Daily Papers

Deep learning systems now mediate military decisions to use force, yet their internal logic resists inspection, their evaluation practices are gameable, and their deployment fractures accountability across dispersed stakeholders. The ethical challenge posed by these systems is fundamentally epistemic: not just whether autonomous weapons should be permitted to kill, but whether the conditions for responsible human judgment can survive when critical functions are delegated to opaque algorithms. We show that this epistemic condition produces a concrete accountability gap: responsibility diffuses across designers, operators, and policymakers while International Humanitarian Law presupposes capacities for judgment that current AI systems lack. To address this gap, we propose a governance framework that proceduralizes ethical constraints through named accountability roles, adversarial auditing with undisclosed benchmarks, tiered deployment thresholds, and a proposed NATO evaluation standard. Counterfactual analysis of eight documented cases (1988-2025) shows that each governance mechanism addresses a documented class of failure, but no single safeguard suffices in isolation: effective governance of military AI requires not only technical constraints but the institutional infrastructure to keep human judgment meaningful.

There have been multiple calls for investments in the development of AI standards that both preserve the transformative potential and minimize the risks of AI. The goals of AI standards, particularly with respect to AI data, performance, and governance, are to promote innovation and public trust in systems that use AI. However, there is a lack of a formal or shared method to measure the impact of these standardization activities on the goals of innovation and trust. This concept paper proposes an analytical approach that could inform the evaluation of the impact of AI standards. The proposed approach could be used to measure, assess, and eventually evaluate the extent to which AI standards achieve their stated goals, since most Standards Development Organizationss do not track the impact of their standards once completed. It is intended to stimulate discussions with a wide variety of stakeholders, including academia and the standards community, about the potential for the approach to evaluate the effectiveness, utility, and relative value of AI standards. The document draws on successful and well-tested evaluation frameworks, tools, and metrics that are used for monitoring and assessing the effect of programmatic interventions in other domains to describe a possible approach. It begins by describing the context within which an evaluation would be designed, and then introduces a standard evaluation framework. These sections are followed by a description of what outputs and outcomes might result from the adoption and implementation of AI standards and the process whereby those AI standards are developed . Subsequent sections provide an overview of how the effectiveness of AI standards might be assessed and a conclusion.

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

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for aviation business operations, from documentation and training generation to customer facing assistants. General purpose benchmarks do not measure whether a model reasons safely and correctly about aviation specific operational knowledge, and the high stakes, regulated nature of the domain makes that gap consequential. We present Pre-Flight, an open source benchmark of 300 multiple choice questions drawn from international standards and airport ground operations material, covering international airport ground operations, ICAO and US FAA regulations, aviation general knowledge and complex operational scenarios. Questions were authored and reviewed by practitioners with experience in air traffic management, ground operations and commercial flying. We evaluate a range of contemporary commercial and open weight models using the Inspect evaluation framework, scoring by accuracy under a standard multiple choice protocol, and we maintain the leaderboard on a rolling basis as new models are released. Against an informal expert reference of around 95%, obtained from a low sample quiz of aviation professionals at a conference, even the strongest model evaluated (released in 2026) reaches 82.7%, having improved only gradually from roughly 75% in early 2025. A substantial and persistent gap below expert level reliability therefore remains. We release the dataset, the evaluation harness and the results, and the benchmark is available within the community evaluations package distributed with inspect_evals. We argue that domain specific evaluation of this kind is a necessary precondition for responsible deployment of generative AI in non safety critical aviation operations.

