Daily Papers

An effective agent memory system should adapt to a user's history and task requirements. Human-annotated supervision can guide this adaptation by providing feedback for evaluating and improving memory designs. Yet suitable labels are rarely available for new user histories, and manually constructing QA pairs and supporting evidence is costly. We introduce MemSteer, which turns unlabeled user histories into question-answer (QA) supervision with supporting evidence for memory-design optimization. MemSteer constructs an evidence-grounded answer plan that specifies how facts across related records jointly support a reference answer. The plan guides question generation, while source-grounded auditing and blind answer recovery check the resulting annotations. To study the utility of this supervision, we develop MemSteer-Opt, which combines QA-based design evaluation with evidence-guided failure diagnosis to revise memory store, retrieval, and context construction without updating model parameters. Experiments on ATM-Bench and RHELM show that this supervision is competitive with official-QA-guided optimization. Relative to Base-BM25, MemSteer-Opt improves ATM-Bench Question Score by 13.4 points and RHELM accuracy by 4.1 and 6.6 points without and with external data, respectively. The supervision also benefits two existing optimizers on ATM-Bench, while new-user experiments demonstrate continued design optimization using supervision generated from the target histories.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the biomedical domain requires benchmarks that can distinguish reasoning from pattern matching and remain discriminative as model capabilities improve. Existing biomedical question answering (QA) benchmarks are limited in this respect. Multiple-choice formats can allow models to succeed through answer elimination rather than inference, while widely circulated exam-style datasets are increasingly vulnerable to performance saturation and training data contamination. Multi-hop reasoning, defined as the ability to integrate information across multiple sources to derive an answer, is central to clinically meaningful tasks such as diagnostic support, literature-based discovery, and hypothesis generation, yet remains underrepresented in current biomedical QA benchmarks. MedHopQA is a disease-centered multi-hop reasoning benchmark consisting of 1,000 expert-curated question-answer pairs introduced as a shared task at BioCreative IX. Each question requires synthesis of information across two distinct Wikipedia articles, and answers are provided in an open-ended free-text format. Gold annotations are augmented with ontology-grounded synonym sets from MONDO, NCBI Gene, and NCBI Taxonomy to support both lexical and concept-level evaluation. MedHopQA was constructed through a structured process combining human annotation, triage, iterative verification, and LLM-as-a-judge validation. To reduce leaderboard gaming and contamination risk, the 1,000 scored questions are embedded within a publicly downloadable set of 10,000 questions, with answers withheld, on a CodaBench leaderboard. MedHopQA provides both a benchmark and a reusable framework for constructing future biomedical QA datasets that prioritize compositional reasoning, saturation resistance, and contamination resistance as core design constraints.

Financial agents are expected to answer factual investment queries through open search, but financial multi-hop retrieval differs from general multi-hop QA in a crucial way: each intermediate answer is an exact typed constraint, such as an entity, date, event, or numerical indicator, that determines the next query. This strict answer-conditioned dependency makes small intermediate errors cascade into plausible but wrong search trajectories. We introduce FinHopper, a benchmark for complex financial agents with controlled reasoning depth from 1 to 6 hops, covering stocks, funds, and macroeconomic facts, with gold intermediate answers for process-level evaluation. To construct FinHopper at scale, we design a state-transition-based synthesis framework that composes verified atomic financial QA patterns into dependency-preserving chains, followed by targeted in-synthesis verification, model-ensemble checking, and public-search validation by financial experts. Experiments with 20 LLM-agent configurations show that public search tools are necessary but insufficient: performance drops sharply as hop depth increases, the best model remains far below human experts, and process-aware scoring reveals partial reasoning progress hidden by final-answer-only evaluation. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/justajustin/FinHopper/.

Humans constantly reason about 3D proximity, the relations between their body and surrounding objects, to guide perception and action in daily life. Whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform such embodied 3D reasoning remains unclear. To this end, we introduce EgoProx, a benchmark for egocentric 3D proximity reasoning. We organize our tasks along a cognitive chain, covering intention, exploration, exploitation, and chain-of-actions reasoning. We also design an agent based data engine that produces diverse and consistent QA pairs at scale. We benchmark prevailing MLLMs on EgoProx and conduct additional analyses with dataset specific and task specific instruction tuning. We observe large cross-domain gains, indicating that current MLLMs contain some spatial knowledge; however, they still struggle to effectively leverage it for spatial reasoning VQA.

This research introduces DesignQA, a novel benchmark aimed at evaluating the proficiency of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in comprehending and applying engineering requirements in technical documentation. Developed with a focus on real-world engineering challenges, DesignQA uniquely combines multimodal data-including textual design requirements, CAD images, and engineering drawings-derived from the Formula SAE student competition. Different from many existing MLLM benchmarks, DesignQA contains document-grounded visual questions where the input image and input document come from different sources. The benchmark features automatic evaluation metrics and is divided into segments-Rule Comprehension, Rule Compliance, and Rule Extraction-based on tasks that engineers perform when designing according to requirements. We evaluate state-of-the-art models like GPT4 and LLaVA against the benchmark, and our study uncovers the existing gaps in MLLMs' abilities to interpret complex engineering documentation. Key findings suggest that while MLLMs demonstrate potential in navigating technical documents, substantial limitations exist, particularly in accurately extracting and applying detailed requirements to engineering designs. This benchmark sets a foundation for future advancements in AI-supported engineering design processes. DesignQA is publicly available at: https://github.com/anniedoris/design_qa/.

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

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has streamlined frontend interface creation through tools like Vercel's V0, yet surfaced challenges in design quality (e.g., accessibility, and usability). Current solutions, often limited by their focus, generalisability, or data dependency, fall short in addressing these complexities. Moreover, none of them examine the quality of LLM-generated UI design. In this work, we introduce DesignRepair, a novel dual-stream design guideline-aware system to examine and repair the UI design quality issues from both code aspect and rendered page aspect. We utilised the mature and popular Material Design as our knowledge base to guide this process. Specifically, we first constructed a comprehensive knowledge base encoding Google's Material Design principles into low-level component knowledge base and high-level system design knowledge base. After that, DesignRepair employs a LLM for the extraction of key components and utilizes the Playwright tool for precise page analysis, aligning these with the established knowledge bases. Finally, we integrate Retrieval-Augmented Generation with state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 to holistically refine and repair frontend code through a strategic divide and conquer approach. Our extensive evaluations validated the efficacy and utility of our approach, demonstrating significant enhancements in adherence to design guidelines, accessibility, and user experience metrics.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is an umbrella of different components, design decisions, and domain-specific adaptations to enhance the capabilities of large language models and counter their limitations regarding hallucination and outdated and missing knowledge. Since it is unclear which design decisions lead to a satisfactory performance, developing RAG systems is often experimental and needs to follow a systematic and sound methodology to gain sound and reliable results. However, there is currently no generally accepted methodology for RAG evaluation despite a growing interest in this technology. In this paper, we propose a first blueprint of a methodology for a sound and reliable evaluation of RAG systems and demonstrate its applicability on a real-world software engineering research task: the validation of configuration dependencies across software technologies. In summary, we make two novel contributions: (i) A novel, reusable methodological design for evaluating RAG systems, including a demonstration that represents a guideline, and (ii) a RAG system, which has been developed following this methodology, that achieves the highest accuracy in the field of dependency validation. For the blueprint's demonstration, the key insights are the crucial role of choosing appropriate baselines and metrics, the necessity for systematic RAG refinements derived from qualitative failure analysis, as well as the reporting practices of key design decision to foster replication and evaluation.

We introduce DEsignBench, a text-to-image (T2I) generation benchmark tailored for visual design scenarios. Recent T2I models like DALL-E 3 and others, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating photorealistic images that align closely with textual inputs. While the allure of creating visually captivating images is undeniable, our emphasis extends beyond mere aesthetic pleasure. We aim to investigate the potential of using these powerful models in authentic design contexts. In pursuit of this goal, we develop DEsignBench, which incorporates test samples designed to assess T2I models on both "design technical capability" and "design application scenario." Each of these two dimensions is supported by a diverse set of specific design categories. We explore DALL-E 3 together with other leading T2I models on DEsignBench, resulting in a comprehensive visual gallery for side-by-side comparisons. For DEsignBench benchmarking, we perform human evaluations on generated images in DEsignBench gallery, against the criteria of image-text alignment, visual aesthetic, and design creativity. Our evaluation also considers other specialized design capabilities, including text rendering, layout composition, color harmony, 3D design, and medium style. In addition to human evaluations, we introduce the first automatic image generation evaluator powered by GPT-4V. This evaluator provides ratings that align well with human judgments, while being easily replicable and cost-efficient. A high-resolution version is available at https://github.com/design-bench/design-bench.github.io/raw/main/designbench.pdf?download=

This paper introduces MISS-QA, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the ability of models to interpret schematic diagrams within scientific literature. MISS-QA comprises 1,500 expert-annotated examples over 465 scientific papers. In this benchmark, models are tasked with interpreting schematic diagrams that illustrate research overviews and answering corresponding information-seeking questions based on the broader context of the paper. We assess the performance of 18 frontier multimodal foundation models, including o4-mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and Qwen2.5-VL. We reveal a significant performance gap between these models and human experts on MISS-QA. Our analysis of model performance on unanswerable questions and our detailed error analysis further highlight the strengths and limitations of current models, offering key insights to enhance models in comprehending multimodal scientific literature.

AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor allow for their results to be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability, accessible at betterbench.stanford.edu.

Modern engineering, spanning electrical, mechanical, aerospace, civil, and computer disciplines, stands as a cornerstone of human civilization and the foundation of our society. However, engineering design poses a fundamentally different challenge for large language models (LLMs) compared with traditional textbook-style problem solving or factual question answering. Although existing benchmarks have driven progress in areas such as language understanding, code synthesis, and scientific problem solving, real-world engineering design demands the synthesis of domain knowledge, navigation of complex trade-offs, and management of the tedious processes that consume much of practicing engineers' time. Despite these shared challenges across engineering disciplines, no benchmark currently captures the unique demands of engineering design work. In this work, we introduce EngDesign, an Engineering Design benchmark that evaluates LLMs' abilities to perform practical design tasks across nine engineering domains. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on factual recall or question answering, EngDesign uniquely emphasizes LLMs' ability to synthesize domain knowledge, reason under constraints, and generate functional, objective-oriented engineering designs. Each task in EngDesign represents a real-world engineering design problem, accompanied by a detailed task description specifying design goals, constraints, and performance requirements. EngDesign pioneers a simulation-based evaluation paradigm that moves beyond textbook knowledge to assess genuine engineering design capabilities and shifts evaluation from static answer checking to dynamic, simulation-driven functional verification, marking a crucial step toward realizing the vision of engineering Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

This paper provides an empirical implementation of the creative quality metric proposed in Calibrated Surprise (Zou & Xu, 2026a). The question this paper addresses is: does this mathematical claim hold at the engineering level? To make the answer as general as possible, we deliberately choose the strictest engineering conditions: low data cost and a small base model. Training data comes from approximately 100 expert chain-of-thought (CoT) annotations produced by the BC Protocol (Zou & Xu, 2026b). We also identify a data bias: most publicly available alignment datasets are skewed toward craft-related knowledge, while audience modeling and reality-logic coverage are systematically weak. We use the term Creative Quality Alignment (CQA) to describe this class of engineering methods. We also offer a supporting theoretical observation: in an LLM with a single conditional distribution architecture, calibrating the appreciation side automatically transfers to the generation side via architectural duality. This is the structural reason why ~100 CoT examples are sufficient -- not a purely empirical observation like LIMA (Zhou et al., 2023).

Large language models that enhance software development tasks, such as code generation, code completion, and code question answering (QA), have been extensively studied in both academia and the industry. The models are integrated into popular intelligent IDEs like JetBrains and Cursor. Current benchmarks for evaluating models' code comprehension capabilities primarily focus on code generation or completion, often neglecting QA, which is a crucial aspect of understanding code. Existing code QA benchmarks are derived from code comments with predefined patterns (e.g., CodeQA) or focus on specific domains, such as education (e.g., CS1QA). These benchmarks fail to capture the real-world complexity of software engineering and user requirements for understanding code repositories. To address this gap, we introduce CoReQA, a benchmark for Code Repository-level question answering, constructed from GitHub issues and comments from 176 popular repositories across four programming languages. Since questions and answers may include both natural language and code snippets, traditional evaluation metrics such as BLEU are inadequate for assessing repository-level QA performance. Thus, we provide an LLM-as-a-judge framework to evaluate QA performance from five aspects. Based on CoReQA, we evaluate the performance of three baselines, including two short-context models using generic retrieval strategies and one long-context model that utilizes the entire repository context. Evaluation results show that state-of-the-art proprietary and long-context models struggle to address repository-level questions effectively. Our analysis highlights the limitations of language models in assisting developers in understanding repositories and suggests future directions for improving repository comprehension systems through effective context retrieval methodologies.

