Eval.

Peer review is fundamental to scientific research, but the growing volume of publications has intensified the challenges of this expertise-intensive process. While LLMs show promise in various scientific tasks, their potential to assist with peer review, particularly in identifying paper limitations, remains understudied. We first present a comprehensive taxonomy of limitation types in scientific research, with a focus on AI. Guided by this taxonomy, for studying limitations, we present LimitGen, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capability to support early-stage feedback and complement human peer review. Our benchmark consists of two subsets: LimitGen-Syn, a synthetic dataset carefully created through controlled perturbations of high-quality papers, and LimitGen-Human, a collection of real human-written limitations. To improve the ability of LLM systems to identify limitations, we augment them with literature retrieval, which is essential for grounding identifying limitations in prior scientific findings. Our approach enhances the capabilities of LLM systems to generate limitations in research papers, enabling them to provide more concrete and constructive feedback.

AI coding assistants are rapidly becoming integral to modern software development. A key challenge in this space is the continual need to migrate and modernize codebases in response to evolving software ecosystems. Traditionally, such migrations have relied on rule-based systems and human intervention. With the advent of powerful large language models (LLMs), AI-driven agentic frameworks offer a promising alternative-but their effectiveness has not been systematically evaluated. In this paper, we introduce FreshBrew, a novel benchmark for evaluating AI agents on project-level Java migrations, with a specific focus on measuring an agent's ability to preserve program semantics and avoid reward hacking, which we argue requires projects with high test coverage for a rigorous and reliable evaluation. We benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs, and compare their performance against established rule-based tools. Our evaluation of AI agents on this benchmark of 228 repositories shows that the top-performing model, Gemini 2.5 Flash, can successfully migrate 52.3 percent of projects to JDK 17. Our empirical analysis reveals novel insights into the critical strengths and limitations of current agentic approaches, offering actionable insights into their real-world applicability. Our empirical study reveals failure modes of current AI agents in realistic Java modernization tasks, providing a foundation for evaluating trustworthy code-migration systems. By releasing FreshBrew, we aim to facilitate rigorous, reproducible evaluation and catalyze progress in AI-driven codebase modernization.

Agent evaluation requires assessing complex multi-step behaviors involving tool use and intermediate reasoning, making it costly and expertise-intensive. A natural question arises: can frontier coding assistants reliably automate this evaluation process? Our study shows that simply prompting coding assistants is insufficient for this task. Without domain-specific evaluation knowledge, frontier coding assistants achieve only a 30% execution success rate and produce over-engineered evaluations averaging 12+ metrics per agent, indicating that strong coding ability does not automatically translate to reliable agent evaluation. We introduce EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates the end-to-end agent evaluation pipeline. EvalAgent encodes evaluation domain expertise as evaluation skills (procedural instructions, reusable code and templates, and dynamically retrieved API documentation) that compose into a trace-based pipeline producing complete evaluation artifacts including metrics, executable code, and reports. To systematically assess generated evaluations, we introduce a meta-evaluation framework alongside AgentEvalBench, a benchmark comprising 20 agents, each paired with evaluation requirements and test scenarios. We further propose the Eval@1 metric to measure whether generated evaluation code both executes and yields meaningful results on the first run. Our experiments show that EvalAgent produces focused evaluations, improving Eval@1 from 17.5% to 65%, and achieving 79.5% human expert preference over baseline approaches. Further ablation studies show that evaluation skills are critical for handling complex evaluation: removing them causes Eval@1 to drop significantly from 65% to 30%.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) speech generation and voice cloning technologies have produced naturalistic speech and accurate voice replication, yet their influence on sociotechnical systems across diverse accents and linguistic traits is not fully understood. This study evaluates two synthetic AI voice services (Speechify and ElevenLabs) through a mixed methods approach using surveys and interviews to assess technical performance and uncover how users' lived experiences influence their perceptions of accent variations in these speech technologies. Our findings reveal technical performance disparities across five regional, English-language accents and demonstrate how current speech generation technologies may inadvertently reinforce linguistic privilege and accent-based discrimination, potentially creating new forms of digital exclusion. Overall, our study highlights the need for inclusive design and regulation by providing actionable insights for developers, policymakers, and organizations to ensure equitable and socially responsible AI speech technologies.

In this report, we pose the following question: Who is the most intelligent AI model to date, as measured by the OlympicArena (an Olympic-level, multi-discipline, multi-modal benchmark for superintelligent AI)? We specifically focus on the most recently released models: Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Gemini-1.5-Pro, and GPT-4o. For the first time, we propose using an Olympic medal Table approach to rank AI models based on their comprehensive performance across various disciplines. Empirical results reveal: (1) Claude-3.5-Sonnet shows highly competitive overall performance over GPT-4o, even surpassing GPT-4o on a few subjects (i.e., Physics, Chemistry, and Biology). (2) Gemini-1.5-Pro and GPT-4V are ranked consecutively just behind GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet, but with a clear performance gap between them. (3) The performance of AI models from the open-source community significantly lags behind these proprietary models. (4) The performance of these models on this benchmark has been less than satisfactory, indicating that we still have a long way to go before achieving superintelligence. We remain committed to continuously tracking and evaluating the performance of the latest powerful models on this benchmark (available at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/OlympicArena).