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

Large language models are increasingly used for content moderation, but most evaluations still report aggregate accuracy on individual benchmarks. We introduce Safety-Flag, which places seven widely used safety benchmarks (BeaverTails, XSTest, Ethics, WildGuard, Aegis, ToxiChat, and ToxiGen) into a single balanced flag / do-not-flag protocol. We release item-level decisions and confidence scores for six general-purpose LLMs and four dedicated guards, together with three reference models, evaluated on the same items. Safety-Flag measures three dimensions of moderator reliability: error direction, probability calibration, and confidence-based error ranking for human review. They often disagree. Aggregate accuracy does not reveal error direction: one model flags 85% of benign content, whereas another misses 54% of harmful content. All six general-purpose models are overconfident; fitting one temperature per model reduces calibration error by 2.8--6.0times without changing predicted labels or confidence ordering. Confidence-based abstention lowers selective risk for every model, although the gains depend on how well confidence ranks errors. Dedicated guards produce fewer false alarms and are better calibrated, but several have higher miss rates outside their documented coverage. We release the benchmark, fixed item lists, evaluation code, per-item model outputs, and leaderboard at: https://github.com/yibo-hu-lab/safety-flag-benchmark.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP), introduced by Anthropic in November 2024, defines a standardized interface for connecting large language models (LLMs) to external tools, data sources, and services. Within months of release, hundreds of community-built MCP servers appeared on GitHub, but no software-maintenance literature has yet described how the ecosystem is being structured in production. This industry experience paper catalogues five recurring MCP server architectural patterns observed across an enumerated corpus of fifteen independently developed servers (five production servers from the ANSYR voice AI platform plus ten public servers from the official MCP registry): Resource Gateway, Tool Orchestrator, Stateful Session Server, Proxy Aggregator, and Domain-Specific Adapter. Each pattern is described in the structured form of Gamma et al.: context, problem, solution, and consequences. We also document four anti-patterns and a set of cross-cutting concerns around authentication, versioning, and observability. The quantitative evaluation contributes three measurements: inter-rater reliability of the taxonomy across two independent LLM raters on 54 held-out servers (Cohen's kappa = 0.76), which also localizes three pattern-boundary ambiguities; transport overhead measured end-to-end on loopback and modeled for cross-host paths; and a tool-count study showing tool-selection accuracy drops below 90% between 10 and 15 tools per context for Claude Haiku 4.5 and between 20 and 30 tools for Sonnet 4. Code, corpus, and prompts are released as a replication package.

MM-Vet, with open-ended vision-language questions targeting at evaluating integrated capabilities, has become one of the most popular benchmarks for large multimodal model evaluation. MM-Vet assesses six core vision-language (VL) capabilities: recognition, knowledge, spatial awareness, language generation, OCR, and math. However, its question format is restricted to single image-text pairs, lacking the interleaved image and text sequences prevalent in real-world scenarios. To address this limitation, we introduce MM-Vet v2, which includes a new VL capability called "image-text sequence understanding", evaluating models' ability to process VL sequences. Furthermore, we maintain the high quality of evaluation samples while further expanding the evaluation set size. Using MM-Vet v2 to benchmark large multimodal models, we found that Claude 3.5 Sonnet is the best model with a score of 71.8, slightly outperforming GPT-4o which scored 71.0. Among open-weight models, InternVL2-Llama3-76B leads with a score of 68.4.

Recent text-to-video (T2V) technology advancements, as demonstrated by models such as Gen2, Pika, and Sora, have significantly broadened its applicability and popularity. Despite these strides, evaluating these models poses substantial challenges. Primarily, due to the limitations inherent in automatic metrics, manual evaluation is often considered a superior method for assessing T2V generation. However, existing manual evaluation protocols face reproducibility, reliability, and practicality issues. To address these challenges, this paper introduces the Text-to-Video Human Evaluation (T2VHE) protocol, a comprehensive and standardized protocol for T2V models. The T2VHE protocol includes well-defined metrics, thorough annotator training, and an effective dynamic evaluation module. Experimental results demonstrate that this protocol not only ensures high-quality annotations but can also reduce evaluation costs by nearly 50%. We will open-source the entire setup of the T2VHE protocol, including the complete protocol workflow, the dynamic evaluation component details, and the annotation interface code. This will help communities establish more sophisticated human assessment protocols.

We propose MM-Vet, an evaluation benchmark that examines large multimodal models (LMMs) on complicated multimodal tasks. Recent LMMs have shown various intriguing abilities, such as solving math problems written on the blackboard, reasoning about events and celebrities in news images, and explaining visual jokes. Rapid model advancements pose challenges to evaluation benchmark development. Problems include: (1) How to systematically structure and evaluate the complicated multimodal tasks; (2) How to design evaluation metrics that work well across question and answer types; and (3) How to give model insights beyond a simple performance ranking. To this end, we present MM-Vet, designed based on the insight that the intriguing ability to solve complicated tasks is often achieved by a generalist model being able to integrate different core vision-language (VL) capabilities. MM-Vet defines 6 core VL capabilities and examines the 16 integrations of interest derived from the capability combination. For evaluation metrics, we propose an LLM-based evaluator for open-ended outputs. The evaluator enables the evaluation across different question types and answer styles, resulting in a unified scoring metric. We evaluate representative LMMs on MM-Vet, providing insights into the capabilities of different LMM system paradigms and models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yuweihao/MM-Vet.

High-quality Machine Translation (MT) evaluation relies heavily on human judgments. Comprehensive error classification methods, such as Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), are expensive as they are time-consuming and can only be done by experts, whose availability may be limited especially for low-resource languages. On the other hand, just assigning overall scores, like Direct Assessment (DA), is simpler and faster and can be done by translators of any level, but is less reliable. In this paper, we introduce Error Span Annotation (ESA), a human evaluation protocol which combines the continuous rating of DA with the high-level error severity span marking of MQM. We validate ESA by comparing it to MQM and DA for 12 MT systems and one human reference translation (English to German) from WMT23. The results show that ESA offers faster and cheaper annotations than MQM at the same quality level, without the requirement of expensive MQM experts.