We introduce Multi-Objective Counterfactuals for Design (MCD), a novel method for counterfactual optimization in design problems. Counterfactuals are hypothetical situations that can lead to a different decision or choice. In this paper, the authors frame the counterfactual search problem as a design recommendation tool that can help identify modifications to a design, leading to better functional performance. MCD improves upon existing counterfactual search methods by supporting multi-objective queries, which are crucial in design problems, and by decoupling the counterfactual search and sampling processes, thus enhancing efficiency and facilitating objective tradeoff visualization. The paper demonstrates MCD's core functionality using a two-dimensional test case, followed by three case studies of bicycle design that showcase MCD's effectiveness in real-world design problems. In the first case study, MCD excels at recommending modifications to query designs that can significantly enhance functional performance, such as weight savings and improvements to the structural safety factor. The second case study demonstrates that MCD can work with a pre-trained language model to suggest design changes based on a subjective text prompt effectively. Lastly, the authors task MCD with increasing a query design's similarity to a target image and text prompt while simultaneously reducing weight and improving structural performance, demonstrating MCD's performance on a complex multimodal query. Overall, MCD has the potential to provide valuable recommendations for practitioners and design automation researchers looking for answers to their ``What if'' questions by exploring hypothetical design modifications and their impact on multiple design objectives. The code, test problems, and datasets used in the paper are available to the public at decode.mit.edu/projects/counterfactuals/.

We introduce GraphicDesignBench (GDB), the first comprehensive benchmark suite designed specifically to evaluate AI models on the full breadth of professional graphic design tasks. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on natural-image understanding or generic text-to-image synthesis, GDB targets the unique challenges of professional design work: translating communicative intent into structured layouts, rendering typographically faithful text, manipulating layered compositions, producing valid vector graphics, and reasoning about animation. The suite comprises 50 tasks organized along five axes: layout, typography, infographics, template & design semantics and animation, each evaluated under both understanding and generation settings, and grounded in real-world design templates drawn from the LICA layered-composition dataset. We evaluate a set of frontier closed-source models using a standardized metric taxonomy covering spatial accuracy, perceptual quality, text fidelity, semantic alignment, and structural validity. Our results reveal that current models fall short on the core challenges of professional design: spatial reasoning over complex layouts, faithful vector code generation, fine-grained typographic perception, and temporal decomposition of animations remain largely unsolved. While high-level semantic understanding is within reach, the gap widens sharply as tasks demand precision, structure, and compositional awareness. GDB provides a rigorous, reproducible testbed for tracking progress toward AI systems that can function as capable design collaborators. The full evaluation framework is publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently advanced text-driven 3D generation, yet Text-to-CAD remains far from supporting industrial product design. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on generating single-part CAD models and evaluate them using geometric similarity metrics that fail to capture functionality, manufacturability, and assemblability. To address this gap, we introduce MUSE, a Text-to-CAD benchmark focused on complex, editable boundary representation (B-Rep) assemblies. MUSE pairs practical design instances with structured Design Specifications and evaluates generated models through a three-stage protocol: code check, geometric check, and design-intent alignment. The final stage uses design-specific rubrics to assess functionality, manufacturability, and assemblability, moving beyond shape matching toward practical design quality. To enable scalable evaluation, we use a rubric-based visual language model (VLM) judge and validate its reliability through human annotation. Experiments on closed-source and open-source LLMs reveal a clear failure cascade from executable code to valid geometry and finally to engineering-ready design, with even the strongest models achieving limited success on fine-grained engineering criteria. Together, MUSE provides a realistic benchmark and evaluation framework for advancing Text-to-CAD from geometric generation toward true engineering design. Our project website, including the leaderboard, dataset, and code, is available at https://dong7313.github.io/muse-benchmark/.

Engineering Design is undergoing a transformative shift with the advent of AI, marking a new era in how we approach product, system, and service planning. Large language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in enabling this shift. Yet, with text as their only input modality, they cannot leverage the large body of visual artifacts that engineers have used for centuries and are accustomed to. This gap is addressed with the release of multimodal vision language models, such as GPT-4V, enabling AI to impact many more types of tasks. In light of these advancements, this paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4V, a vision language model, across a wide spectrum of engineering design tasks, categorized into four main areas: Conceptual Design, System-Level and Detailed Design, Manufacturing and Inspection, and Engineering Education Tasks. Our study assesses GPT-4V's capabilities in design tasks such as sketch similarity analysis, concept selection using Pugh Charts, material selection, engineering drawing analysis, CAD generation, topology optimization, design for additive and subtractive manufacturing, spatial reasoning challenges, and textbook problems. Through this structured evaluation, we not only explore GPT-4V's proficiency in handling complex design and manufacturing challenges but also identify its limitations in complex engineering design applications. Our research establishes a foundation for future assessments of vision language models, emphasizing their immense potential for innovating and enhancing the engineering design and manufacturing landscape. It also contributes a set of benchmark testing datasets, with more than 1000 queries, for ongoing advancements and applications in this field.

Evaluation of QA systems is very challenging and expensive, with the most reliable approach being human annotations of correctness of answers for questions. Recent works (AVA, BEM) have shown that transformer LM encoder based similarity metrics transfer well for QA evaluation, but they are limited by the usage of a single correct reference answer. We propose a new evaluation metric: SQuArE (Sentence-level QUestion AnsweRing Evaluation), using multiple reference answers (combining multiple correct and incorrect references) for sentence-form QA. We evaluate SQuArE on both sentence-level extractive (Answer Selection) and generative (GenQA) QA systems, across multiple academic and industrial datasets, and show that it outperforms previous baselines and obtains the highest correlation with human annotations.

Evaluating user interface (UI) design effectiveness extends beyond aesthetics to influencing user behavior, a principle central to Design Persuasiveness. A/B testing is the predominant method for determining which UI variations drive higher user engagement, but it is costly and time-consuming. While recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can process automated UI analysis, current approaches focus on isolated design attributes rather than comparative persuasiveness-the key factor in optimizing user interactions. To address this, we introduce WiserUI-Bench, a benchmark designed for Pairwise UI Design Persuasiveness Assessment task, featuring 300 real-world UI image pairs labeled with A/B test results and expert rationales. Additionally, we propose G-FOCUS, a novel inference-time reasoning strategy that enhances VLM-based persuasiveness assessment by reducing position bias and improving evaluation accuracy. Experimental results show that G-FOCUS surpasses existing inference strategies in consistency and accuracy for pairwise UI evaluation. Through promoting VLM-driven evaluation of UI persuasiveness, our work offers an approach to complement A/B testing, propelling progress in scalable UI preference modeling and design optimization. Code and data will be released publicly.

While question-answering~(QA) benchmark performance is an automatic and scalable method to compare LLMs, it is an indirect method of evaluating their underlying problem-solving capabilities. Therefore, we propose a holistic and generalizable framework based on cascaded question disclosure that provides a more accurate estimate of the models' problem-solving capabilities while maintaining the scalability and automation. This approach collects model responses in a stagewise manner with each stage revealing partial information about the question designed to elicit generalized reasoning in LLMs. We find that our approach not only provides a better comparison between LLMs, but also induces better intermediate traces in models compared to the standard QA paradigm. We empirically verify this behavior on diverse reasoning and knowledge-heavy QA datasets by comparing LLMs of varying sizes and families. Our approach narrows the performance gap observed in the standard QA evaluation settings, indicating that the prevalent indirect QA paradigm of evaluation overestimates the differences in performance between models. We further validate our findings by extensive ablation studies.

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.

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

Benchmarking is seen as critical to assessing progress in NLP. However, creating a benchmark involves many design decisions (e.g., which datasets to include, which metrics to use) that often rely on tacit, untested assumptions about what the benchmark is intended to measure or is actually measuring. There is currently no principled way of analyzing these decisions and how they impact the validity of the benchmark's measurements. To address this gap, we draw on evidence-centered design in educational assessments and propose Evidence-Centered Benchmark Design (ECBD), a framework which formalizes the benchmark design process into five modules. ECBD specifies the role each module plays in helping practitioners collect evidence about capabilities of interest. Specifically, each module requires benchmark designers to describe, justify, and support benchmark design choices -- e.g., clearly specifying the capabilities the benchmark aims to measure or how evidence about those capabilities is collected from model responses. To demonstrate the use of ECBD, we conduct case studies with three benchmarks: BoolQ, SuperGLUE, and HELM. Our analysis reveals common trends in benchmark design and documentation that could threaten the validity of benchmarks' measurements.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

Recent advancements in foundation models show promising capability in graphic design generation. Several studies have started employing Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) to evaluate graphic designs, assuming that LMMs can properly assess their quality, but it is unclear if the evaluation is reliable. One way to evaluate the quality of graphic design is to assess whether the design adheres to fundamental graphic design principles, which are the designer's common practice. In this paper, we compare the behavior of GPT-based evaluation and heuristic evaluation based on design principles using human annotations collected from 60 subjects. Our experiments reveal that, while GPTs cannot distinguish small details, they have a reasonably good correlation with human annotation and exhibit a similar tendency to heuristic metrics based on design principles, suggesting that they are indeed capable of assessing the quality of graphic design. Our dataset is available at https://cyberagentailab.github.io/Graphic-design-evaluation .

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

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

Autonomous agents have made rapid progress in general-purpose computer use, but reliable automation of professional industrial engineering remains out of reach, as engineering workflows demand reasoning over geometric and physical constraints and dependencies preserved across software and design stages. We present EngiWorld, the first benchmark structured around the complete design loop: 1,301 expert-curated tasks spanning 6 engineering domains (CAD, CAE, CAM, BIM, EDA, and 3D visualization) and 26 professional software platforms, with both GUI and CLI interfaces and 6 task types ranging from software-selection to open-ended tasks. We further introduce an artifact-centric evaluation methodology built on a unified domain-verifier suite, which programmatically checks the geometric validity, physical feasibility, and rule compliance of final and intermediate artifacts, and scores quantitative design tasks continuously by specification attainment rather than binary success. Evaluation of seven frontier models reveals a substantial capability gap: the strongest model achieves an EngiScore of only 44.3, and just 3.6% of multi-software attempts succeed. EngiWorld provides the first rigorous foundation for measuring progress toward agents that operate professional engineering software end to end.

Addressing a structural-engineering request requires more than a single answer; it requires a chain of interdependent artifacts: interpreted requirements, a computable model, validation records, solver outputs, code-check records, and a final report. Evaluations centered on question answering or script generation rarely verify this complete evidence chain and may therefore reward fluent outputs even when the underlying engineering workflow is incomplete, internally inconsistent, or non-executable. To address this limitation, we present StructureClaw, an artifact-centered workbench in which LLM agents operate through governed engineering skills, typed tools, shared artifact state, and local analysis backends. We also introduce StructureClaw-Bench, an executable benchmark of 150 controlled scenarios spanning standard workflow execution, interactive robustness, and multimodal structural-model reconstruction. A scenario succeeds only when all required artifact- and execution-level assertions pass in a single run. Across ten agent-model configurations, each evaluated on the same 50 standard cases, the average Success Rate rises from 56.8% with the generic-skill baseline to 88.6% with the full automatic workflow. The interactive and multimodal evaluations identify two prominent remaining challenges: safe handling of invalid numerical inputs and fixture-consistent reconstruction of structural models. These findings show that artifact-centered evaluation can expose workflow-level failures that are difficult to identify from final responses alone, providing a more rigorous basis for evaluating and improving structural-engineering agents. The code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/structureclaw/structureclaw.

This position paper argues that the machine learning community should prioritize early-stage quality assurance in annotation pipelines over the prevailing practice of late-stage validation. Data quality bottlenecks increasingly limit foundation model improvement, yet quality assurance research focuses almost exclusively on validation methods rather than validation timing. When validation occurs, not merely what methods are employed, fundamentally determines both error rates and annotation costs. This temporal neglect is puzzling given the well-established "shift-left" principle from software engineering, where empirical studies demonstrate 4--100x cost multipliers for defects detected in later stages (Boehm, 1981; Shull et al., 2002). Annotation pipelines exhibit analogous dynamics: errors caught before annotation begins cost a fraction of those discovered after review cycles complete. We propose a taxonomy of three QA trigger points, namely pre-annotation (T0), post-annotation (T1), and post-review (T2), that decompose annotation workflows into discrete validation opportunities. A parametric error-propagation model formalizes when timing affects final error rates versus only economics, making timing a measurable design variable rather than a configuration afterthought. A survey of 47 recent papers reveals that only 4% report when validation occurs, a striking gap given timing's demonstrated impact in adjacent fields. Without explicit attention to QA timing, the community risks optimizing validation methods while ignoring the structural variable that may matter most. Acting on this position requires three steps: researchers should report QA timing configurations alongside validation methods; annotation platforms should expose timing as a first-class parameter; and the community should run controlled experiments that measure stage-specific detection rates directly.