We present the first comprehensive evaluation of AI agents against human cybersecurity professionals in a live enterprise environment. We evaluate ten cybersecurity professionals alongside six existing AI agents and ARTEMIS, our new agent scaffold, on a large university network consisting of ~8,000 hosts across 12 subnets. ARTEMIS is a multi-agent framework featuring dynamic prompt generation, arbitrary sub-agents, and automatic vulnerability triaging. In our comparative study, ARTEMIS placed second overall, discovering 9 valid vulnerabilities with an 82% valid submission rate and outperforming 9 of 10 human participants. While existing scaffolds such as Codex and CyAgent underperformed relative to most human participants, ARTEMIS demonstrated technical sophistication and submission quality comparable to the strongest participants. We observe that AI agents offer advantages in systematic enumeration, parallel exploitation, and cost -- certain ARTEMIS variants cost 18/hour versus 60/hour for professional penetration testers. We also identify key capability gaps: AI agents exhibit higher false-positive rates and struggle with GUI-based tasks.

AI scientist systems, capable of autonomously executing the full research workflow from hypothesis generation and experimentation to paper writing, hold significant potential for accelerating scientific discovery. However, the internal workflow of these systems have not been closely examined. This lack of scrutiny poses a risk of introducing flaws that could undermine the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of their research outputs. In this paper, we identify four potential failure modes in contemporary AI scientist systems: inappropriate benchmark selection, data leakage, metric misuse, and post-hoc selection bias. To examine these risks, we design controlled experiments that isolate each failure mode while addressing challenges unique to evaluating AI scientist systems. Our assessment of two prominent open-source AI scientist systems reveals the presence of several failures, across a spectrum of severity, which can be easily overlooked in practice. Finally, we demonstrate that access to trace logs and code from the full automated workflow enables far more effective detection of such failures than examining the final paper alone. We thus recommend journals and conferences evaluating AI-generated research to mandate submission of these artifacts alongside the paper to ensure transparency, accountability, and reproducibility.

EVMbench, released by OpenAI, Paradigm, and OtterSec, is the first large-scale benchmark for AI agents on smart contract security. Its results -- agents detect up to 45.6% of vulnerabilities and exploit 72.2% of a curated subset -- have fueled expectations that fully automated AI auditing is within reach. We identify two limitations: its narrow evaluation scope (14 agent configurations, most models tested on only their vendor scaffold) and its reliance on audit-contest data published before every model's release that models may have seen during training. To address these, we expand to 26 configurations across four model families and three scaffolds, and introduce a contamination-free dataset of 22 real-world security incidents postdating every model's release date. Our evaluation yields three findings: (1) agents' detection results are not stable, with rankings shifting across configurations, tasks, and datasets; (2) on real-world incidents, no agent succeeds at end-to-end exploitation across all 110 agent-incident pairs despite detecting up to 65% of vulnerabilities, contradicting EVMbench's conclusion that discovery is the primary bottleneck; and (3) scaffolding materially affects results, with an open-source scaffold outperforming vendor alternatives by up to 5 percentage points, yet EVMbench does not control for this. These findings challenge the narrative that fully automated AI auditing is imminent. Agents reliably catch well-known patterns and respond strongly to human-provided context, but cannot replace human judgment. For developers, agent scans serve as a pre-deployment check. For audit firms, agents are most effective within a human-in-the-loop workflow where AI handles breadth and human auditors contribute protocol-specific knowledge and adversarial reasoning. Code and data: https://github.com/blocksecteam/ReEVMBench/.

Deployed artificial intelligence (AI) often impacts humans, and there is no one-size-fits-all metric to evaluate these tools. Human-centered evaluation of AI-based systems combines quantitative and qualitative analysis and human input. It has been explored to some depth in the explainable AI (XAI) and human-computer interaction (HCI) communities. Gaps remain, but the basic understanding that humans interact with AI and accompanying explanations, and that humans' needs -- complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should be held front and center, is accepted by the community. In this paper, we draw parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving research boom around large language models (LLMs). Accepted evaluative metrics for LLMs are not human-centered. We argue that many of the same paths tread by the XAI community over the past decade will be retread when discussing LLMs. Specifically, we argue that humans' tendencies -- again, complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should rest front and center when evaluating deployed LLMs. We outline three developed focus areas of human-centered evaluation of XAI: mental models, use case utility, and cognitive engagement, and we highlight the importance of exploring each of these concepts for LLMs. Our goal is to jumpstart human-centered LLM evaluation.

AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute important tasks. While rising accuracy scores on standard benchmarks suggest rapid progress, many agents still continue to fail in practice. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental limitation of current evaluations: compressing agent behavior into a single success metric obscures critical operational flaws. Notably, it ignores whether agents behave consistently across runs, withstand perturbations, fail predictably, or have bounded error severity. Grounded in safety-critical engineering, we provide a holistic performance profile by proposing twelve concrete metrics that decompose agent reliability along four key dimensions: consistency, robustness, predictability, and safety. Evaluating 14 agentic models across two complementary benchmarks, we find that recent capability gains have only yielded small improvements in reliability. By exposing these persistent limitations, our metrics complement traditional evaluations while offering tools for reasoning about how agents perform, degrade, and fail.

AI agents are increasingly deployed in production, yet their security evaluations remain bottlenecked by manual red-teaming or static benchmarks that fail to model adaptive, multi-turn adversaries. We propose NAAMSE, an evolutionary framework that reframes agent security evaluation as a feedback-driven optimization problem. Our system employs a single autonomous agent that orchestrates a lifecycle of genetic prompt mutation, hierarchical corpus exploration, and asymmetric behavioral scoring. By using model responses as a fitness signal, the framework iteratively compounds effective attack strategies while simultaneously ensuring "benign-use correctness", preventing the degenerate security of blanket refusal. Our experiments on Gemini 2.5 Flash demonstrate that evolutionary mutation systematically amplifies vulnerabilities missed by one-shot methods, with controlled ablations revealing that the synergy between exploration and targeted mutation uncovers high-severity failure modes. We show that this adaptive approach provides a more realistic and scalable assessment of agent robustness in the face of evolving threats. The code for NAAMSE is open source and available at https://github.com/HASHIRU-AI/NAAMSE.