HakemBench is a Turkish benchmark of typed decisions, in which the model under test reads a text, a question and a fixed set of options and returns a probability for every option. Version 1.0 is released fully open under CC BY 4.0, with 2,346 items and 4,275 choice, yes/no and score questions in seven tracks (fact-check triage, education, guardrails, legal routing, moderation, spam and phishing, and customer support). One harness scores decision quality (macro F1), calibration (from the normalised Brier score) and selective automation (from the normalised area under the generalised risk-coverage curve), combines them by a geometric mean and reports intervals from 2,000 bootstrap draws; probes for option order, paraphrase, English translation and substituted names are reported alongside. Most gold labels come from blind passes of one AI model family compared with the votes of a panel of large language models from other model families; they are not human-verified. On a board of 16 rows the leader scores a composite of 0.888 and the lab's own model is 7th at 0.660. Its numbers are not blind. Earlier runs' test results shaped its training data, so its guardrail, moderation and customer support numbers are flagged; with every model scored on the other four tracks only, its composite is 0.678, 6th of 16.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) require scrutable, auditable pipelines that enable rigorous, reproducible validation. Yet current LLM-based CDSS remain largely opaque. Most "open" models are open-weight only, releasing parameters while withholding the data provenance, curation procedures, and generation pipelines that determine model behavior. Fully Open (FO) models, which expose the complete training stack end-to-end, do not currently exist in medicine. We introduce Fully Open Meditron, the first fully open pipeline for building LLM-CDSS, comprising a clinician-audited training corpus, a reproducible data construction and training framework, and a use-aligned evaluation protocol. The corpus unifies eight public medical QA datasets into a normalized conversational format and expands coverage with three clinician-vetted synthetic extensions: exam-style QA, guideline-grounded QA derived from 46,469 clinical practice guidelines, and clinical vignettes. The pipeline enforces system-wide decontamination, gold-label resampling of teacher generations, and end-to-end validation by a four-physician panel. We evaluate using an LLM-as-a-judge protocol over expert-written clinical vignettes, calibrated against 204 human raters. We apply the recipe to five FO base models (Apertus-70B/8B-Instruct, OLMo-2-32B-SFT, EuroLLM-22B/9B-Instruct). All MeditronFO variants are preferred over their bases. Apertus-70B-MeditronFO improves +6.6 points over its base (47.2% to 53.8%) on aggregate medical benchmarks, establishing a new FO SoTA. Gemma-3-27B-MeditronFO is preferred over MedGemma in 58.6% of LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and outperforms it on HealthBench (58% vs 55.9%). These results show that fully open pipelines can achieve state-of-the-art domain-specific performance without sacrificing auditability or reproducibility.

The Multisource AI Scorecard Table (MAST) is a checklist tool based on analytic tradecraft standards to inform the design and evaluation of trustworthy AI systems. In this study, we evaluate whether MAST is associated with people's trust perceptions in AI-enabled decision support systems (AI-DSSs). Evaluating trust in AI-DSSs poses challenges to researchers and practitioners. These challenges include identifying the components, capabilities, and potential of these systems, many of which are based on the complex deep learning algorithms that drive DSS performance and preclude complete manual inspection. We developed two interactive, AI-DSS test environments using the MAST criteria. One emulated an identity verification task in security screening, and another emulated a text summarization system to aid in an investigative reporting task. Each test environment had one version designed to match low-MAST ratings, and another designed to match high-MAST ratings, with the hypothesis that MAST ratings would be positively related to the trust ratings of these systems. A total of 177 subject matter experts were recruited to interact with and evaluate these systems. Results generally show higher MAST ratings for the high-MAST conditions compared to the low-MAST groups, and that measures of trust perception are highly correlated with the MAST ratings. We conclude that MAST can be a useful tool for designing and evaluating systems that will engender high trust perceptions, including AI-DSS that may be used to support visual screening and text summarization tasks. However, higher MAST ratings may not translate to higher joint performance.