Objective: Question answering (QA) systems have the potential to improve the quality of clinical care by providing health professionals with the latest and most relevant evidence. However, QA systems have not been widely adopted. This systematic review aims to characterize current medical QA systems, assess their suitability for healthcare, and identify areas of improvement. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, ACL Anthology and forward and backward citations on 7th February 2023. We included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers describing the design and evaluation of biomedical QA systems. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. We conducted a narrative synthesis and risk of bias assessment for each study. We assessed the utility of biomedical QA systems. Results: We included 79 studies and identified themes, including question realism, answer reliability, answer utility, clinical specialism, systems, usability, and evaluation methods. Clinicians' questions used to train and evaluate QA systems were restricted to certain sources, types and complexity levels. No system communicated confidence levels in the answers or sources. Many studies suffered from high risks of bias and applicability concerns. Only 8 studies completely satisfied any criterion for clinical utility, and only 7 reported user evaluations. Most systems were built with limited input from clinicians. Discussion: While machine learning methods have led to increased accuracy, most studies imperfectly reflected real-world healthcare information needs. Key research priorities include developing more realistic healthcare QA datasets and considering the reliability of answer sources, rather than merely focusing on accuracy.

Software Quality Assurance (SQA) is critical for delivering reliable, secure, and efficient software products. The Software Quality Assurance Process aims to provide assurance that work products and processes comply with predefined provisions and plans. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to enhance existing SQA processes by automating tasks like requirement analysis, code review, test generation, and compliance checks. Simultaneously, established standards such as ISO/IEC 12207, ISO/IEC 25010, ISO/IEC 5055, ISO 9001/ISO/IEC 90003, CMMI, and TMM provide structured frameworks for ensuring robust quality practices. This paper surveys the intersection of LLM-based SQA methods and these recognized standards, highlighting how AI-driven solutions can augment traditional approaches while maintaining compliance and process maturity. We first review the foundational software quality standards and the technical fundamentals of LLMs in software engineering. Next, we explore various LLM-based SQA applications, including requirement validation, defect detection, test generation, and documentation maintenance. We then map these applications to key software quality frameworks, illustrating how LLMs can address specific requirements and metrics within each standard. Empirical case studies and open-source initiatives demonstrate the practical viability of these methods. At the same time, discussions on challenges (e.g., data privacy, model bias, explainability) underscore the need for deliberate governance and auditing. Finally, we propose future directions encompassing adaptive learning, privacy-focused deployments, multimodal analysis, and evolving standards for AI-driven software quality.

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized Q&A across various industries, including the database domain. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the capabilities of different LLMs and their modular components in database Q&A. To this end, we introduce DQA, the first comprehensive database Q&A benchmark. DQA features an innovative LLM-based method for automating the generation, cleaning, and rewriting of database Q&A, resulting in over 240,000 Q&A pairs in English and Chinese. These Q&A pairs cover nearly all aspects of database knowledge, including database manuals, database blogs, and database tools. This inclusion allows for additional assessment of LLMs' Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Tool Invocation Generation (TIG) capabilities in the database Q&A task. Furthermore, we propose a comprehensive LLM-based database Q&A testbed on DQA. This testbed is highly modular and scalable, with both basic and advanced components like Question Classification Routing (QCR), RAG, TIG, and Prompt Template Engineering (PTE). Besides, DQA provides a complete evaluation pipeline, featuring diverse metrics and a standardized evaluation process to ensure comprehensiveness, accuracy, and fairness. We use DQA to evaluate the database Q&A capabilities under the proposed testbed comprehensively. The evaluation reveals findings like (i) the strengths and limitations of nine different LLM-based Q&A bots and (ii) the performance impact and potential improvements of various service components (e.g., QCR, RAG, TIG). We hope our benchmark and findings will better guide the future development of LLM-based database Q&A research.

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa

Graphic designs are an effective medium for visual communication. They range from greeting cards to corporate flyers and beyond. Off-late, machine learning techniques are able to generate such designs, which accelerates the rate of content production. An automated way of evaluating their quality becomes critical. Towards this end, we introduce Design-o-meter, a data-driven methodology to quantify the goodness of graphic designs. Further, our approach can suggest modifications to these designs to improve its visual appeal. To the best of our knowledge, Design-o-meter is the first approach that scores and refines designs in a unified framework despite the inherent subjectivity and ambiguity of the setting. Our exhaustive quantitative and qualitative analysis of our approach against baselines adapted for the task (including recent Multimodal LLM-based approaches) brings out the efficacy of our methodology. We hope our work will usher more interest in this important and pragmatic problem setting.

Despite being trained on vast amounts of data, most LLMs are unable to reliably generate well-designed UIs. Designer feedback is essential to improving performance on UI generation; however, we find that existing RLHF methods based on ratings or rankings are not well-aligned with with designers' workflows and ignore the rich rationale used to critique and improve UI designs. In this paper, we investigate several approaches for designers to give feedback to UI generation models, using familiar interactions such as commenting, sketching and direct manipulation. We first perform an evaluation with 21 designers where they gave feedback using these interactions, which resulted in 1500 design annotations. We then use this data to finetune a series of LLMs to generate higher quality UIs. Finally, we evaluate these models with human judges, and we find that our designer-aligned approaches outperform models trained with traditional ranking feedback and all tested baselines, including GPT-5.

The autonomous discovery of bugs remains a significant challenge in modern software development. Compared to code generation, the complexity of dynamic runtime environments makes bug discovery considerably harder for large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we take game development as a representative domain and introduce the Game Benchmark for Quality Assurance (GBQA), a benchmark containing 30 games and 124 human-verified bugs across three difficulty levels, to evaluate whether LLMs can autonomously detect software bugs. The benchmark is constructed using a multi-agent system that develops games and injects bugs in a scalable manner, with human experts in the loop to ensure correctness. Moreover, we provide a baseline interactive agent equipped with a multi-round ReAct loop and a memory mechanism, enabling long-horizon exploration of game environments for bug detection across different LLMs. Extensive experiments on frontier LLMs demonstrate that autonomous bug discovery remains highly challenging: the best-performing model, Claude-4.6-Opus in thinking mode, identifies only 48.39% of the verified bugs. We believe GBQA provides an adequate testbed and evaluation criterion, and that further progress on it will help close the gap in autonomous software engineering.

We introduce BikeBench, an engineering design benchmark for evaluating generative models on problems with multiple real-world objectives and constraints. As generative AI's reach continues to grow, evaluating its capability to understand physical laws, human guidelines, and hard constraints grows increasingly important. Engineering product design lies at the intersection of these difficult tasks, providing new challenges for AI capabilities. BikeBench evaluates AI models' capabilities to generate bicycle designs that not only resemble the dataset, but meet specific performance objectives and constraints. To do so, BikeBench quantifies a variety of human-centered and multiphysics performance characteristics, such as aerodynamics, ergonomics, structural mechanics, human-rated usability, and similarity to subjective text or image prompts. Supporting the benchmark are several datasets of simulation results, a dataset of 10,000 human-rated bicycle assessments, and a synthetically generated dataset of 1.6M designs, each with a parametric, CAD/XML, SVG, and PNG representation. BikeBench is uniquely configured to evaluate tabular generative models, large language models (LLMs), design optimization, and hybrid algorithms side-by-side. Our experiments indicate that LLMs and tabular generative models fall short of hybrid GenAI+optimization algorithms in design quality, constraint satisfaction, and similarity scores, suggesting significant room for improvement. We hope that BikeBench, a first-of-its-kind benchmark, will help catalyze progress in generative AI for constrained multi-objective engineering design problems. We provide code, data, an interactive leaderboard, and other resources at https://github.com/Lyleregenwetter/BikeBench.

Existing evaluations of foundation models, including recent human-centric approaches, fail to capture what truly matters: user's experience during interaction. Current methods treat evaluation as a matter of output correctness alone, overlooking that user satisfaction emerges from the interplay between response quality and interaction, which limits their ability to account for the mechanisms underlying user experience. To address this gap, we introduce QoNext, the first framework that adapts Quality of Experience (QoE) principles from networking and multimedia to the assessment of foundation models. QoNext identifies experiential factors that shape user experience and incorporates them into controlled experiments, where human ratings are collected under varied configurations. From these studies we construct a QoE-oriented database and train predictive models that estimate perceived user experience from measurable system parameters. Our results demonstrate that QoNext not only enables proactive and fine-grained evaluation but also provides actionable guidance for productized services of optimizing foundation models in practice.

The field of computer architecture, which bridges high-level software abstractions and low-level hardware implementations, remains absent from current large language model (LLM) evaluations. To this end, we present QuArch (pronounced 'quark'), the first benchmark designed to facilitate the development and evaluation of LLM knowledge and reasoning capabilities specifically in computer architecture. QuArch v1.0 provides a comprehensive collection of 2,671 expert-validated question-answer (QA) pairs covering various aspects of computer architecture, including processor design, memory systems, and interconnection networks. Our evaluation reveals that while frontier models possess domain-specific knowledge, they struggle with skills that require higher-order thinking in computer architecture. Frontier model accuracies vary widely (from 34% to 73%) on these advanced questions, highlighting persistent gaps in architectural reasoning across analysis, design, and implementation QAs. Furthermore, via fine-tuning we find that QuArch can translate to improved performance on a realistic memory hierarchy design task, resulting in up to 1.99x more area-efficient solutions and up to 40% more viable solutions overall. By holistically assessing fundamental skills, QuArch provides a foundation for building and measuring LLM capabilities that can accelerate innovation in computing systems. The QuArch benchmark and leaderboard are publicly available at: https://quarch.ai/.

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

Real-world design tasks - such as picture book creation, film storyboard development using character sets, photo retouching, visual effects, and font transfer - are highly diverse and complex, requiring deep interpretation and extraction of various elements from instructions, descriptions, and reference images. The resulting images often implicitly capture key features from references or user inputs, making it challenging to develop models that can effectively address such varied tasks. While existing visual generative models can produce high-quality images based on prompts, they face significant limitations in professional design scenarios that involve varied forms and multiple inputs and outputs, even when enhanced with adapters like ControlNets and LoRAs. To address this, we introduce IDEA-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark encompassing 100 real-world design tasks, including rendering, visual effects, storyboarding, picture books, fonts, style-based, and identity-preserving generation, with 275 test cases to thoroughly evaluate a model's general-purpose generation capabilities. Notably, even the best-performing model only achieves 22.48 on IDEA-Bench, while the best general-purpose model only achieves 6.81. We provide a detailed analysis of these results, highlighting the inherent challenges and providing actionable directions for improvement. Additionally, we provide a subset of 18 representative tasks equipped with multimodal large language model (MLLM)-based auto-evaluation techniques to facilitate rapid model development and comparison. We releases the benchmark data, evaluation toolkits, and an online leaderboard at https://github.com/ali-vilab/IDEA-Bench, aiming to drive the advancement of generative models toward more versatile and applicable intelligent design systems.

Understanding and reasoning about entire software repositories is an essential capability for intelligent software engineering tools. While existing benchmarks such as CoSQA and CodeQA have advanced the field, they predominantly focus on small, self-contained code snippets. These setups fail to capture the complexity of real-world repositories, where effective understanding and reasoning often require navigating multiple files, understanding software architecture, and grounding answers in long-range code dependencies. In this paper, we present SWE-QA, a repository-level code question answering (QA) benchmark designed to facilitate research on automated QA systems in realistic code environments. SWE-QA involves 576 high-quality question-answer pairs spanning diverse categories, including intention understanding, cross-file reasoning, and multi-hop dependency analysis. To construct SWE-QA, we first crawled 77,100 GitHub issues from 11 popular repositories. Based on an analysis of naturally occurring developer questions extracted from these issues, we developed a two-level taxonomy of repository-level questions and constructed a set of seed questions for each category. For each category, we manually curated and validated questions and collected their corresponding answers. As a prototype application, we further develop SWE-QA-Agent, an agentic framework in which LLM agents reason and act to find answers automatically. We evaluate six advanced LLMs on SWE-QA under various context augmentation strategies. Experimental results highlight the promise of LLMs, particularly our SWE-QA-Agent framework, in addressing repository-level QA, while also revealing open challenges and pointing to future research directions.