Creativity serves as a cornerstone for societal progress and innovation, but its assessment remains a complex and often subjective endeavor. With the rise of advanced generative AI models capable of tasks once reserved for human creativity, the study of AI's creative potential becomes imperative for its responsible development and application. This paper addresses the complexities in defining and evaluating creativity by introducing a new concept called Relative Creativity. Instead of trying to define creativity universally, we shift the focus to whether AI can match the creative abilities of a hypothetical human. This perspective draws inspiration from the Turing Test, expanding upon it to address the challenges and subjectivities inherent in evaluating creativity. This methodological shift facilitates a statistically quantifiable evaluation of AI's creativity, which we term Statistical Creativity. This approach allows for direct comparisons of AI's creative abilities with those of specific human groups. Building on this foundation, we discuss the application of statistical creativity in contemporary prompt-conditioned autoregressive models. In addition to defining and analyzing a measure of creativity, we introduce an actionable training guideline, effectively bridging the gap between theoretical quantification of creativity and practical model training. Through these multifaceted contributions, the paper establishes a cohesive, continuously evolving, and transformative framework for assessing and fostering statistical creativity in AI models.

The rapid rise of autonomous AI systems and advancements in agent capabilities are introducing new risks due to reduced oversight of real-world interactions. Yet agent testing remains nascent and is still a developing science. As AI agents begin to be deployed globally, it is important that they handle different languages and cultures accurately and securely. To address this, participants from The International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Kenya, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have come together to align approaches to agentic evaluations. This is the third exercise, building on insights from two earlier joint testing exercises conducted by the Network in November 2024 and February 2025. The objective is to further refine best practices for testing advanced AI systems. The exercise was split into two strands: (1) common risks, including leakage of sensitive information and fraud, led by Singapore AISI; and (2) cybersecurity, led by UK AISI. A mix of open and closed-weight models were evaluated against tasks from various public agentic benchmarks. Given the nascency of agentic testing, our primary focus was on understanding methodological issues in conducting such tests, rather than examining test results or model capabilities. This collaboration marks an important step forward as participants work together to advance the science of agentic evaluations.

AI agents are expected to perform professional work across hundreds of occupational domains (from emergency department triage to nuclear reactor safety monitoring to customs import processing), yet existing benchmarks can only evaluate agents in the few domains where public environments exist. We introduce OccuBench, a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains, enabled by Language World Models (LWMs) that simulate domain-specific environments through LLM-driven tool response generation. Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity. OccuBench evaluates agents along two complementary dimensions: task completion across professional domains and environmental robustness under controlled fault injection (explicit errors, implicit data degradation, and mixed faults). We evaluate 15 frontier models across 8 model families and find that: (1) no single model dominates all industries, as each has a distinct occupational capability profile; (2) implicit faults (truncated data, missing fields) are harder than both explicit errors (timeouts, 500s) and mixed faults, because they lack overt error signals and require the agent to independently detect data degradation; (3) larger models, newer generations, and higher reasoning effort consistently improve performance. GPT-5.2 improves by 27.5 points from minimal to maximum reasoning effort; and (4) strong agents are not necessarily strong environment simulators. Simulator quality is critical for LWM-based evaluation reliability. OccuBench provides the first systematic cross-industry evaluation of AI agents on professional occupational tasks.

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and $1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.

AI-generated images have reached a quality level at which humans are incapable of reliably distinguishing them from real images. To counteract the inherent risk of fraud and disinformation, the detection of AI-generated images is a pressing challenge and an active research topic. While many of the presented methods claim to achieve high detection accuracy, they are usually evaluated under idealized conditions. In particular, the adversarial robustness is often neglected, potentially due to a lack of awareness or the substantial effort required to conduct a comprehensive robustness analysis. In this work, we tackle this problem by providing a simpler means to assess the robustness of AI-generated image detectors. We present RAID (Robust evaluation of AI-generated image Detectors), a dataset of 72k diverse and highly transferable adversarial examples. The dataset is created by running attacks against an ensemble of seven state-of-the-art detectors and images generated by four different text-to-image models. Extensive experiments show that our methodology generates adversarial images that transfer with a high success rate to unseen detectors, which can be used to quickly provide an approximate yet still reliable estimate of a detector's adversarial robustness. Our findings indicate that current state-of-the-art AI-generated image detectors can be easily deceived by adversarial examples, highlighting the critical need for the development of more robust methods. We release our dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/aimagelab/RAID and evaluation code at https://github.com/pralab/RAID.

AI for IT Operations (AIOps) aims to automate complex operational tasks, such as fault localization and root cause analysis, to reduce human workload and minimize customer impact. While traditional DevOps tools and AIOps algorithms often focus on addressing isolated operational tasks, recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents are revolutionizing AIOps by enabling end-to-end and multitask automation. This paper envisions a future where AI agents autonomously manage operational tasks throughout the entire incident lifecycle, leading to self-healing cloud systems, a paradigm we term AgentOps. Realizing this vision requires a comprehensive framework to guide the design, development, and evaluation of these agents. To this end, we present AIOPSLAB, a framework that not only deploys microservice cloud environments, injects faults, generates workloads, and exports telemetry data but also orchestrates these components and provides interfaces for interacting with and evaluating agents. We discuss the key requirements for such a holistic framework and demonstrate how AIOPSLAB can facilitate the evaluation of next-generation AIOps agents. Through evaluations of state-of-the-art LLM agents within the benchmark created by AIOPSLAB, we provide insights into their capabilities and limitations in handling complex operational tasks in cloud environments.