Some security-development settings require local models that map an objective to an ordered, checkable plan. We present a low-rank decomposition adapter and release a case-disjoint corpus with 24 authored decompositions and 83 derived next-step examples across 24 satellite-security cases. To prevent reference-plan leakage, prompts contain one objective and eight shuffled SPARTA candidates. The evaluation candidate sets are constructed with oracle inclusion of every reference technique, so this study measures selection from a controlled set, not retrieval. On six fixed cases and five decoding seeds, mean scores vary across adapters and prompted Qwen2.5 baselines; a separate greedy check over three adapter training seeds shows non-negligible training variance. A 24-fold greedy leave-one-case-out control at the two compact sizes likewise shows tradeoffs: at 1.5B, adapter precision is 0.583 against 0.480 for two-shot prompting, while recall is 0.586 against 0.660. Case-resampling intervals for adapter precision relative to the strongest prompted baseline cross zero at 1.5B and 7B. The adapter is also substantially more format-compliant, which prevents attributing all score differences to selection. Autoregressive next-step accuracy is 0.08, 0.06, and 0.29 at 0.5B, 1.5B, and 7B. We therefore offer the formulation, leakage-controlled dataset, reproducibility package, and descriptive analysis as a proof of concept, not evidence of a reliable stand-alone decomposition system or a general adapter advantage. A separate diagnostic tests contract reuse.

In this study, we aimed to determine if fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can generate accurate, personalized impressions for whole-body PET reports. Twelve language models were trained on a corpus of PET reports using the teacher-forcing algorithm, with the report findings as input and the clinical impressions as reference. An extra input token encodes the reading physician's identity, allowing models to learn physician-specific reporting styles. Our corpus comprised 37,370 retrospective PET reports collected from our institution between 2010 and 2022. To identify the best LLM, 30 evaluation metrics were benchmarked against quality scores from two nuclear medicine (NM) physicians, with the most aligned metrics selecting the model for expert evaluation. In a subset of data, model-generated impressions and original clinical impressions were assessed by three NM physicians according to 6 quality dimensions (3-point scale) and an overall utility score (5-point scale). Each physician reviewed 12 of their own reports and 12 reports from other physicians. Bootstrap resampling was used for statistical analysis. Of all evaluation metrics, domain-adapted BARTScore and PEGASUSScore showed the highest Spearman's rank correlations (0.568 and 0.563) with physician preferences. Based on these metrics, the fine-tuned PEGASUS model was selected as the top LLM. When physicians reviewed PEGASUS-generated impressions in their own style, 89% were considered clinically acceptable, with a mean utility score of 4.08 out of 5. Physicians rated these personalized impressions as comparable in overall utility to the impressions dictated by other physicians (4.03, P=0.41). In conclusion, personalized impressions generated by PEGASUS were clinically useful, highlighting its potential to expedite PET reporting.

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

LLM-as-judge ("grader") components are now standard in evaluation harnesses, including safety evaluations where a pass/fail verdict may gate downstream deployment decisions. A widespread assumption is that setting the grader's sampling temperature to 0 makes grading deterministic. We test this assumption against a real safety-evaluation codebase (Japan AISI's open-source aisev) and show it fails on two levels. First, the harness invokes its grader without setting temperature or seed; the underlying provider silently applies its default of 1.0, so items near the decision boundary flip pass/fail across identical runs (per-item disagreement up to ~50% over 20 runs). Second, pinning temperature=0 reduces but does not eliminate flips: across 690 API calls spanning two providers, three model tiers, and five sampling configurations, 1-2 of 7 borderline items remain non-reproducible even under forced greedy decoding (top_k=1). Claude Opus 4.7/4.8 has since deprecated temperature entirely, rendering the primary mitigation inapplicable to newer model generations. These findings expose a structural gap: evaluation harnesses that report single-run verdicts without variance or grader-disagreement metrics can present noise as a safety property. We release a reproduction harness (690 calls, 7 conditions) and recommend that harnesses treat grader disagreement as a first-class health metric alongside the scores themselves.

We propose RegLLM, a diagnostic harness for bounded autonomy in regulated agentic workflows. It instruments six trustworthiness signals: citation validity, source grounding, schema compliance, escalation correctness, constitutional alignment, and unsafe-action rate. Signals are distinguished by their source of supervision: programmatic verifiers, task-level escalation labels, or AI-judge scores. A deterministic runtime supervisor blocks ungrounded answers and forces escalation, logging interventions. The same domain constitution informs evaluation, training rewards, and serving guardrails. Task-level should-escalate labels make the act-versus-defer decision a measurable training signal. We demonstrate the harness at smoke scale. An offline reference run (n=12) lifts escalation recall from 0 to 0.67 and reduces unsafe-action rate from 0.33 to 0.08 when governance is enabled. Two single-GPU Qwen2.5-3B LoRA/DPO pilots (n=8, same seed and evaluation split) expose substantial variation: nominally identical RL-base configurations yield task success of 0.25 versus 0.12 and escalation recall of 1.0 versus 0.5. An answer-quality adapter changes recall from 1.0 to 0.5 in Run A, but from 0.5 to 1.0 in Run B. An escalation-aware variant produces no measurable change in Run B. These small pilots do not establish reliable adapter effects or production readiness. Their contribution is diagnostic: configuration variance can overwhelm apparent tuning effects on bounded-autonomy metrics, motivating larger evaluation sets and repeated runs.