Text-to-CAD has recently emerged as an important task with the potential to substantially accelerate design workflows. Despite its significance, there has been surprisingly little work on Text-to-CAD evaluation, and assessing CAD model generation performance remains a considerable challenge. In this work, we introduce a new evaluation perspective for Text-to-CAD based on automated testing. We propose CADTestBench, the first test-based benchmark for Text-to-CAD, based on CADTests, executable software tests that verify whether a generated CAD model satisfies the geometric and topological requirements of the input prompt. Using CADTestBench, we conduct comprehensive benchmarking of recent Text-to-CAD methods and further demonstrate that CADTests can also guide CAD model generation, yielding simple baselines that surpass performance of current methods. CADTestBench code and data are available at GitHub and Hugging Face dataset.

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering.Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at κ_w = 0.798 against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions.Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.

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

A CAD model is not engineering-grade merely because it looks correct. It must satisfy design requirements, respond predictably to parameter changes, support controlled edits, match a reference structural response under a declared analysis, and connect to other parts through valid joints. We present CADEngBench, a two-track benchmark for these capabilities. CADEngBench-P evaluates 300 parametric parts, each used for one zero-to-CAD task and one functional-editing task (600 tasks in total), through boundary-representation (B-Rep) validity, engineering and DFM checks, parameter-family perturbations, functional editing, and matched linear-static FEA in CalculiX. CADEngBench-A evaluates 150 body pairs through ranked joint retrieval, exact face-and-edge grounding, joint-frame prediction, and kinematic verification. Across eight multimodal, code-capable models, editing supplied CAD is substantially easier than generating it, while complex edits and matched FEA remain difficult. Assembly predictions often locate the relevant region but fail to recover the recorded joint or mating entities. These results show that CAD evaluation must test engineering behavior rather than appearance alone.

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.

We present ExpliCIT-QA, a system that extends our previous MRT approach for tabular question answering into a multimodal pipeline capable of handling complex table images and providing explainable answers. ExpliCIT-QA follows a modular design, consisting of: (1) Multimodal Table Understanding, which uses a Chain-of-Thought approach to extract and transform content from table images; (2) Language-based Reasoning, where a step-by-step explanation in natural language is generated to solve the problem; (3) Automatic Code Generation, where Python/Pandas scripts are created based on the reasoning steps, with feedback for handling errors; (4) Code Execution to compute the final answer; and (5) Natural Language Explanation that describes how the answer was computed. The system is built for transparency and auditability: all intermediate outputs, parsed tables, reasoning steps, generated code, and final answers are available for inspection. This strategy works towards closing the explainability gap in end-to-end TableVQA systems. We evaluated ExpliCIT-QA on the TableVQA-Bench benchmark, comparing it with existing baselines. We demonstrated improvements in interpretability and transparency, which open the door for applications in sensitive domains like finance and healthcare where auditing results are critical.

Recently, there has been growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for scientific research. Numerous benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate the ability of LLMs for scientific research. However, current benchmarks are mostly based on pre-collected objective questions. This design suffers from data leakage problem and lacks the evaluation of subjective Q/A ability. In this paper, we propose SciEval, a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary evaluation benchmark to address these issues. Based on Bloom's taxonomy, SciEval covers four dimensions to systematically evaluate scientific research ability. In particular, we design a "dynamic" subset based on scientific principles to prevent evaluation from potential data leakage. Both objective and subjective questions are included in SciEval. These characteristics make SciEval a more effective benchmark for scientific research ability evaluation of LLMs. Comprehensive experiments on most advanced LLMs show that, although GPT-4 achieves SOTA performance compared to other LLMs, there is still substantial room for improvement, especially for dynamic questions. The data and codes are now publicly available.

We present SpaceQA, to the best of our knowledge the first open-domain QA system in Space mission design. SpaceQA is part of an initiative by the European Space Agency (ESA) to facilitate the access, sharing and reuse of information about Space mission design within the agency and with the public. We adopt a state-of-the-art architecture consisting of a dense retriever and a neural reader and opt for an approach based on transfer learning rather than fine-tuning due to the lack of domain-specific annotated data. Our evaluation on a test set produced by ESA is largely consistent with the results originally reported by the evaluated retrievers and confirms the need of fine tuning for reading comprehension. As of writing this paper, ESA is piloting SpaceQA internally.

Large language models are increasingly capable of synthesizing executable frontend projects, yet existing benchmarks still treat web generation as a static evaluation problem. We argue that frontend artifacts demand a different paradigm: they are interactive rather than static, admit diverse yet equally valid implementations, and evolve faster than rigid pipelines can accommodate. To address these gaps, we present LiveEvalBench, an automated framework that reformulates web-generation evaluation as an agentic, adaptive, and extensible process. LiveEvalBench instantiates evaluation as a collaborative review workflow, in which a Build Engineer, a Code Engineer, and a UI Tester collectively gather evidence across the full lifecycle of a frontend project, from deployment and code inspection to browser-based interaction. To handle implementation diversity, an adaptive protocol couples shared rubrics for cross-model comparability with implementation-grounded criteria tailored to each artifact. The framework further supports incremental integration of new evaluator roles and assessment dimensions without pipeline redesign. Experiments across diverse real-world web-generation scenarios show that LiveEvalBench aligns closely with human expert judgment and provides fine-grained insights into frontier models' web generation capabilities. Code is available at https://github.com/wyysteelhead/LiveEvalBench

As multimodal resources are transformed into media outputs, agentic AI is expected to stay aligned with design intent over long horizons. Designers follow briefs specifying goals, constraints, and deliverables, with later work building on earlier decisions. Recent work reuses design experience across tasks, yet alignment among artifacts within one project remains challenging. Agents therefore need to preserve and apply this intent across domains and as projects grow. We introduce Design Anything, a graph-based harness that preserves design intent outside the model and binds deliverables to the workflow steps that produce them through an intent-execution graph. A task contract retains constraints and decisions, selected designs become explicit inputs to later generations, and a deterministic controller uses bindings and execution records to check output types and counts, identify outstanding deliverables, and guide subsequent turns. We also introduce DesignAnything-Bench, with 228 tasks across 19 design domains, including 38 project families at scales of 6, 14, and 24 artifacts. With the LLM held fixed, Design Anything satisfies 85.0% and 92.5% of the brief's factual constraints with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash High and GPT-5.6 Sol High, respectively, exceeding the strongest same-model baselines by 15.4% and 14.4%. These gains reach 25.1% and 23.0% on 24-artifact tasks. Under each model, Design Anything leads or ties in constraint satisfaction in 18 of 19 domains. Professional designers also prefer its complete deliverable sets over those of same-model baselines in a blind evaluation.

With the advancement of Agentic AI, researchers are increasingly leveraging autonomous agents to address challenges in software engineering (SE). However, the large language models (LLMs) that underpin these agents often function as black boxes, making it difficult to justify the superiority of Agentic AI approaches over baselines. Furthermore, missing information in the evaluation design description frequently renders the reproduction of results infeasible. To synthesize current evaluation practices for Agentic AI in SE, this study analyzes 18 papers on the topic, published or accepted by ICSE 2026, ICSE 2025, FSE 2025, ASE 2025, and ISSTA 2025. The analysis identifies prevailing approaches and their limitations in evaluating Agentic AI for SE, both in current research and potential future studies. To address these shortcomings, this position paper proposes a set of guidelines and recommendations designed to empower reproducible, explainable, and effective evaluations of Agentic AI in software engineering. In particular, we recommend that Agentic AI researchers make their Thought-Action-Result (TAR) trajectories and LLM interaction data, or summarized versions of these artifacts, publicly accessible. Doing so will enable subsequent studies to more effectively analyze the strengths and weaknesses of different Agentic AI approaches. To demonstrate the feasibility of such comparisons, we present a proof-of-concept case study that illustrates how TAR trajectories can support systematic analysis across approaches.

In this paper, we conduct a study to utilize LLMs as a solution for decision making that requires complex data analysis. We define Decision QA as the task of answering the best decision, d_{best}, for a decision-making question Q, business rules R and a database D. Since there is no benchmark that can examine Decision QA, we propose Decision QA benchmark, DQA. It has two scenarios, Locating and Building, constructed from two video games (Europa Universalis IV and Victoria 3) that have almost the same goal as Decision QA. To address Decision QA effectively, we also propose a new RAG technique called the iterative plan-then-retrieval augmented generation (PlanRAG). Our PlanRAG-based LM generates the plan for decision making as the first step, and the retriever generates the queries for data analysis as the second step. The proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art iterative RAG method by 15.8% in the Locating scenario and by 7.4% in the Building scenario, respectively. We release our code and benchmark at https://github.com/myeon9h/PlanRAG.

Generative video models are increasingly used in design animation tasks, yet no standardized evaluation framework exists for this domain. Unlike natural video generation, design animation imposes structured constraints: specific components shall animate with prescribed motion types, directions, speed and timing, while non-animated regions must remain stable and layout structure must be preserved. This paper provides a fully automated evaluation framework organized across four dimensions: layout fidelity, motion correctness, temporal quality, and content fidelity. This eliminates the reliance on subjective human evaluation and establishes a common basis for benchmarking progress in the field. We release the code and dataset here: https://github.com/purvanshi/lica-bench.

We introduce FailureSensorIQ, a novel Multi-Choice Question-Answering (MCQA) benchmarking system designed to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason and understand complex, domain-specific scenarios in Industry 4.0. Unlike traditional QA benchmarks, our system focuses on multiple aspects of reasoning through failure modes, sensor data, and the relationships between them across various industrial assets. Through this work, we envision a paradigm shift where modeling decisions are not only data-driven using statistical tools like correlation analysis and significance tests, but also domain-driven by specialized LLMs which can reason about the key contributors and useful patterns that can be captured with feature engineering. We evaluate the Industrial knowledge of over a dozen LLMs-including GPT-4, Llama, and Mistral-on FailureSensorIQ from different lens using Perturbation-Uncertainty-Complexity analysis, Expert Evaluation study, Asset-Specific Knowledge Gap analysis, ReAct agent using external knowledge-bases. Even though closed-source models with strong reasoning capabilities approach expert-level performance, the comprehensive benchmark reveals a significant drop in performance that is fragile to perturbations, distractions, and inherent knowledge gaps in the models. We also provide a real-world case study of how LLMs can drive the modeling decisions on 3 different failure prediction datasets related to various assets. We release: (a) expert-curated MCQA for various industrial assets, (b) FailureSensorIQ benchmark and Hugging Face leaderboard based on MCQA built from non-textual data found in ISO documents, and (c) LLMFeatureSelector, an LLM-based feature selection scikit-learn pipeline. The software is available at https://github.com/IBM/FailureSensorIQ.

Most research on question answering focuses on the pre-deployment stage; i.e., building an accurate model for deployment. In this paper, we ask the question: Can we improve QA systems further post-deployment based on user interactions? We focus on two kinds of improvements: 1) improving the QA system's performance itself, and 2) providing the model with the ability to explain the correctness or incorrectness of an answer. We collect a retrieval-based QA dataset, FeedbackQA, which contains interactive feedback from users. We collect this dataset by deploying a base QA system to crowdworkers who then engage with the system and provide feedback on the quality of its answers. The feedback contains both structured ratings and unstructured natural language explanations. We train a neural model with this feedback data that can generate explanations and re-score answer candidates. We show that feedback data not only improves the accuracy of the deployed QA system but also other stronger non-deployed systems. The generated explanations also help users make informed decisions about the correctness of answers. Project page: https://mcgill-nlp.github.io/feedbackqa/

Assistants on assembly tasks have a large potential to benefit humans from everyday tasks to industrial settings. However, no testbeds support application-oriented system evaluation in a practical setting, especially in assembly. To foster the development, we propose a new multimodal QA dataset on assembly activities. Our dataset, ProMQA-Assembly, consists of 391 QA pairs that require the multimodal understanding of human-activity recordings and their instruction manuals in an online-style manner. In the development, we adopt a semi-automated QA annotation approach, where LLMs generate candidates and humans verify them, as a cost-effective method, and further improve it by integrating fine-grained action labels to diversify question types. Furthermore, we create instruction task graphs for the target tasks of assembling toy vehicles. These newly created task graphs are used in our benchmarking experiment, as well as to facilitate the human verification process in the QA annotation. Utilizing our dataset, we benchmark models, including competitive proprietary multimodal models. Our results suggest great room for improvement for the current models. We believe our new evaluation dataset can contribute to the further development of procedural-activity assistants.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive results while requiring little or no direct supervision. Further, there is mounting evidence that LLMs may have potential in information-seeking scenarios. We believe the ability of an LLM to attribute the text that it generates is likely to be crucial in this setting. We formulate and study Attributed QA as a key first step in the development of attributed LLMs. We propose a reproducible evaluation framework for the task and benchmark a broad set of architectures. We take human annotations as a gold standard and show that a correlated automatic metric is suitable for development. Our experimental work gives concrete answers to two key questions (How to measure attribution?, and How well do current state-of-the-art methods perform on attribution?), and give some hints as to how to address a third (How to build LLMs with attribution?).