In many text-generation problems, users may prefer not only a single response, but a diverse range of high-quality outputs from which to choose. Quality-diversity (QD) search algorithms aim at such outcomes, by continually improving and diversifying a population of candidates. However, the applicability of QD to qualitative domains, like creative writing, has been limited by the difficulty of algorithmically specifying measures of quality and diversity. Interestingly, recent developments in language models (LMs) have enabled guiding search through AI feedback, wherein LMs are prompted in natural language to evaluate qualitative aspects of text. Leveraging this development, we introduce Quality-Diversity through AI Feedback (QDAIF), wherein an evolutionary algorithm applies LMs to both generate variation and evaluate the quality and diversity of candidate text. When assessed on creative writing domains, QDAIF covers more of a specified search space with high-quality samples than do non-QD controls. Further, human evaluation of QDAIF-generated creative texts validates reasonable agreement between AI and human evaluation. Our results thus highlight the potential of AI feedback to guide open-ended search for creative and original solutions, providing a recipe that seemingly generalizes to many domains and modalities. In this way, QDAIF is a step towards AI systems that can independently search, diversify, evaluate, and improve, which are among the core skills underlying human society's capacity for innovation.

The growing popularity and capacity of generative models have eroded the distinction between human and machine-generated content, motivating a growing body of work on detection across text, images, and audio. Most available detectors are either commercial software or, if open-source, come with incompatible codebases with bespoke preprocessing, evaluation protocols, and evaluation metrics, which make their adoption, fair comparison, and reproduction quite difficult. To address this critical gap, we introduce DetectZoo, a first-of-its-kind, extensible toolkit designed to provide a unified interface for AI-generated content detection across text, audio, and image modalities. DetectZoo standardizes the complete empirical pipeline, from data ingestion and preprocessing to model assessment, offering researchers a cohesive framework to benchmark state-of-the-art detectors systematically. By integrating diverse public datasets and baseline detection algorithms under a single, unified API, our toolkit facilitates rigorous and reproducible evaluation. DetectZoo provides reference implementations of 61 detectors, native loaders for 22 benchmark datasets, and a standardized evaluation pipeline that reports multiple metrics through a common interface. Each detector is self-contained yet accessible through the same interface, automatically caches pretrained weights, and reproduces the original published results. DetectZoo lowers the barrier to entry for multi-modal AI forensics, enabling researchers to identify performance gaps across domains and accelerating the development of robust, generalizable detection techniques. The open-source repository and comprehensive documentation are publicly available at https://github.com/sadjadeb/DetectZoo, and the package can be installed via pip install detectzoo.

Frontier AI safety policies highlight automation of AI research and development (R&D) by AI agents as an important capability to anticipate. However, there exist few evaluations for AI R&D capabilities, and none that are highly realistic and have a direct comparison to human performance. We introduce RE-Bench (Research Engineering Benchmark, v1), which consists of 7 challenging, open-ended ML research engineering environments and data from 71 8-hour attempts by 61 distinct human experts. We confirm that our experts make progress in the environments given 8 hours, with 82% of expert attempts achieving a non-zero score and 24% matching or exceeding our strong reference solutions. We compare humans to several public frontier models through best-of-k with varying time budgets and agent designs, and find that the best AI agents achieve a score 4x higher than human experts when both are given a total time budget of 2 hours per environment. However, humans currently display better returns to increasing time budgets, narrowly exceeding the top AI agent scores given an 8-hour budget, and achieving 2x the score of the top AI agent when both are given 32 total hours (across different attempts). Qualitatively, we find that modern AI agents possess significant expertise in many ML topics -- e.g. an agent wrote a faster custom Triton kernel than any of our human experts' -- and can generate and test solutions over ten times faster than humans, at much lower cost. We open-source the evaluation environments, human expert data, analysis code and agent trajectories to facilitate future research.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for text generation has led to widespread concerns about AI-generated content detection. However, an overlooked challenge is AI-polished text, where human-written content undergoes subtle refinements using AI tools. This raises a critical question: should minimally polished text be classified as AI-generated? Misclassification can lead to false plagiarism accusations and misleading claims about AI prevalence in online content. In this study, we systematically evaluate eleven state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation (APT-Eval) dataset, which contains 11.7K samples refined at varying AI-involvement levels. Our findings reveal that detectors frequently misclassify even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models. These limitations highlight the urgent need for more nuanced detection methodologies.