Evaluation is a key part of machine learning (ML), yet there is a lack of support and tooling to enable its informed and systematic practice. We introduce Evaluate and Evaluation on the Hub --a set of tools to facilitate the evaluation of models and datasets in ML. Evaluate is a library to support best practices for measurements, metrics, and comparisons of data and models. Its goal is to support reproducibility of evaluation, centralize and document the evaluation process, and broaden evaluation to cover more facets of model performance. It includes over 50 efficient canonical implementations for a variety of domains and scenarios, interactive documentation, and the ability to easily share implementations and outcomes. The library is available at https://github.com/huggingface/evaluate. In addition, we introduce Evaluation on the Hub, a platform that enables the large-scale evaluation of over 75,000 models and 11,000 datasets on the Hugging Face Hub, for free, at the click of a button. Evaluation on the Hub is available at https://huggingface.co/autoevaluate.

Grounded text generation systems often generate text that contains factual inconsistencies, hindering their real-world applicability. Automatic factual consistency evaluation may help alleviate this limitation by accelerating evaluation cycles, filtering inconsistent outputs and augmenting training data. While attracting increasing attention, such evaluation metrics are usually developed and evaluated in silo for a single task or dataset, slowing their adoption. Moreover, previous meta-evaluation protocols focused on system-level correlations with human annotations, which leave the example-level accuracy of such metrics unclear. In this work, we introduce TRUE: a comprehensive survey and assessment of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks, manually annotated for factual consistency. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations, yielding clearer quality measures. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results. We recommend those methods as a starting point for model and metric developers, and hope TRUE will foster progress towards even better evaluation methods.

Evaluating machine-generated text remains a significant challenge in NLP, especially for non-English languages. Current methodologies, including automated metrics, human assessments, and LLM-based evaluations, predominantly focus on English, revealing a significant gap in multilingual evaluation frameworks. We introduce the Cross Lingual Auto Evaluation (CIA) Suite, an extensible framework that includes evaluator LLMs (Hercule) and a novel test set (Recon) specifically designed for multilingual evaluation. Our test set features 500 human-annotated instructions spanning various task capabilities along with human judgment scores across six languages. This would enable benchmarking of general-purpose multilingual LLMs and facilitate meta-evaluation of Evaluator LLMs. The proposed model, Hercule, is a cross-lingual evaluation model that addresses the scarcity of reference answers in the target language by learning to assign scores to responses based on easily available reference answers in English. Our experiments demonstrate that Hercule aligns more closely with human judgments compared to proprietary models, demonstrating the effectiveness of such cross-lingual evaluation in low resource scenarios. Further, it is also effective in zero-shot evaluation on unseen languages. This study is the first comprehensive examination of cross-lingual evaluation using LLMs, presenting a scalable and effective approach for multilingual assessment. All code, datasets, and models will be publicly available to enable further research in this important area.

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

This report evaluates PDF-to-Markdown conversion using recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) on challenging French documents. Document parsing is a critical step for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, where transcription and layout errors propagate to downstream retrieval and grounding. Existing benchmarks often emphasize English or Chinese and can over-penalize benign formatting and linearization choices (e.g., line breaks, list segmentation, alternative table renderings) that are largely irrelevant for downstream use. We introduce a French-focused benchmark of difficult pages selected via model-disagreement sampling from a corpus of 60{,}000 documents, covering handwritten forms, complex layouts, dense tables, and graphics-rich pages. Evaluation is performed with unit-test-style checks that target concrete failure modes (text presence, reading order, and local table constraints) combined with category-specific normalization designed to discount presentation-only variance. Across 15 models, we observe substantially higher robustness for the strongest proprietary models on handwriting and forms, while several open-weights systems remain competitive on standard printed layouts.

Traditional metrics for Medical Report Generation (MRG) predominantly rely on surface-level n-gram overlap, which fails to capture clinical factual accuracy and often overlooks catastrophic diagnostic errors. We address this fundamental limitation by proposing AtomiMed, a universal, modality-agnostic evaluation framework that decomposes complex medical narratives into a standardized, multi-level hierarchy of Atomic Clinical Facts, encompassing Disease-level entities and Attribute-level descriptors, including location, morphology, and severity. By implementing an Agentic Cross-Verification loop between ground-truth and predicted reports, AtomiMed simulates a multi-radiologist peer-review process to verify clinical consistency, thus enabling the decoupled assessment of diagnostic detection and descriptive accuracy. To facilitate standardized evaluation, we introduce MRGEvalKit, an open-source toolkit for automated hierarchical extraction, and curate OmniMRG-Bench, a comprehensive multi-modal benchmark covering X-ray, CT, MRI, and Ultrasound. Extensive experiments on multiple expert-annotated reader studies demonstrate that AtomiMed achieves significantly higher correlation with human radiologist judgment compared to traditional and model-based metrics. Our code are release at https://github.com/Venn2336/MRGEvalkit