As leading LLMs improve on capability evaluations, their limitations in producing creative outputs on design tasks remain insufficiently characterised. Our work introduces Design Creativity Bench, a benchmark that evaluates diversity and appropriateness in UI designs. It measures distinctiveness among models on the same prompt (originality), how much a model's designs change between two prompts for the same UI goal in different product domains (creative range), and the share of a brief's acceptance criteria each design meets (appropriateness). Originality is 0.592 for same-prompt design pairs from different models (95% CI [0.582, 0.602]), far below the 0.764 for same-prompt human-model pairs (95% CI [0.751, 0.778]). Creative range is 0.581 across models (95% CI [0.567, 0.597]), against 0.902 for human designs (95% CI [0.884, 0.919]). Appropriateness is above 90% for every model, and the best model reaches 99.2%, slightly above the 98.0% for human designs. Our work shows that the default output of LLMs, though generally appropriate, is substantially more repetitive than the human baseline. This calls for strong measures to address the issue.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its reliability remains uncertain. In this work, we analyze key factors affecting its trustworthiness, focusing on alignment with human judgments and evaluation consistency. Using BIGGENBench and EvalBiasBench, we study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation. Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.

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

Automatically generated questions often suffer from problems such as unclear expression or factual inaccuracies, requiring a reliable and comprehensive evaluation of their quality. Human evaluation is frequently used in the field of question generation (QG) and is one of the most accurate evaluation methods. It also serves as the standard for automatic metrics. However, there is a lack of unified evaluation criteria, which hampers the development of both QG technologies and automatic evaluation methods. To address this, we propose QGEval, a multi-dimensional Evaluation benchmark for Question Generation, which evaluates both generated questions and existing automatic metrics across 7 dimensions: fluency, clarity, conciseness, relevance, consistency, answerability, and answer consistency. We demonstrate the appropriateness of these dimensions by examining their correlations and distinctions. Analysis with QGEval reveals that 1) most QG models perform unsatisfactorily in terms of answerability and answer consistency, and 2) existing metrics fail to align well with human assessments when evaluating generated questions across the 7 dimensions. We expect this work to foster the development of both QG technologies and automatic metrics for QG.

We propose BrickBench, a benchmark for agentic text-conditioned LEGO-set design. Given a prompt, an agent is tasked with producing an assembly that not only satisfies semantic and design criteria, but that can also be physically built. To do so, it must select parts from a discrete library and reason jointly about local and global constraints. We score validity, alignment, and design across three settings that vary in scale and part availability. We provide BrickAgent, an environment for coding agents to construct, inspect, and validate their designs. We find that leading agents largely satisfy verifiable physical and semantic requirements, but fall short of human designs. We release our benchmark and environment at http://www.brickben.ch

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering (SE) has revolutionized tasks like code generation, producing a massive volume of software artifacts. This surge has exposed a critical bottleneck: the lack of scalable, reliable methods to evaluate these outputs. Human evaluation is costly and time-consuming, while traditional automated metrics like BLEU fail to capture nuanced quality aspects. In response, the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm - using LLMs for automated evaluation - has emerged. This approach leverages the advanced reasoning of LLMs, offering a path toward human-like nuance at automated scale. However, LLM-as-a-Judge research in SE is still in its early stages. This forward-looking SE 2030 paper aims to steer the community toward advancing LLM-as-a-Judge for evaluating LLM-generated software artifacts. We provide a literature review of existing SE studies, analyze their limitations, identify key research gaps, and outline a detailed roadmap. We envision these frameworks as reliable, robust, and scalable human surrogates capable of consistent, multi-faceted artifact evaluation by 2030. Our work aims to foster research and adoption of LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, ultimately improving the scalability of software artifact evaluation.

Parametric computer-aided design (CAD) modeling is difficult to evaluate with a single metric. Existing CAD benchmarks often emphasize synthetic or CAD-native settings, limited input modalities, or executability and IoUs alone. We introduce RealCADBench, a benchmark for intent-to-program CAD modeling from real industrial design intents. It contains 12,632 tasks from 19 factory-automation categories and spans text descriptions, 2D engineering drawings, real product pictures, and rendered images for both Part and Assembly modeling. We report results on a 1,770-task evaluation slice: 1,745 Part tasks across four input regimes and RCB-Assm25, a 25-task assembly study used in every reported assembly comparison. Each method generates FreeCAD API Python, which a shared runtime executes to export the 3D model. We evaluate the exported model using executability, Solid IoU, Surface IoU, and a rubric-based visual-semantic identity Judge. Among the nine standalone frontier large models evaluated, no model leads all four metrics. Across six frontier-scale large models, executability ranges from 0.565 to 0.812, Solid IoU from 0.2841 to 0.5379, and Surface IoU from 0.112 to 0.217 across the four Part regimes. The highest regime-balanced composite comes from a different model than the leaders on the four component metrics. On RCB-Assm25, Codex with GPT-5.5 improves executability and both IoU metrics over standalone GPT-5.5, but lowers the Judge score by 6.98 percentage points, leaving GPT-5.5 as the Judge leader. We also observe recurring failure modes, most notably missing fine structures, loss of part identity, and incorrect assembly placement. These results show that execution alone is insufficient to characterize realistic CAD modeling and that frontier models and agents differ substantially across executability, IoUs, and visual-semantic identity.

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.

Question-answering for domain-specific applications has recently attracted much interest due to the latest advancements in large language models (LLMs). However, accurately assessing the performance of these applications remains a challenge, mainly due to the lack of suitable benchmarks that effectively simulate real-world scenarios. To address this challenge, we introduce two product question-answering (QA) datasets focused on Adobe Acrobat and Photoshop products to help evaluate the performance of existing models on domain-specific product QA tasks. Additionally, we propose a novel knowledge-driven RAG-QA framework to enhance the performance of the models in the product QA task. Our experiments demonstrated that inducing domain knowledge through query reformulation allowed for increased retrieval and generative performance when compared to standard RAG-QA methods. This improvement, however, is slight, and thus illustrates the challenge posed by the datasets introduced.

We present WebGLM, a web-enhanced question-answering system based on the General Language Model (GLM). Its goal is to augment a pre-trained large language model (LLM) with web search and retrieval capabilities while being efficient for real-world deployments. To achieve this, we develop WebGLM with strategies for the LLM-augmented retriever, bootstrapped generator, and human preference-aware scorer. Specifically, we identify and address the limitations of WebGPT (OpenAI), through which WebGLM is enabled with accuracy, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness advantages. In addition, we propose systematic criteria for evaluating web-enhanced QA systems. We conduct multi-dimensional human evaluation and quantitative ablation studies, which suggest the outperformance of the proposed WebGLM designs over existing systems. WebGLM with the 10-billion-parameter GLM (10B) is shown to perform better than the similar-sized WebGPT (13B) and even comparably to WebGPT (175B) in human evaluation. The code, demo, and data are at https://github.com/THUDM/WebGLM.

User interface (UI) design is an iterative process in which designers progressively refine their work with design software such as Figma or Sketch. Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) with tool invocation suggest these models can operate design software to edit a UI design through iteration. Understanding and enhancing this capacity is important, as it highlights VLMs' potential to collaborate with designers within conventional software. However, as no existing benchmark evaluates tool-based design performance, the capacity remains unknown. To address this, we introduce CANVAS, a benchmark for VLMs on tool-based user interface design. Our benchmark contains 598 tool-based design tasks paired with ground-truth references sampled from 3.3K mobile UI designs across 30 function-based categories (e.g., onboarding, messaging). In each task, a VLM updates the design step-by-step through context-based tool invocations (e.g., create a rectangle as a button background), linked to design software. Specifically, CANVAS incorporates two task types: (i) design replication evaluates the ability to reproduce a whole UI screen; (ii) design modification evaluates the ability to modify a specific part of an existing screen. Results suggest that leading models exhibit more strategic tool invocations, improving design quality. Furthermore, we identify common error patterns models exhibit, guiding future work in enhancing tool-based design capabilities.

Agent evaluations are increasingly used to compare LLMs and inform deployment decisions, yet ranks can reflect not only the model but also the effects of the evaluation conditions such as the scaffolds or tasks. This makes reliability claim-dependent: an evaluation that reliably ranks deployed systems may not reliably rank underlying models. We ask which conclusions current agent evaluations reliably support and what additional evaluation would improve them. We develop a Bayesian variance-decomposition framework for sparse, imbalanced agent leaderboards and apply it to 22 benchmarks from the Holistic Agent Leaderboard and Harbor Index. The framework separates signal, performance differences relevant to the intended claim, from noise, irrelevant variation that can still change rankings. We find: (1) Reliability depends on the measurement goal. Fixed model-scaffold systems are ranked reliably (0.935-0.994), while underlying-model reliability is substantially lower (0.148-0.841). (2) Scaffold choice can change conclusions. Inter-scaffold reliability measures whether scaffolds preserve model rankings, showing that scaffold effects vary substantially across evaluations. (3) More tasks cannot resolve all uncertainty. Even infinitely many similarly constructed tasks improve model-ranking reliability of a benchmark by at most 0.097 when uncertainty is dominated by limited scaffold coverage. (4) Pooling diverse benchmarks can improve cross-task rankings at lower cost. For rankings across diverse agentic tasks, pooling benchmarks raises projected reliability from 0.44 to 0.75 at the same task budget and can reduce projected cost by up to 83\%. Evaluation design should follow the intended claim: identify what a score or ranking should mean, diagnose what limits its reliability, and spend evaluation budget on the sources of uncertainty that matter.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used to automate SE tasks such as code generation and summarization. However, evaluating the quality of LLM-generated software artifacts remains challenging. Human evaluation, while effective, is very costly and time-consuming. Traditional automated metrics like BLEU rely on high-quality references and struggle to capture nuanced aspects of software quality, such as readability and usefulness. In response, the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, which employs LLMs for automated evaluation, has emerged. Given that LLMs are typically trained to align with human judgment and possess strong coding abilities and reasoning skills, they hold promise as cost-effective and scalable surrogates for human evaluators. Nevertheless, LLM-as-a-Judge research in the SE community is still in its early stages, with many breakthroughs needed. This forward-looking SE 2030 paper aims to steer the research community toward advancing LLM-as-a-Judge for evaluating LLMgenerated software artifacts, while also sharing potential research paths to achieve this goal. We provide a literature review of existing SE studies on LLM-as-a-Judge and envision these frameworks as reliable, robust, and scalable human surrogates capable of evaluating software artifacts with consistent, multi-faceted assessments by 2030 and beyond. To validate this vision, we analyze the limitations of current studies, identify key research gaps, and outline a detailed roadmap to guide future developments of LLM-as-a-Judge in software engineering. While not intended to be a definitive guide, our work aims to foster further research and adoption of LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks within the SE community, ultimately improving the effectiveness and scalability of software artifact evaluation methods.

Manufacturable chip layouts must satisfy thousands of geometry-based design rules, and design rule checking (DRC) enforces them by running executable DRC scripts on layouts. Translating natural language rules into correct DRC scripts is labor-intensive and requires specialized expertise, motivating LLM agents for DRC script synthesis and debugging. However, existing benchmarks have small evaluation sets and often evaluate scripts by code similarity rather than execution correctness, and prior machine learning-based methods either ignore execution feedback or require labeled test layouts as agent's input. To this end, we introduce Rule2DRC, a large-scale benchmark for DRC script coding agents with 1,000 rule-to-script tasks and 13,921 evaluation chip layouts for execution-based scoring. Rule2DRC provides an evaluation pipeline that measures functional correctness via DRC execution outcomes without requiring evaluation layouts as input to the agent. We also propose SplitTester, a tester agent for program selection that uses execution feedback to generate discriminative test cases and separate previously indistinguishable candidate scripts, substantially improving Best-of-N selection performance in this domain. We release the code at https://github.com/snu-mllab/Rule2DRC.