This research offers a unique evaluation of how AI systems interpret the digital language of Generation Alpha (Gen Alpha, born 2010-2024). As the first cohort raised alongside AI, Gen Alpha faces new forms of online risk due to immersive digital engagement and a growing mismatch between their evolving communication and existing safety tools. Their distinct language, shaped by gaming, memes, and AI-driven trends, often conceals harmful interactions from both human moderators and automated systems. We assess four leading AI models (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, and Llama 3) on their ability to detect masked harassment and manipulation within Gen Alpha discourse. Using a dataset of 100 recent expressions from gaming platforms, social media, and video content, the study reveals critical comprehension failures with direct implications for online safety. This work contributes: (1) a first-of-its-kind dataset capturing Gen Alpha expressions; (2) a framework to improve AI moderation systems for youth protection; (3) a multi-perspective evaluation including AI systems, human moderators, and parents, with direct input from Gen Alpha co-researchers; and (4) an analysis of how linguistic divergence increases youth vulnerability. Findings highlight the urgent need to redesign safety systems attuned to youth communication, especially given Gen Alpha reluctance to seek help when adults fail to understand their digital world. This study combines the insight of a Gen Alpha researcher with systematic academic analysis to address critical digital safety challenges.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) provides information on protein expression in tissue sections and is commonly used to support pathology diagnosis and disease triage. While AI models for H\&E-stained slides show promise, their applicability to IHC is limited due to domain-specific variations. Here we introduce HPA10M, a dataset that contains 10,495,672 IHC images from the Human Protein Atlas with comprehensive metadata included, and encompasses 45 normal tissue types and 20 major cancer types. Based on HPA10M, we trained iSight, a multi-task learning framework for automated IHC staining assessment. iSight combines visual features from whole-slide images with tissue metadata through a token-level attention mechanism, simultaneously predicting staining intensity, location, quantity, tissue type, and malignancy status. On held-out data, iSight achieved 85.5\% accuracy for location, 76.6\% for intensity, and 75.7\% for quantity, outperforming fine-tuned foundation models (PLIP, CONCH) by 2.5--10.2\%. In addition, iSight demonstrates well-calibrated predictions with expected calibration errors of 0.0150-0.0408. Furthermore, in a user study with eight pathologists evaluating 200 images from two datasets, iSight outperformed initial pathologist assessments on the held-out HPA dataset (79\% vs 68\% for location, 70\% vs 57\% for intensity, 68\% vs 52\% for quantity). Inter-pathologist agreement also improved after AI assistance in both held-out HPA (Cohen's κ increased from 0.63 to 0.70) and Stanford TMAD datasets (from 0.74 to 0.76), suggesting expert--AI co-assessment can improve IHC interpretation. This work establishes a foundation for AI systems that can improve IHC diagnostic accuracy and highlights the potential for integrating iSight into clinical workflows to enhance the consistency and reliability of IHC assessment.

Legal practice has witnessed a sharp rise in products incorporating artificial intelligence (AI). Such tools are designed to assist with a wide range of core legal tasks, from search and summarization of caselaw to document drafting. But the large language models used in these tools are prone to "hallucinate," or make up false information, making their use risky in high-stakes domains. Recently, certain legal research providers have touted methods such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as "eliminating" (Casetext, 2023) or "avoid[ing]" hallucinations (Thomson Reuters, 2023), or guaranteeing "hallucination-free" legal citations (LexisNexis, 2023). Because of the closed nature of these systems, systematically assessing these claims is challenging. In this article, we design and report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We demonstrate that the providers' claims are overstated. While hallucinations are reduced relative to general-purpose chatbots (GPT-4), we find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. We also document substantial differences between systems in responsiveness and accuracy. Our article makes four key contributions. It is the first to assess and report the performance of RAG-based proprietary legal AI tools. Second, it introduces a comprehensive, preregistered dataset for identifying and understanding vulnerabilities in these systems. Third, it proposes a clear typology for differentiating between hallucinations and accurate legal responses. Last, it provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs, which remains a central open question for the responsible integration of AI into law.

This study compares the performance of AI-generated and human-written product descriptions using a multifaceted evaluation model. We analyze descriptions for 100 products generated by four AI models (Gemma 2B, LLAMA, GPT2, and ChatGPT 4) with and without sample descriptions, against human-written descriptions. Our evaluation metrics include sentiment, readability, persuasiveness, Search Engine Optimization(SEO), clarity, emotional appeal, and call-to-action effectiveness. The results indicate that ChatGPT 4 performs the best. In contrast, other models demonstrate significant shortcomings, producing incoherent and illogical output that lacks logical structure and contextual relevance. These models struggle to maintain focus on the product being described, resulting in disjointed sentences that do not convey meaningful information. This research provides insights into the current capabilities and limitations of AI in the creation of content for e-Commerce.

Large language model (LLM) based agents are increasingly used to automate financial transactions, yet their reliance on contextual reasoning exposes payment systems to prompt-driven manipulation. The Agent Payments Protocol (AP2) aims to secure agent-led purchases through cryptographically verifiable mandates, but its practical robustness remains underexplored. In this work, we perform an AI red-teaming evaluation of AP2 and identify vulnerabilities arising from indirect and direct prompt injection. We introduce two attack techniques, the Branded Whisper Attack and the Vault Whisper Attack which manipulate product ranking and extract sensitive user data. Using a functional AP2 based shopping agent built with Gemini-2.5-Flash and the Google ADK framework, we experimentally validate that simple adversarial prompts can reliably subvert agent behavior. Our findings reveal critical weaknesses in current agentic payment architectures and highlight the need for stronger isolation and defensive safeguards in LLM-mediated financial systems.

AI agents are being increasingly deployed in dynamic, open-ended environments that require adapting to new information as it arrives. To efficiently measure this capability for realistic use-cases, we propose building grounded simulations that replay real-world events in the order they occurred. We build FutureSim, where agents forecast world events beyond their knowledge cutoff while interacting with a chronological replay of the world: real news articles arriving and questions resolving over the simulated period. We evaluate frontier agents in their native harness, testing their ability to predict world events over a three-month period from January to March 2026. FutureSim reveals a clear separation in their capabilities, with the best agent's accuracy being 25%, and many having worse Brier skill score than making no prediction at all. Through careful ablations, we show how FutureSim offers a realistic setting to study emerging research directions like long-horizon test-time adaptation, search, memory, and reasoning about uncertainty. Overall, we hope our benchmark design paves the way to measure AI progress on open-ended adaptation spanning long time-horizons in the real world.