Technical standards, or simply standards, are established documented guidelines and rules that facilitate the interoperability, quality, and accuracy of systems and processes. In recent years, we have witnessed an emerging paradigm shift where the adoption of generative AI (GenAI) models has increased tremendously, spreading implementation interests across standard-driven industries, including engineering, legal, healthcare, and education. In this paper, we assess the criticality levels of different standards across domains and sectors and complement them by grading the current compliance capabilities of state-of-the-art GenAI models. To support the discussion, we outline possible challenges and opportunities with integrating GenAI for standard compliance tasks while also providing actionable recommendations for entities involved with developing and using standards. Overall, we argue that aligning GenAI with standards through computational methods can help strengthen regulatory and operational compliance. We anticipate this area of research will play a central role in the management, oversight, and trustworthiness of larger, more powerful GenAI-based systems in the near future.

Evaluating Natural Language Generation (NLG) is crucial for the practical adoption of AI, but has been a longstanding research challenge. While human evaluation is considered the de-facto standard, it is expensive and lacks scalability. Practical applications have driven the development of various automatic evaluation metrics (AEM), designed to compare the model output with human-written references, generating a score which approximates human judgment. Over time, AEMs have evolved from simple lexical comparisons, to semantic similarity models and, more recently, to LLM-based evaluators. However, it seems that no single metric has emerged as a definitive solution, resulting in studies using different ones without fully considering the implications. This paper aims to show this by conducting a thorough examination of the methodologies of existing metrics, their documented strengths and limitations, validation methods, and correlations with human judgment. We identify several key challenges: metrics often capture only specific aspects of text quality, their effectiveness varies by task and dataset, validation practices remain unstructured, and correlations with human judgment are inconsistent. Importantly, we find that these challenges persist in the most recent type of metric, LLM-as-a-Judge, as well as in the evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), an increasingly relevant task in academia and industry. Our findings challenge the quest for the 'perfect metric'. We propose selecting metrics based on task-specific needs and leveraging complementary evaluations and advocate that new metrics should focus on enhanced validation methodologies.

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

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.

Executable evaluation -- checking the consequences of an agent's actions with a program rather than grading its prose -- has become a prominent way to assess tool-using AI agents in software settings. Electric power engineering has not yet had an analogous benchmark: language-model use is still dominated by retrieval and text question answering, while agents acting on power-system artifacts remain mostly academic prototypes. We introduce the Power Systems Agent Benchmark, an executable benchmark for power-engineering agents. An agent receives a structured task and returns a structured solution; a deterministic evaluator recomputes the engineering quantities, checks operational constraints, and returns a feasibility flag, a normalized score, and explicit violations. The benchmark contains 41 task families across eight areas of power engineering, from power flow and protection to stability, microgrids, reliability, power quality, and forecasting. Each task is grounded in a citable source, standard, or documented engineering formulation. To resist contamination, held-out cases are synthesized on demand by per-family generators from private seeds: the construction is inspectable, but the instances remain private. In a reference evaluation with three command-line agents, the strongest score near the compact tier's ceiling, a smaller open model trails, and public and held-out performance are broadly consistent; a separate public-split grid with OpenCode and Aider probes harness effects. The reference evaluation doubles as quality control: unanimous failures flag candidate task or evaluator defects, and it exposed a latent evaluator bug missed by self-consistency checks. The evaluators are compact deterministic surrogates, but the task contract allows their internals to be upgraded to simulator-backed checks without changing how tasks are posed or solved.

The evaluation of generated reports remains a critical challenge in Computed Tomography (CT) report generation, due to the large volume of text, the diversity and complexity of findings, and the presence of fine-grained, disease-oriented attributes. Conventional evaluation metrics offer only coarse measures of lexical overlap or entity matching and fail to reflect the granular diagnostic accuracy required for clinical use. To address this gap, we propose CT-FineBench, a benchmark built from CT-RATE and Merlin to evaluate the fine-grained factual consistency of CT reports, constructed from CT-RATE and Merlin. Our benchmark is constructed through a meticulous, Question-Answering (QA) based process: first, we identify and structure key, finding-specific clinical attributes (like location, size, margin). Second, we systematically transform these attributes into a QA dataset, where questions probe for specific clinical details grounded in gold-standard reports. The evaluation protocol for CT-FineBench involves using this QA dataset to query a machine-generated report and scoring the correctness of the answers. This allows for a comprehensive, interpretable, and clinically-relevant assessment, moving beyond superficial lexical overlap to pinpoint specific clinical errors. Experiments show that CT-FineBench correlates better with expert clinical assessment and is substantially more sensitive to fine-grained factual errors than prior metrics.