In recent years, with the rapid development of the depth and breadth of large language models' capabilities, various corresponding evaluation benchmarks have been emerging in increasing numbers. As a quantitative assessment tool for model performance, benchmarks are not only a core means to measure model capabilities but also a key element in guiding the direction of model development and promoting technological innovation. We systematically review the current status and development of large language model benchmarks for the first time, categorizing 283 representative benchmarks into three categories: general capabilities, domain-specific, and target-specific. General capability benchmarks cover aspects such as core linguistics, knowledge, and reasoning; domain-specific benchmarks focus on fields like natural sciences, humanities and social sciences, and engineering technology; target-specific benchmarks pay attention to risks, reliability, agents, etc. We point out that current benchmarks have problems such as inflated scores caused by data contamination, unfair evaluation due to cultural and linguistic biases, and lack of evaluation on process credibility and dynamic environments, and provide a referable design paradigm for future benchmark innovation.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current evaluation metrics to determine answer equivalence (AE) often do not align with human judgments, particularly more verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big: LLM-based scorers can correlate better with human judges, but this task has only been tested on limited QA datasets, and even when available, update of the model is limited because LLMs are large and often expensive. We rectify both of these issues by providing clear and consistent guidelines for evaluating AE in machine QA adopted from professional human QA contests. We also introduce a combination of standard evaluation and a more efficient, robust, and lightweight discriminate AE classifier-based matching method (CFMatch, smaller than 1 MB), trained and validated to more accurately evaluate answer correctness in accordance with adopted expert AE rules that are more aligned with human judgments.

LLM-based agents are increasingly capable of generating complex 3D structures, with the potential to reshape how objects are designed and realized in the physical world. Yet, producing elegant geometry is fundamentally different from producing objects that can be built and perform their intended functions. Existing evaluations largely focus on geometric quality while overlooking physical realizability. We introduce LMBuild, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on generating buildable and functional structures. LMBuild represents generated objects as assembled structures comprising part decompositions, joints, materials, and sequences. To support reproducible evaluation, we provide a unified framework consisting of: (1) an interactive environment in which agents can use tools to retrieve, create, and place components to construct objects; (2) a curated benchmark that repurposes established CAD datasets and augments them with knowledge from Wikipedia; and (3) a evaluation framework covering structural soundness, functional affordance, design quality, and physical realization. Evaluations across 30 systems reveal several intriguing findings: (a) Soundness and alignment are no longer the primary bottlenecks for frontier closed-source models, while functional affordance and physical operability remain substantially more challenging; (b) stronger models more effectively create new components, whereas weaker models tend to rely on retrieval; and (c) providing functional specifications substantially improves part completeness, kinematics, and physical operability. These results show that generating real-world structures requires deeper reasoning about functional affordances, mechanics, and designing and creating novel components. We expect LMBuild to provide a foundation for measuring progress and incentivizing research toward agents that generate buildable and functional structures.

We introduce SWE Atlas, a benchmark suite for coding agents spanning three professional software engineering workflows: Codebase Q&A (124 tasks), Test Writing (90 tasks), and Refactoring (70 tasks). SWE Atlas differs from prior SWE benchmarks in three key ways: it targets underrepresented but practically important task categories, uses comprehensive category-specific evaluation protocols, and adopts under-specified, agentic task formulations that better reflect real-world usage. Its evaluation framework combines programmatic checks with rubric-based assessment. This goes beyond functional correctness, evaluating software engineering quality, including test and refactor completeness, maintainability, reusable abstractions, and codebase hygiene. We evaluate a range of frontier and open-weight models on SWE Atlas and find that GPT-5.4 and Opus 4.7 achieve the strongest overall performance, while even the best open-weight models score poorly. Our analysis suggests that top models rely on extensive codebase exploration and runtime-driven reasoning. However, even top models consistently struggle with subtle edge cases, complex runtime analysis, and adherence to software engineering best practices. Overall, SWE Atlas provides a complementary evaluation suite for measuring both correctness and engineering quality in coding agents.

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

Despite near-perfect results in artificial evaluations, the effectiveness of model editing in real-world applications remains unexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose to study model editing in question answering (QA) by establishing a rigorous evaluation practice to assess the effectiveness of editing methods in correcting LLMs' errors. It consists of QAEdit, a new benchmark derived from popular QA datasets, and a standardized evaluation framework. Our single editing experiments indicate that current editing methods perform substantially worse than previously reported (38.5% vs. ~96%). Through module analysis and controlled experiments, we demonstrate that this performance decline stems from issues in evaluation practices of prior editing research. One key issue is the inappropriate use of teacher forcing in testing prevents error propagation by feeding ground truth tokens (inaccessible in real-world scenarios) as input. Furthermore, we simulate real-world deployment by sequential editing, revealing that current approaches fail drastically with only 1000 edits. Our analysis provides a fundamental reexamination of both the real-world applicability of existing model editing methods and their evaluation practices, and establishes a rigorous evaluation framework with key insights to advance reliable and practical model editing research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the correctness of these generated artifacts remains a significant challenge. On one hand, human evaluation provides high accuracy but is labor-intensive and lacks scalability. On the other hand, many automatic evaluation metrics are scalable and require minimal human effort, but they often fail to accurately reflect the actual correctness of generated software artifacts. In this paper, we present SE-Jury, the first evaluation metric for LLM-as-Ensemble-Judge specifically designed to accurately assess the correctness of generated software artifacts. SE-Jury first defines five distinct evaluation strategies, each implemented by an independent judge. A dynamic team selection mechanism then identifies the most appropriate subset of judges as a team to produce a final correctness score through ensembling. We evaluate SE-Jury across a diverse set of software engineering (SE) benchmarks that span three popular SE tasks: code generation, automated program repair, and code summarization. Results demonstrate that SE-Jury consistently achieves a higher correlation with human judgments, with improvements ranging from 29.6% to 140.8% over existing automatic metrics. SE-Jury reaches agreement levels with human annotators that are close to inter-annotator agreement in code generation and program repair. These findings underscore SE-Jury's potential as a scalable and reliable alternative to human evaluation in these SE tasks.

Speech translation (ST) is increasingly adopted in user applications, yet its evaluation largely focuses on decontextualized testbeds and holistic quality, rather than end users' communication needs. We introduce Ouvia, an evaluation framework for measuring user-perceived usability of speech translation outputs in real-world settings. Ouvia focuses on one-to-one communication: an English speaker needs to convey a request to a Portuguese speaker, and the message is automatically translated. Through a custom web app and multi-phase study design, we collect more than 1,750 such interactions in healthcare and everyday situations, mediated by four ST systems, involving speakers from three English dialects and two genders. We find that modern ST serves people only to a limited extent -- only around half of interactions are rated as usable -- with significant gaps in reported usability across demographic groups. Moreover, among quality metrics, we find that QA-based evaluation is a substantially stronger predictor of real-world usability than standard approaches. Together, these findings stress the importance of situated, user-centered evaluation frameworks that go beyond holistic quality scores and attend to who the technology serves -- and how well.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring robust safety measures is paramount. To meet this crucial need, we propose SALAD-Bench, a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating LLMs, attack, and defense methods. Distinguished by its breadth, SALAD-Bench transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.SALAD-Bench is crafted with a meticulous array of questions, from standard queries to complex ones enriched with attack, defense modifications and multiple-choice. To effectively manage the inherent complexity, we introduce an innovative evaluators: the LLM-based MD-Judge for QA pairs with a particular focus on attack-enhanced queries, ensuring a seamless, and reliable evaluation. Above components extend SALAD-Bench from standard LLM safety evaluation to both LLM attack and defense methods evaluation, ensuring the joint-purpose utility. Our extensive experiments shed light on the resilience of LLMs against emerging threats and the efficacy of contemporary defense tactics. Data and evaluator are released under https://github.com/OpenSafetyLab/SALAD-BENCH. Warning: this paper includes examples that may be offensive or harmful.

Designing high-quality presentation slides can be challenging for non-experts due to the complexity involved in navigating various design choices. Numerous automated tools can suggest layouts and color schemes, yet often lack the ability to refine their own output, which is a key aspect in real-world workflows. We propose DesignLab, which separates the design process into two roles, the design reviewer, who identifies design-related issues, and the design contributor who corrects them. This decomposition enables an iterative loop where the reviewer continuously detects issues and the contributor corrects them, allowing a draft to be further polished with each iteration, reaching qualities that were unattainable. We fine-tune large language models for these roles and simulate intermediate drafts by introducing controlled perturbations, enabling the design reviewer learn design errors and the contributor learn how to fix them. Our experiments show that DesignLab outperforms existing design-generation methods, including a commercial tool, by embracing the iterative nature of designing which can result in polished, professional slides.

Automated ideation systems are often evaluated on the novelty of the ideas they produce, and that judgment is increasingly delegated to large language models. Such judges are typically built ad hoc and validated, if at all, on human-authored papers rather than on the generated ideas they are meant to score. So, how do novelty judges perform? Not well. We present a systematic controlled study of novelty evaluation design choices. We first build an evaluation set automatically, mining OpenReview for passages where reviewers explicitly affirm or dispute a paper's originality and keeping only submissions with unanimous agreement at the extremes of their research area; we pair these with ideas from a vanilla LLM generator. Across six judges, we find that small prompt design choices have large consequences; e.g., simply telling the judge that reviewers found one idea novel and the other not can change its verdict on more than half of the identical idea pairs it is shown, shifting pairwise accuracy by over 50 points and occasionally pushing it below chance. The same change helps one judge and hurts another. Retrieval and larger reasoning budgets help little, and two purpose-built novelty evaluators are outperformed by our cheapest prompted baseline. These results raise questions about reported novelty gains of automated ideation systems, and call for robust novelty evaluation methods.

AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself. This literature is described under a vocabulary ("self-refine," "self-reward," "self-play," "self-evolve") that conflates fundamentally different ambitions. We survey 1,250 arXiv papers (2024-2026) along two axes: what the system improves -- its behavior in deployment, its policy through training, its evaluator, or the research process itself -- and the degree of loop closure (human-in-the-loop to fully closed). The taxonomy separates bounded self-refinement -- convergent, evaluable, and already industrial practice -- from open-ended recursive self-improvement (RSI), which remains bounded by grounding requirements, collapse dynamics, and compute constraints on every measured axis. Its distinctive feature is a dedicated category for self-evaluation: every improvement loop is a claim that some signal can substitute for human judgment. We survey the evaluator design space -- judges, process reward models, verifiers, rubrics, meta-evaluation -- order the signals into a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers (strongest) to intrinsic self-assessment (weakest), and observe that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks this hierarchy, that its failure modes (self-confirming loops, model collapse, diversity collapse) follow from its violations, and that the "research direction-setting" bottleneck keeping humans in the loop sits at the top of that hierarchy. We connect the technical literature to the theory of RSI limits and to the safety and governance questions raised by frontier-lab accounts of closing the loop, and identify governance-grade measurement of self-improvement as the field's most underpopulated niche.

Code Agents have achieved remarkable advances in recent years, exhibiting strong capabilities across a wide range of software engineering tasks. However, their misuse often produces bloated and disorganized code that impairing readability, extensibility, and robustness. Despite this risk, existing benchmarks largely evaluate functional correctness rather than long-term maintainability of code agents. In this paper, we propose SmellBench, an extensible code refactoring benchmark that proactively injects code smells into clean code snippets from real-world repositories. This design enables the generation of controlled, high-quality, and diverse refactoring cases with human-written ground truth. Specifically, it contains 294 cases spanning 7 popular smell types, 3 difficulty levels, 2 instruction settings across 7 real-world repositories. We further design 3 evaluation aspects covering functional correctness, localization ability, and refactoring quality assessment. Experiments with 2 popular agents and 6 large langauge models (LLMs) show that the best combination - Qwen Code + Claude Sonnet 4.5 - achieved only a 50.34 score of smell elimination. Further analysis reveals that this gap arises from a focus on local code smells and a lack of cross-file understanding, which hinders comprehensive smell elimination.

The critique capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for reasoning abilities, which can provide necessary suggestions (e.g., detailed analysis and constructive feedback). Therefore, how to evaluate the critique capacity of LLMs has drawn great attention and several critique benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing critique benchmarks usually have the following limitations: (1). Focusing on diverse reasoning tasks in general domains and insufficient evaluation on code tasks (e.g., only covering code generation task), where the difficulty of queries is relatively easy (e.g., the code queries of CriticBench are from Humaneval and MBPP). (2). Lacking comprehensive evaluation from different dimensions. To address these limitations, we introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for LLMs called CodeCriticBench. Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties. Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics, where fine-grained evaluation checklists are well-designed for advanced settings. Finally, we conduct extensive experimental results of existing LLMs, which show the effectiveness of CodeCriticBench.