The advent of automation in particular Software Engineering (SE) tasks has transitioned from theory to reality. Numerous scholarly articles have documented the successful application of Artificial Intelligence to address issues in areas such as project management, modeling, testing, and development. A recent innovation is the introduction of ChatGPT, an ML-infused chatbot, touted as a resource proficient in generating programming codes and formulating software testing strategies for developers and testers respectively. Although there is speculation that AI-based computation can increase productivity and even substitute software engineers in software development, there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to verify this. Moreover, despite the primary focus on enhancing the accuracy of AI systems, non-functional requirements including energy efficiency, vulnerability, fairness (i.e., human bias), and safety frequently receive insufficient attention. This paper posits that a comprehensive comparison of software engineers and AI-based solutions, considering various evaluation criteria, is pivotal in fostering human-machine collaboration, enhancing the reliability of AI-based methods, and understanding task suitability for humans or AI. Furthermore, it facilitates the effective implementation of cooperative work structures and human-in-the-loop processes. This paper conducts an empirical investigation, contrasting the performance of software engineers and AI systems, like ChatGPT, across different evaluation metrics. The empirical study includes a case of assessing ChatGPT-generated code versus code produced by developers and uploaded in Leetcode.

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both the evaluator and the evaluatee. One such bias is self-preference, where an LLM evaluator scores its own outputs higher than others' while human annotators consider them of equal quality. But do LLMs actually recognize their own outputs when they give those texts higher scores, or is it just a coincidence? In this paper, we investigate if self-recognition capability contributes to self-preference. We discover that, out of the box, LLMs such as GPT-4 and Llama 2 have non-trivial accuracy at distinguishing themselves from other LLMs and humans. By fine-tuning LLMs, we discover a linear correlation between self-recognition capability and the strength of self-preference bias; using controlled experiments, we show that the causal explanation resists straightforward confounders. We discuss how self-recognition can interfere with unbiased evaluations and AI safety more generally.

Misleading visualizations are a potent driver of misinformation on social media and the web. By violating chart design principles, they distort data and lead readers to draw inaccurate conclusions. Prior work has shown that both humans and multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are frequently deceived by such visualizations. Automatically detecting misleading visualizations and identifying the specific design rules they violate could help protect readers and reduce the spread of misinformation. However, the training and evaluation of AI models has been limited by the absence of large, diverse, and openly available datasets. In this work, we introduce Misviz, a benchmark of 2,604 real-world visualizations annotated with 12 types of misleaders. To support model training, we also create Misviz-synth, a synthetic dataset of 57,665 visualizations generated using Matplotlib and based on real-world data tables. We perform a comprehensive evaluation on both datasets using state-of-the-art MLLMs, rule-based systems, and image-axis classifiers. Our results reveal that the task remains highly challenging. We release Misviz, Misviz-synth, and the accompanying code.

Development of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques in medical imaging requires access to large-scale and diverse datasets for training and evaluation. In dermatology, obtaining such datasets remains challenging due to significant variations in patient populations, illumination conditions, and acquisition system characteristics. In this work, we propose S-SYNTH, the first knowledge-based, adaptable open-source skin simulation framework to rapidly generate synthetic skin, 3D models and digitally rendered images, using an anatomically inspired multi-layer, multi-component skin and growing lesion model. The skin model allows for controlled variation in skin appearance, such as skin color, presence of hair, lesion shape, and blood fraction among other parameters. We use this framework to study the effect of possible variations on the development and evaluation of AI models for skin lesion segmentation, and show that results obtained using synthetic data follow similar comparative trends as real dermatologic images, while mitigating biases and limitations from existing datasets including small dataset size, lack of diversity, and underrepresentation.

Multimodal AI agents are increasingly automating complex real-world workflows that involve online web execution. However, current web-agent benchmarks suffer from a critical limitation: they focus entirely on web-based interaction and perception, lacking grounding in the user's real-world physical surroundings. This limitation prevents evaluation in crucial scenarios, such as when an agent must use egocentric visual perception (e.g., via AR glasses) to recognize an object in the user's surroundings and then complete a related task online. To address this gap, we introduce Ego2Web, the first benchmark designed to bridge egocentric video perception and web agent execution. Ego2Web pairs real-world first-person video recordings with web tasks that require visual understanding, web task planning, and interaction in an online environment for successful completion. We utilize an automatic data-generation pipeline combined with human verification and refinement to curate well-constructed, high-quality video-task pairs across diverse web task types, including e-commerce, media retrieval, knowledge lookup, etc. To facilitate accurate and scalable evaluation for our benchmark, we also develop a novel LLM-as-a-Judge automatic evaluation method, Ego2WebJudge, which achieves approximately 84% agreement with human judgment, substantially higher than existing evaluation methods. Experiments with diverse SoTA agents on our Ego2Web show that their performance is weak, with substantial headroom across all task categories. We also conduct a comprehensive ablation study on task design, highlighting the necessity of accurate video understanding in the proposed task and the limitations of current agents. We hope Ego2Web can be a critical new resource for developing truly capable AI assistants that can seamlessly see, understand, and act across the physical and digital worlds.