Geospatial foundation models (GFMs) have been proposed as generalizable backbones for disaster response, land-cover mapping, food-security monitoring, and other high-stakes Earth-observation tasks. Yet the published work about these models does not give reviewers or users enough information to tell which model fits a given task. We argue that nobody knows what the current state of the art is in geospatial foundation models. The methods may be useful, but the GFM literature does not standardize evaluations, training and testing protocols, released weights, or pretraining controls well enough for anyone to compare or rank them. In a 152-paper audit, we find 46 cross-paper disagreements of at least 10 points for the same model, benchmark, and protocol; 94/126 papers with extractable pretraining data use a configuration no other paper uses; and 39% of GFM papers release no model weights. This lack of community standards can be solved. We propose six concrete expectations: named-license weight release, shared core evaluations, copied-versus-rerun baseline annotations, variance reporting, one shared evaluation harness, and data-vs-architecture-vs-algorithm controls. These gaps are a coordination failure, not a fault of any individual lab; the authors of this paper, like many others in the GFM community, have contributed to them. Rather than just critiquing the community, we aim to provide concrete steps toward a shared understanding of how to innovate GFMs.

Vision-language model safety benchmarks typically evaluate only final responses: whether a model refuses, warns, or complies. This outcome-level view cannot tell whether a model is safe for the right multimodal reason. Safelooking behavior may reflect keyword-triggered refusal, missed visual hazards, or over-refusal of benign-sensitive inputs. We introduce EviSafe, an evidence-grounded framework for VLM safety that jointly evaluates natural user-facing behavior, explicit grounding in textual and visual evidence, and behavioral sensitivity to counterfactual changes in safety-critical evidence. EviSafeBench instantiates the framework as a controlled benchmark with 1,181 gold image-text scenarios and 2,452 targeted counterfactual variants across eight safety domains and eight risk-source types. Each scenario includes a gold safety decision, evidence annotations, a safe-response policy, and counterfactual interventions. The three-probe protocol queries models with natural-response, evidencereporting, and counterfactual-response prompts, then scores them using an evidence-aware judge. Across eleven evaluated VLMs, natural severity accuracy ranges from 27.6% to 52.8%, relaxed diagnostic consistency from 6.1% to 29.3%, and unsafe-to-safe counterfactual transition success from 30.4% to 58.4%. These gaps show that the evaluated VLMs are not reliably safe for the right multimodal reason and motivate evaluation beyond refusal counts.

The rapid deployment of AI agents in commercial settings has outpaced the development of evaluation methodologies that reflect production realities. Existing benchmarks measure agent capabilities through retrospectively curated tasks with well-specified requirements and deterministic metrics -- conditions that diverge fundamentally from production environments where requirements contain implicit constraints, inputs are heterogeneous multi-modal documents with information fragmented across sources, tasks demand undeclared domain expertise, outputs are long-horizon professional deliverables, and success is judged by domain experts whose standards evolve over time. We present AlphaEval, a production-grounded benchmark of 94 tasks sourced from seven companies deploying AI agents in their core business, spanning six O*NET (Occupational Information Network) domains. Unlike model-centric benchmarks, AlphaEval evaluates complete agent products -- Claude Code, Codex, etc. -- as commercial systems, capturing performance variations invisible to model-level evaluation. Our evaluation framework covers multiple paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reference-driven metrics, formal verification, rubric-based assessment, automated UI testing, etc.), with individual domains composing multiple paradigms. Beyond the benchmark itself, we contribute a requirement-to-benchmark construction framework -- a systematic methodology that transforms authentic production requirements into executable evaluation tasks in minimal time. This framework standardizes the entire pipeline from requirement to evaluation, providing a reproducible, modular process that any organization can adopt to construct production-grounded benchmarks for their own domains.