We present the Comprehensive Verilog Design Problems (CVDP) benchmark, a new dataset and infrastructure to advance LLM and agent research in hardware design and verification. CVDP includes 783 problems across 13 task categories, covering RTL generation, verification, debugging, specification alignment, and technical Q&A authored by experienced hardware engineers. Problems are offered in both non-agentic and agentic formats. The benchmark introduces more realistic and challenging contexts than prior work, with state-of-the-art models achieving no more than 34% pass@1 on code generation. Agentic tasksx2013especially those involving RTL reuse and verificationx2013are particularly difficult. Evaluation uses open-source tools and model scoring infrastructure, with comprehension tasks assessed via BLEU and LLM-based judging. CVDP reveals substantial gaps in current model capabilities, underscoring the need for continued research toward robust, real-world hardware design automation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks, with an increased focus on bug report resolution over the past year. However, most proposed systems fail to properly handle uncertain or incorrect inputs and outputs. Existing LLM-based tools and coding agents respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect. There are no mechanisms in place to abstain when confidence is low. This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports. We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined or refuse to respond when their own outputs are likely to be incorrect. Unlike prior benchmarks that implicitly incentivize models to generate responses even when uncertain, BouncerBench aims to improve precision by targeting two overlooked failure points: (1) vague or underspecified issue descriptions in tickets and (2) logically or functionally incorrect code patches created by the system. It measures whether proposed systems can distinguish actionable issues from vague tickets and valid patches from untrustworthy ones. We also implement a basic input and output bouncer, evaluating how well current LLMs can abstain when needed. Our results show that most models fail to abstain from underspecified inputs or incorrect outputs. Hence, we conclude that there is significant room for improvement before LLMs can be trusted to make correct decisions and recommendations in real-world software engineering workflows. BouncerBench provides a first step toward evaluating and building more cautious, trustworthy code agents. The replication package, dataset, and leaderboard can be found at bouncerbench.com

Computer-aided design (CAD) is crucial in prototyping 3D objects through geometric instructions (i.e., CAD programs). In practical design workflows, designers often engage in time-consuming reviews and refinements of these prototypes by comparing them with reference images. To bridge this gap, we introduce the CAD review task to automatically detect and correct potential errors, ensuring consistency between the constructed 3D objects and reference images. However, recent advanced multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle to recognize multiple geometric components and perform spatial geometric operations within the CAD program, leading to inaccurate reviews. In this paper, we propose the CAD program repairer (ReCAD) framework to effectively detect program errors and provide helpful feedback on error correction. Additionally, we create a dataset, CADReview, consisting of over 20K program-image pairs, with diverse errors for the CAD review task. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our ReCAD significantly outperforms existing MLLMs, which shows great potential in design applications.

Nowadays, developers increasingly rely on solutions powered by Large Language Models (LLM) to assist them with their coding tasks. This makes it crucial to align these tools with human values to prevent malicious misuse. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive framework for assessing the potential harmfulness of LLMs within the software engineering domain. We begin by developing a taxonomy of potentially harmful software engineering scenarios and subsequently, create a dataset of prompts based on this taxonomy. To systematically assess the responses, we design and validate an automatic evaluator that classifies the outputs of a variety of LLMs both open-source and closed-source models, as well as general-purpose and code-specific LLMs. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of models size, architecture family, and alignment strategies on their tendency to generate harmful content. The results show significant disparities in the alignment of various LLMs for harmlessness. We find that some models and model families, such as Openhermes, are more harmful than others and that code-specific models do not perform better than their general-purpose counterparts. Notably, some fine-tuned models perform significantly worse than their base-models due to their design choices. On the other side, we find that larger models tend to be more helpful and are less likely to respond with harmful information. These results highlight the importance of targeted alignment strategies tailored to the unique challenges of software engineering tasks and provide a foundation for future work in this critical area.

Agentic search -- the task of training agents that iteratively reason, issue queries, and synthesize retrieved information to answer complex questions -- has achieved remarkable progress through reinforcement learning (RL). However, existing approaches such as Search-R1, treat the retrieval system as a fixed tool, optimizing only the reasoning agent while the retrieval component remains unchanged. A preliminary experiment reveals that the gap between an oracle and a fixed retrieval system reaches up to +26.8% relative F1 improvement across seven QA benchmarks, suggesting that the retrieval system is a key bottleneck in scaling agentic search performance. Motivated by this finding, we propose CoSearch, a framework that jointly trains a multi-step reasoning agent and a generative document ranking model via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). To enable effective GRPO training for the ranker -- whose inputs vary across reasoning trajectories -- we introduce a semantic grouping strategy that clusters sub-queries by token-level similarity, forming valid optimization groups without additional rollouts. We further design a composite reward combining ranking quality signals with trajectory-level outcome feedback, providing the ranker with both immediate and long-term learning signals. Experiments on seven single-hop and multi-hop QA benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements over strong baselines, with ablation studies validating each design choice. Our results show that joint training of the reasoning agent and retrieval system is both feasible and strongly performant, pointing to a key ingredient for future search agents.

The progress introduced by pre-trained language models and their fine-tuning has resulted in significant improvements in most downstream NLP tasks. The unsupervised training of a language model combined with further target task fine-tuning has become the standard QA fine-tuning procedure. In this work, we demonstrate that this strategy is sub-optimal for fine-tuning QA models, especially under a low QA annotation budget, which is a usual setting in practice due to the extractive QA labeling cost. We draw our conclusions by conducting an exhaustive analysis of the performance of the alternatives of the sequential fine-tuning strategy on different QA datasets. Based on the experiments performed, we observed that the best strategy to fine-tune the QA model in low-budget settings is taking a pre-trained language model (PLM) and then fine-tuning PLM with a dataset composed of the target dataset and SQuAD dataset. With zero extra annotation effort, the best strategy outperforms the standard strategy by 2.28% to 6.48%. Our experiments provide one of the first investigations on how to best fine-tune a QA system under a low budget and are therefore of the utmost practical interest to the QA practitioners.

As language models are increasingly deployed in real-world scenarios with important outcomes, the impact of their mistakes often extends far beyond what correctness can capture. In domains like medicine, a single error can lead to serious consequences and put patient safety at risk. However, mainstream evaluation protocols still treat all errors as equal, overlooking the spectrum of real-world costs. To address this, we propose a utility-based evaluation paradigm that explicitly incorporates the varying consequences of errors. Guided by this principle, we develop UtilityBench, a large-scale benchmark of 15,000 instances with verifiable answers, quantifying error severity using Best-Worst Scaling to elicit meaningful, data-driven cost estimates. These quantified utilities shape when a model should answer or abstain, guiding it to make decisions that align with the true importance of each scenario. As another merit, we introduce UtilityAUC, a metric that measures the area under the utility curve determined by a model's response ordering, thereby enabling utility preference alignment beyond error frequency. Our theoretical analysis demonstrates that UtilityAUC can distinguish between models where standard accuracy and AURC fall short. Empirically, evaluating 20 state-of-the-art models, we find that greater accuracy or more advanced architectures do not reliably translate to higher UtilityAUC, highlighting a gap between problem-solving ability and responsible decision-making in language model evaluation.

This paper presents LLM4SecHW, a novel framework for hardware debugging that leverages domain specific Large Language Model (LLM). Despite the success of LLMs in automating various software development tasks, their application in the hardware security domain has been limited due to the constraints of commercial LLMs and the scarcity of domain specific data. To address these challenges, we propose a unique approach to compile a dataset of open source hardware design defects and their remediation steps, utilizing version control data. This dataset provides a substantial foundation for training machine learning models for hardware. LLM4SecHW employs fine tuning of medium sized LLMs based on this dataset, enabling the identification and rectification of bugs in hardware designs. This pioneering approach offers a reference workflow for the application of fine tuning domain specific LLMs in other research areas. We evaluate the performance of our proposed system on various open source hardware designs, demonstrating its efficacy in accurately identifying and correcting defects. Our work brings a new perspective on automating the quality control process in hardware design.

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

The emergence of "vibe coding" platforms, where users describe applications in natural language and AI agents autonomously generate full-stack software, has created a need for rigorous evaluation beyond code-level benchmarks. In order to assess them as virtual software development agencies on understanding business requirements, making architectural decisions, writing production code, handling iterative modifications, and maintaining business readiness, we introduce SWE-WebDev Bench, a 68-metric evaluation framework spanning 25 primary and 43 diagnostic metrics across seven groups, organized along three dimensions: Interaction Mode (App Creation Request (ACR) vs. App Modification Request (AMR)), Agency Angle (Product Manager (PM), Engineering, Ops), and Complexity Tier (T4 multi-role SaaS, T5 AI-native). Our evaluation (six platforms, three domains, 18 evaluation cells) reveals four recurring shortcomings in the current generation of AI app builders: (1) A specification bottleneck, where platforms compress rich business requirements into oversimplified technical plans, (2) A pervasive frontend-backend decoupling, where visually polished UIs mask absent or broken backend infrastructure, (3) A steep production-readiness cliff, where no platform scores above 60% on engineering quality and post-generation human effort varies substantially across platforms and (4) Widespread security and infrastructure failures, with no platform exceeding 65% Security Score against a 90% target and concurrency handling as low as 6%. These observations are descriptive of our sample and require larger-scale replication to establish generality. We release SWE-WebDev Bench as a community benchmark to enable such replication and help platform builders identify and address these gaps. Code and benchmark resources are available at: https://github.com/snowmountainAi/webdevbench and https://webdevbench.com/.

With video games now generating the highest revenues in the entertainment industry, optimizing game development workflows has become essential for the sector's sustained growth. Recent advancements in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) offer considerable potential to automate and enhance various aspects of game development, particularly Quality Assurance (QA), which remains one of the industry's most labor-intensive processes with limited automation options. To accurately evaluate the performance of VLMs in video game QA tasks and determine their effectiveness in handling real-world scenarios, there is a clear need for standardized benchmarks, as existing benchmarks are insufficient to address the specific requirements of this domain. To bridge this gap, we introduce VideoGameQA-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark that covers a wide array of game QA activities, including visual unit testing, visual regression testing, needle-in-a-haystack tasks, glitch detection, and bug report generation for both images and videos of various games. Code and data are available at: https://asgaardlab.github.io/videogameqa-bench/

Reliable evaluation is essential for developing and deploying large language models, yet in practice it often requires substantial manual effort: practitioners must identify appropriate benchmarks, reproduce heterogeneous evaluation codebases, configure dataset schema mappings, and interpret aggregated metrics. To address these challenges, we present One-Eval, an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language evaluation requests into executable, traceable, and customizable evaluation workflows. One-Eval integrates (i) NL2Bench for intent structuring and personalized benchmark planning, (ii) BenchResolve for benchmark resolution, automatic dataset acquisition, and schema normalization to ensure executability, and (iii) Metrics \& Reporting for task-aware metric selection and decision-oriented reporting beyond scalar scores. The system further incorporates human-in-the-loop checkpoints for review, editing, and rollback, while preserving sample evidence trails for debugging and auditability. Experiments show that One-Eval can execute end-to-end evaluations from diverse natural-language requests with minimal user effort, supporting more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings. Our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/One-Eval.

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.

Inspired by the recent success of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, researchers start to explore the adoption of LLMs for agile hardware design, such as generating design RTL based on natural-language instructions. However, in existing works, their target designs are all relatively simple and in a small scale, and proposed by the authors themselves, making a fair comparison among different LLM solutions challenging. In addition, many prior works only focus on the design correctness, without evaluating the design qualities of generated design RTL. In this work, we propose an open-source benchmark named RTLLM, for generating design RTL with natural language instructions. To systematically evaluate the auto-generated design RTL, we summarized three progressive goals, named syntax goal, functionality goal, and design quality goal. This benchmark can automatically provide a quantitative evaluation of any given LLM-based solution. Furthermore, we propose an easy-to-use yet surprisingly effective prompt engineering technique named self-planning, which proves to significantly boost the performance of GPT-3.5 in our proposed benchmark.

Most evaluations of large language models focus on standard tasks such as factual question answering or short summarization. This research expands that scope in two directions: first, by comparing two retrieval strategies, Graph RAG, structured knowledge-graph based, and Advanced RAG, hybrid keyword-semantic search, for QA; and second, by evaluating whether LLMs can generate high quality non-traditional academic outputs, specifically slide decks and podcast scripts. We implemented a prototype combining Meta's LLaMA 3 70B open weight and OpenAI's GPT 4o mini API based. QA performance was evaluated using both human ratings across eleven quality dimensions and large language model judges for scalable cross validation. GPT 4o mini with Advanced RAG produced the most accurate responses. Graph RAG offered limited improvements and led to more hallucinations, partly due to its structural complexity and manual setup. Slide and podcast generation was tested with document grounded retrieval. GPT 4o mini again performed best, though LLaMA 3 showed promise in narrative coherence. Human reviewers were crucial for detecting layout and stylistic flaws, highlighting the need for combined human LLM evaluation in assessing emerging academic outputs.