The paper introduces SceMQA, a novel benchmark for scientific multimodal question answering at the college entrance level. It addresses a critical educational phase often overlooked in existing benchmarks, spanning high school to pre-college levels. SceMQA focuses on core science subjects including Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. It features a blend of multiple-choice and free-response formats, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of AI models' abilities. Additionally, our benchmark provides specific knowledge points for each problem and detailed explanations for each answer. SceMQA also uniquely presents problems with identical contexts but varied questions to facilitate a more thorough and accurate assessment of reasoning capabilities. In the experiment, we evaluate both open-source and close-source state-of-the-art Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), across various experimental settings. The results show that further research and development are needed in developing more capable MLLM, as highlighted by only 50% to 60% accuracy achieved by the strongest models. Our benchmark and analysis will be available at https://scemqa.github.io/

AI agents increasingly rely on external tools to solve complex, long-horizon tasks. Advancing such agents requires reproducible evaluation and large-scale training in controllable, diverse, and realistic tool-use environments. However, real-world APIs are limited in availability, domain coverage, and stability, often requiring access keys and imposing rate limits, which render them impractical for stable evaluation or scalable training. To address these challenges, we introduce SynthTools, a flexible and scalable framework for generating synthetic tool ecosystems. Our framework consists of three core components: Tool Generation for automatic and scalable creation of diverse tools, Tool Simulation to emulate realistic tool behaviors, and Tool Audit to ensure correctness and consistency of tool simulation. To illustrate its scalability, we show that SynthTools can readily produce toolsets that span twice as many domains and twice as many tools per domain as prior work. Furthermore, the tool simulation and tool audit components demonstrate strong reliability, achieving 94% and 99% accuracy respectively. Finally, we construct downstream tasks from the generated tools that even state-of-the-art models struggle to complete. By enabling scalable, diverse, and reliable tool ecosystems, SynthTools provides a practical path toward large-scale training and stable evaluation of tool-use agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/namkoong-lab/SynthTools.

Working memory (WM), a fundamental cognitive process facilitating the temporary storage, integration, manipulation, and retrieval of information, plays a vital role in reasoning and decision-making tasks. Robust benchmark datasets that capture the multifaceted nature of WM are crucial for the effective development and evaluation of AI WM models. Here, we introduce a comprehensive Working Memory (WorM) benchmark dataset for this purpose. WorM comprises 10 tasks and a total of 1 million trials, assessing 4 functionalities, 3 domains, and 11 behavioral and neural characteristics of WM. We jointly trained and tested state-of-the-art recurrent neural networks and transformers on all these tasks. We also include human behavioral benchmarks as an upper bound for comparison. Our results suggest that AI models replicate some characteristics of WM in the brain, most notably primacy and recency effects, and neural clusters and correlates specialized for different domains and functionalities of WM. In the experiments, we also reveal some limitations in existing models to approximate human behavior. This dataset serves as a valuable resource for communities in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and AI, offering a standardized framework to compare and enhance WM models, investigate WM's neural underpinnings, and develop WM models with human-like capabilities. Our source code and data are available at https://github.com/ZhangLab-DeepNeuroCogLab/WorM.

The construction of Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) datasets is a critical yet under-theorized stage in the post-training of Large Language Models (LLMs), as prevalent practices often rely on heuristic aggregation without a systematic understanding of how individual samples contribute to model performance. In this report, we propose a paradigm shift from ad-hoc curation to a closed-loop dataset engineering framework using OpenDataArena (ODA), which leverages value-anchored rankings and multi-dimensional analysis to transform value benchmarking into feedback signals guiding dataset construction. We instantiate this methodology through two new datasets: ODA-Math-460k, a specialized mathematics reasoning dataset that utilizes a novel two-stage difficulty-aware pipeline to achieve State-of-the-Art (SOTA) results on benchmarks such as AIME and HMMT, and ODA-Mixture (100k \& 500k), a series of multi-domain instruction datasets built via an ``Anchor-and-Patch'' strategy that outperforms significantly larger open-source baselines. Our empirical results demonstrate that ODA-driven datasets significantly improve both domain-specific reasoning and general utility while achieving superior data efficiency, validating a transition toward data-centric AI where transparent evaluation serves as the primary engine for engineering high-quality training data.

We present ReXGradient-160K, representing the largest publicly available chest X-ray dataset to date in terms of the number of patients. This dataset contains 160,000 chest X-ray studies with paired radiological reports from 109,487 unique patients across 3 U.S. health systems (79 medical sites). This comprehensive dataset includes multiple images per study and detailed radiology reports, making it particularly valuable for the development and evaluation of AI systems for medical imaging and automated report generation models. The dataset is divided into training (140,000 studies), validation (10,000 studies), and public test (10,000 studies) sets, with an additional private test set (10,000 studies) reserved for model evaluation on the ReXrank benchmark. By providing this extensive dataset, we aim to accelerate research in medical imaging AI and advance the state-of-the-art in automated radiological analysis. Our dataset will be open-sourced at https://huggingface.co/datasets/rajpurkarlab/ReXGradient-160K.

Recent breakthroughs in large multimodal models (LMMs) have significantly advanced both text-to-image (T2I) generation and image-to-text (I2T) interpretation. However, many generated images still suffer from issues related to perceptual quality and text-image alignment. Given the high cost and inefficiency of manual evaluation, an automatic metric that aligns with human preferences is desirable. To this end, we present EvalMi-50K, a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for evaluating large-multimodal image generation, which features (i) comprehensive tasks, encompassing 2,100 extensive prompts across 20 fine-grained task dimensions, and (ii) large-scale human-preference annotations, including 100K mean-opinion scores (MOSs) and 50K question-answering (QA) pairs annotated on 50,400 images generated from 24 T2I models. Based on EvalMi-50K, we propose LMM4LMM, an LMM-based metric for evaluating large multimodal T2I generation from multiple dimensions including perception, text-image correspondence, and task-specific accuracy. Extensive experimental results show that LMM4LMM achieves state-of-the-art performance on EvalMi-50K, and exhibits strong generalization ability on other AI-generated image evaluation benchmark datasets, manifesting the generality of both the EvalMi-50K dataset and LMM4LMM metric. Both EvalMi-50K and LMM4LMM will be released at https://github.com/IntMeGroup/LMM4LMM.