Evaluating generated videos remains challenging because existing benchmarks rely on fixed evaluation content, cover only a subset of generation and editing settings, and provide limited evidence for their scores. We introduce VideoArgus, a unified rubric-grounded framework covering five video generation and editing settings. For each input instance, VideoArgus generates an output-blind, sample-specific rubric once and reuses it to evaluate all corresponding candidate videos. The rubric defines concrete criteria, scoring rules, failure modes, and evidence plans, which guide criterion-specific VLM QA and visual tools to produce evidence-grounded criterion scores, rationales, and a diagnostic report. We further construct VideoArgus-Bench, containing 1,026 curated input instances built from 653 high-quality images and 416 high-quality videos, with all benchmark rubrics pre-generated, frozen, and released. On a separate 1,260-video human-alignment set, VideoArgus achieves higher within-input Spearman and Kendall correlations with human judgments than the corresponding benchmark-specific evaluators across all five tasks. Model rankings also remain largely consistent across different rubric-generation and evaluation-VLM backbones. All code and data are released. Visit our project page: https://zzzmyyzeng.github.io/VideoArgus

Benchmarks are essential for consistent evaluation and reproducibility. The integration of Artificial Intelligence into Software Engineering (AI4SE) has given rise to numerous benchmarks for tasks such as code generation and bug fixing. However, this surge presents challenges: (1) scattered benchmark knowledge across tasks, (2) difficulty in selecting relevant benchmarks, (3) the absence of a uniform standard for benchmark development, and (4) limitations of existing benchmarks. In this paper, we review 173 studies and identify 204 AI4SE benchmarks. We classify these benchmarks, analyze their limitations, and expose gaps in practices. Based on our review, we created BenchScout, a semantic search tool to find relevant benchmarks, using automated clustering of the contexts from associated studies. We conducted a user study with 22 participants to evaluate BenchScout's usability, effectiveness, and intuitiveness which resulted in average scores of 4.5, 4.0, and 4.1 out of 5. To advance benchmarking standards, we propose BenchFrame, a unified method to enhance benchmark quality. As a case study, we applied BenchFrame to the HumanEval benchmark and addressed its main limitations. This led to HumanEvalNext, featuring (1) corrected errors, (2) improved language conversion, (3) expanded test coverage, and (4) increased difficulty. We then evaluated ten state-of-the-art code language models on HumanEval, HumanEvalPlus, and HumanEvalNext. On HumanEvalNext, models showed a pass@1 score reduction of 31.22% and 19.94% compared to HumanEval and HumanEvalPlus, respectively.

Large language models excel on objectively verifiable tasks such as math and programming, where evaluation reduces to unit tests or a single correct answer. In contrast, real-world enterprise work is often subjective and context-dependent: success hinges on organizational goals, user intent, and the quality of intermediate artifacts produced across long, multi-tool workflows. We introduce LH-Bench, a three-pillar evaluation design that moves beyond binary correctness to score autonomous, long-horizon execution on subjective enterprise tasks. The pillars are: (i) expert-grounded rubrics that give LLM judges the domain context needed to score subjective work, (ii) curated ground-truth artifacts that enable stepwise reward signals (e.g., chapter-level annotation for content tasks), and (iii) pairwise human preference evaluation for convergent validation. We show that domain-authored rubrics provide substantially more reliable evaluation signals than LLM-authored rubrics (kappa = 0.60 vs. 0.46), and that human preference judgments confirm the same top-tier separation (p < 0.05), evidence that expert-grounded evaluation can scale without sacrificing reliability. We release public datasets and report results on two environments: Figma-to-code (33 real .fig tasks against the Figma API via MCP) and Programmatic content (41 courses comprising 183 individually-evaluated chapters on a course platform serving 30+ daily users).

In recent years, the rapid increase in scientific papers has overwhelmed traditional review mechanisms, resulting in varying quality of publications. Although existing methods have explored the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated scientific reviewing, their generated contents are often generic or partial. To address the issues above, we introduce an automated paper reviewing framework SEA. It comprises of three modules: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis, which are represented by models SEA-S, SEA-E, and SEA-A, respectively. Initially, SEA-S distills data standardization capabilities of GPT-4 for integrating multiple reviews for a paper. Then, SEA-E utilizes standardized data for fine-tuning, enabling it to generate constructive reviews. Finally, SEA-A introduces a new evaluation metric called mismatch score to assess the consistency between paper contents and reviews. Moreover, we design a self-correction strategy to enhance the consistency. Extensive experimental results on datasets collected from eight venues show that SEA can generate valuable insights for authors to improve their papers.

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

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.

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

This report summarizes the 5th International Verification of Neural Networks Competition (VNN-COMP 2024), held as a part of the 7th International Symposium on AI Verification (SAIV), that was collocated with the 36th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). VNN-COMP is held annually to facilitate the fair and objective comparison of state-of-the-art neural network verification tools, encourage the standardization of tool interfaces, and bring together the neural network verification community. To this end, standardized formats for networks (ONNX) and specification (VNN-LIB) were defined, tools were evaluated on equal-cost hardware (using an automatic evaluation pipeline based on AWS instances), and tool parameters were chosen by the participants before the final test sets were made public. In the 2024 iteration, 8 teams participated on a diverse set of 12 regular and 8 extended benchmarks. This report summarizes the rules, benchmarks, participating tools, results, and lessons learned from this iteration of this competition.