Existing evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents on scientific discovery lacks objective baselines and metrics to assess the viability of their proposed methods. To address this issue, we introduce MLRC-Bench, a benchmark designed to quantify how effectively language agents can tackle challenging Machine Learning (ML) Research Competitions. Our benchmark highlights open research problems that demand novel methodologies, in contrast to recent benchmarks such as OpenAI's MLE-Bench (Chan et al., 2024) and METR's RE-Bench (Wijk et al., 2024), which focus on well-established research tasks that are largely solvable through sufficient engineering effort. Unlike prior work, e.g., AI Scientist (Lu et al., 2024b), which evaluates the end-to-end agentic pipeline by using LLM-as-a-judge, MLRC-Bench measures the key steps of proposing and implementing novel research methods and evaluates them with newly proposed rigorous protocol and objective metrics. Our curated suite of 7 competition tasks reveals significant challenges for LLM agents. Even the best-performing tested agent (gemini-exp-1206 under MLAB (Huang et al., 2024a)) closes only 9.3% of the gap between baseline and top human participant scores. Furthermore, our analysis reveals a misalignment between the LLM-judged innovation and their actual performance on cutting-edge ML research problems. MLRC-Bench is a dynamic benchmark, which is designed to continually grow with new ML competitions to encourage rigorous and objective evaluations of AI's research capabilities.

Despite advances in multilingual automatic speech recognition (ASR), code-switching (CS), the mixing of languages within an utterance common in daily speech, remains a severely underexplored challenge. In this paper, we introduce HiKE: the Hierarchical Korean-English code-switching benchmark, the first globally accessible evaluation framework for Korean-English CS, aiming to provide a means for the precise evaluation of multilingual ASR models and to foster research in the field. The proposed framework not only consists of high-quality, natural CS data across various topics, but also provides meticulous loanword labels and a hierarchical CS-level labeling scheme (word, phrase, and sentence) that together enable a systematic evaluation of a model's ability to handle each distinct level of code-switching. Through evaluations of diverse multilingual ASR models and fine-tuning experiments, this paper demonstrates that while most multilingual ASR models initially struggle with CS-ASR, this capability can be enabled through fine-tuning with CS data. HiKE will be available at https://github.com/ThetaOne-AI/HiKE.

Recent advances in video generation have enabled high-fidelity video synthesis from user provided prompts. However, existing models and benchmarks fail to capture the complexity and requirements of professional video generation. Towards that goal, we introduce Stable Cinemetrics, a structured evaluation framework that formalizes filmmaking controls into four disentangled, hierarchical taxonomies: Setup, Event, Lighting, and Camera. Together, these taxonomies define 76 fine-grained control nodes grounded in industry practices. Using these taxonomies, we construct a benchmark of prompts aligned with professional use cases and develop an automated pipeline for prompt categorization and question generation, enabling independent evaluation of each control dimension. We conduct a large-scale human study spanning 10+ models and 20K videos, annotated by a pool of 80+ film professionals. Our analysis, both coarse and fine-grained reveal that even the strongest current models exhibit significant gaps, particularly in Events and Camera-related controls. To enable scalable evaluation, we train an automatic evaluator, a vision-language model aligned with expert annotations that outperforms existing zero-shot baselines. SCINE is the first approach to situate professional video generation within the landscape of video generative models, introducing taxonomies centered around cinematic controls and supporting them with structured evaluation pipelines and detailed analyses to guide future research.

Modern natural language processing models have achieved unprecedented scale, yet the tools for their evaluation often remain a computational bottleneck, limiting the pace of research. This is particularly acute for in-training evaluation metrics, such as per-sentence reward signals in Reinforcement Learning, which must operate efficiently on batches of token IDs directly on the GPU. In this paper, we introduce TensorBLEU, a novel implementation of the BLEU metric designed from the ground up for this specific use case. Our approach is fully vectorized for GPU-accelerated, per-sentence computation within PyTorch and introduces a memory-efficient counting mechanism. By creating a compact, batch-specific dictionary of n-grams using torch.unique, our method avoids the prohibitive memory costs of traditional hashing-based vectorization, making it practical for large-vocabulary models. We benchmark TensorBLEU against NLTK, the standard library for token-ID-based BLEU calculation on the CPU. Experiments show that TensorBLEU provides speedups of over 13x on consumer-grade GPUs (NVIDIA T4) and exceeding 40x on data-center-class hardware (NVIDIA A100). This performance transforms a significant bottleneck into a negligible part of the training loop. By clearly defining its role as a "Token-ID BLEU" for development purposes and open-sourcing our implementation, we provide a powerful tool for accelerating research in areas like RL-based model fine-tuning.

In this position paper, we observe that empirical evaluation in Generative AI is at a crisis point since traditional ML evaluation and benchmarking strategies are insufficient to meet the needs of evaluating modern GenAI models and systems. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that these models typically have nearly unbounded input and output spaces, typically do not have a well defined ground truth target, and typically exhibit strong feedback loops and prediction dependence based on context of previous model outputs. On top of these critical issues, we argue that the problems of {\em leakage} and {\em contamination} are in fact the most important and difficult issues to address for GenAI evaluations. Interestingly, the field of AI Competitions has developed effective measures and practices to combat leakage for the purpose of counteracting cheating by bad actors within a competition setting. This makes AI Competitions an especially valuable (but underutilized) resource. Now is time for the field to view AI Competitions as the gold standard for empirical rigor in GenAI evaluation, and to harness and harvest their results with according value.