There is an increasing imperative to anticipate and understand the performance and safety of generative AI systems in real-world deployment contexts. However, the current evaluation ecosystem is insufficient: Commonly used static benchmarks face validity challenges, and ad hoc case-by-case audits rarely scale. In this piece, we advocate for maturing an evaluation science for generative AI systems. While generative AI creates unique challenges for system safety engineering and measurement science, the field can draw valuable insights from the development of safety evaluation practices in other fields, including transportation, aerospace, and pharmaceutical engineering. In particular, we present three key lessons: Evaluation metrics must be applicable to real-world performance, metrics must be iteratively refined, and evaluation institutions and norms must be established. Applying these insights, we outline a concrete path toward a more rigorous approach for evaluating generative AI systems.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has unlocked great opportunities in complex data management tasks, particularly in question answering (QA) over complicated multi-table relational data. Despite significant progress, systematically evaluating LLMs on multi-table QA remains a critical challenge due to the inherent complexity of analyzing heterogeneous table structures and potential large scale of serialized relational data. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on single-table QA, failing to capture the intricacies of reasoning across multiple relational tables, as required in real-world domains such as finance, healthcare, and e-commerce. To address this gap, we present TQA-Bench, a new multi-table QA benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in tackling complex QA tasks over relational data. Our benchmark incorporates diverse relational database instances sourced from real-world public datasets and introduces a flexible sampling mechanism to create tasks with varying multi-table context lengths, ranging from 8K to 64K tokens. To ensure robustness and reliability, we integrate symbolic extensions into the evaluation framework, enabling the assessment of LLM reasoning capabilities beyond simple data retrieval or probabilistic pattern matching. We systematically evaluate a range of LLMs, both open-source and closed-source, spanning model scales from 7 billion to 70 billion parameters. Our extensive experiments reveal critical insights into the performance of LLMs in multi-table QA, highlighting both challenges and opportunities for advancing their application in complex, data-driven environments. Our benchmark implementation and results are available at https://github.com/Relaxed-System-Lab/TQA-Bench.

PDFs are the second-most used document type on the internet (after HTML). Yet, existing QA datasets commonly start from text sources or only address specific domains. In this paper, we present pdfQA, a multi-domain 2K human-annotated (real-pdfQA) and 2K synthetic dataset (syn-pdfQA) differentiating QA pairs in ten complexity dimensions (e.g., file type, source modality, source position, answer type). We apply and evaluate quality and difficulty filters on both datasets, obtaining valid and challenging QA pairs. We answer the questions with open-source LLMs, revealing existing challenges that correlate with our complexity dimensions. pdfQA presents a basis for end-to-end QA pipeline evaluation, testing diverse skill sets and local optimizations (e.g., in information retrieval or parsing).

Existing Simulink benchmarks mainly evaluate whether generated models compile, execute, or resemble a reference model. These criteria do not establish whether a model satisfies its engineering requirements. We introduce SimuVerity, a benchmark of 101 text-to-executable Simulink model-generation tasks across ten engineering domains. For each task, executable-system profiles ground the engineering specification and four families of native simulation scenarios. A hierarchical evaluator first checks artifact delivery, native executability, and engineering qualification, then scores qualified models across six dimensions covering accuracy, output quality, mechanistic fidelity, control and causal integrity, operating-domain robustness, and dynamic response. We evaluate six agent systems with SimuVerity. The best system achieves an overall score of only 42.86. The results show that structural similarity is a poor proxy for engineering performance: capability bottlenecks arise both in producing qualified implementations and in satisfying multidimensional requirements after qualification. Meanwhile, some high-scoring models still exhibit severe visual-layout disorder. SimuVerity provides a systematic basis for assessing agents' engineering capabilities and diagnosing failures in executable Simulink model generation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are gaining popularity among software engineers. A crucial aspect of developing effective code generation LLMs is to evaluate these models using a robust benchmark. Evaluation benchmarks with quality issues can provide a false sense of performance. In this work, we conduct the first-of-its-kind study of the quality of prompts within benchmarks used to compare the performance of different code generation models. To conduct this study, we analyzed 3,566 prompts from 9 code generation benchmarks to identify quality issues in them. We also investigated whether fixing the identified quality issues in the benchmarks' prompts affects a model's performance. We also studied memorization issues of the evaluation dataset, which can put into question a benchmark's trustworthiness. We found that code generation evaluation benchmarks mainly focused on Python and coding exercises and had very limited contextual dependencies to challenge the model. These datasets and the developers' prompts suffer from quality issues like spelling and grammatical errors, unclear sentences to express developers' intent, and not using proper documentation style. Fixing all these issues in the benchmarks can lead to a better performance for Python code generation, but not a significant improvement was observed for Java code generation. We also found evidence that GPT-3.5-Turbo and CodeGen-2.5 models may have data contamination issues.

Capability evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly shadowed by rising concerns of data contamination that cast doubts on whether static benchmarks measure genuine reasoning or mere memorization. We present an empirical study using an infinitely scalable framework to synthesize research-level QA directly from arXiv papers, harnessing the natural temporal structure of research publications where performance decay after knowledge cutoffs may indicate potential contamination. We evaluated 4 frontier model represented by 2 models of different knowledge cutoff dates per family on 1,643 multi-step reasoning questions synthesized from 20,277 arXiv papers stratified over 26 months, covering at least 6 months before and after all cutoff dates. Our results consistently showed a lack of significant performance decay near knowledge cutoff dates for models of various sizes, developers, and release dates. We further performed a comparative analysis with previous longitudinal studies that reported significant post-cutoff performance decay using directly retrieved questions based on public data. we hypothesize that the multi-step reasoning required by our synthesis pipeline offered additional complexity that goes deeper than shallow memorization, which effectively serves a mitigation strategy against benchmark contamination. We fully open source our code and dataset to aid reproducibility and advocate for a paradigm shift that prioritize reasoning-driven synthesis to construct benchmarks over simply collecting newly released questions periodically.

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) enhances the accuracy and reliability of generative AI models by sourcing factual information from external databases, which is extensively employed in document-grounded question-answering (QA) tasks. Off-the-shelf RAG flows are well pretrained on general-purpose documents, yet they encounter significant challenges when being applied to knowledge-intensive vertical domains, such as electronic design automation (EDA). This paper addresses such issue by proposing a customized RAG framework along with three domain-specific techniques for EDA tool documentation QA, including a contrastive learning scheme for text embedding model fine-tuning, a reranker distilled from proprietary LLM, and a generative LLM fine-tuned with high-quality domain corpus. Furthermore, we have developed and released a documentation QA evaluation benchmark, ORD-QA, for OpenROAD, an advanced RTL-to-GDSII design platform. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed RAG flow and techniques have achieved superior performance on ORD-QA as well as on a commercial tool, compared with state-of-the-arts. The ORD-QA benchmark and the training dataset for our customized RAG flow are open-source at https://github.com/lesliepy99/RAG-EDA.

Engineering design optimization seeks to automatically determine the shapes, topologies, or parameters of components that maximize performance under given conditions. This process often depends on physics-based simulations, which are difficult to install, computationally expensive, and require domain-specific expertise. To mitigate these challenges, we introduce EngiBench, the first open-source library and datasets spanning diverse domains for data-driven engineering design. EngiBench provides a unified API and a curated set of benchmarks -- covering aeronautics, heat conduction, photonics, and more -- that enable fair, reproducible comparisons of optimization and machine learning algorithms, such as generative or surrogate models. We also release EngiOpt, a companion library offering a collection of such algorithms compatible with the EngiBench interface. Both libraries are modular, letting users plug in novel algorithms or problems, automate end-to-end experiment workflows, and leverage built-in utilities for visualization, dataset generation, feasibility checks, and performance analysis. We demonstrate their versatility through experiments comparing state-of-the-art techniques across multiple engineering design problems, an undertaking that was previously prohibitively time-consuming to perform. Finally, we show that these problems pose significant challenges for standard machine learning methods due to highly sensitive and constrained design manifolds.

Developers and quality assurance testers often rely on manual testing to test accessibility features throughout the product lifecycle. Unfortunately, manual testing can be tedious, often has an overwhelming scope, and can be difficult to schedule amongst other development milestones. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used for a variety of tasks including automation of UIs, however to our knowledge no one has yet explored their use in controlling assistive technologies for the purposes of supporting accessibility testing. In this paper, we explore the requirements of a natural language based accessibility testing workflow, starting with a formative study. From this we build a system that takes as input a manual accessibility test (e.g., ``Search for a show in VoiceOver'') and uses an LLM combined with pixel-based UI Understanding models to execute the test and produce a chaptered, navigable video. In each video, to help QA testers we apply heuristics to detect and flag accessibility issues (e.g., Text size not increasing with Large Text enabled, VoiceOver navigation loops). We evaluate this system through a 10 participant user study with accessibility QA professionals who indicated that the tool would be very useful in their current work and performed tests similarly to how they would manually test the features. The study also reveals insights for future work on using LLMs for accessibility testing.

Material selection plays a pivotal role in many industries, from manufacturing to construction. Material selection is usually carried out after several cycles of conceptual design, during which designers iteratively refine the design solution and the intended manufacturing approach. In design research, material selection is typically treated as an optimization problem with a single correct answer. Moreover, it is also often restricted to specific types of objects or design functions, which can make the selection process computationally expensive and time-consuming. In this paper, we introduce MSEval, a novel dataset which is comprised of expert material evaluations across a variety of design briefs and criteria. This data is designed to serve as a benchmark to facilitate the evaluation and modification of machine learning models in the context of material selection for conceptual design.

A benchmark is not merely a collection of test questions; it naturally induces an empirical measure over difficulty. In this work, we develop this measure-based view of benchmark evaluation. This perspective allows us to identify and formalize two central failure modes: measure mismatch, where the benchmark difficulty distribution differs from the intended difficulty distribution, and coverage gaps, where uncovered regions along the difficulty axis prevent benchmarks from detecting meaningful localized training progress. We propose two diagnostic metrics that capture these two failure modes and provide rigorous theoretical guarantees. Empirically, we analyze 25 popular benchmarks spanning 7 domains using carefully estimated item difficulties. Our results show that many benchmarks implicitly overweight certain difficulty regions, so their leaderboard conclusions should be interpreted with caution; others leave substantial portions of the difficulty axis uncovered, limiting their ability to monitor the model improvement process. Finally, we turn diagnosis into action by introducing BenchFill, a simple difficulty-targeted item rewriting algorithm that effectively reduces local coverage gaps.

This paper reviews the state-of-the-art of language models architectures and strategies for "complex" question-answering (QA, CQA, CPS) with a focus on hybridization. Large Language Models (LLM) are good at leveraging public data on standard problems but once you want to tackle more specific complex questions or problems (e.g. How does the concept of personal freedom vary between different cultures ? What is the best mix of power generation methods to reduce climate change ?) you may need specific architecture, knowledge, skills, methods, sensitive data protection, explainability, human approval and versatile feedback... Recent projects like ChatGPT and GALACTICA have allowed non-specialists to grasp the great potential as well as the equally strong limitations of LLM in complex QA. In this paper, we start by reviewing required skills and evaluation techniques. We integrate findings from the robust community edited research papers BIG, BLOOM and HELM which open source, benchmark and analyze limits and challenges of LLM in terms of tasks complexity and strict evaluation on accuracy (e.g. fairness, robustness, toxicity, ...) as a baseline. We discuss some challenges associated with complex QA, including domain adaptation, decomposition and efficient multi-step QA, long form and non-factoid QA, safety and multi-sensitivity data protection, multimodal search, hallucinations, explainability and truthfulness, temporal reasoning. We analyze current solutions and promising research trends, using elements such as: hybrid LLM architectural patterns, training and prompting strategies, active human reinforcement learning supervised with AI, neuro-symbolic and structured knowledge grounding, program synthesis, iterated decomposition and others.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

Automating the conversion of user interface design into code (image-to-code or image-to-UI) is an active area of software engineering research. However, the state-of-the-art solutions do not achieve high fidelity to the original design, as evidenced by benchmarks. In this work, I approach the problem differently: I use vector images instead of bitmaps as model input. I create several large datasets for training machine learning models. I evaluate the available array of Image Quality Assessment (IQA) algorithms and introduce a new, multi-scale metric. I then train a large open-weights model and discuss its limitations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various domains, including software development, education, and technical assistance. Among these, software development is one of the key areas where LLMs are increasingly adopted. However, when hardware constraints are considered-for instance, in physical computing, where software must interact with and control physical hardware -their effectiveness has not been fully explored. To address this gap, we introduce PCEval (Physical Computing Evaluation), the first benchmark in physical computing that enables a fully automatic evaluation of the capabilities of LLM in both the logical and physical aspects of the projects, without requiring human assessment. Our evaluation framework assesses LLMs in generating circuits and producing compatible code across varying levels of project complexity. Through comprehensive testing of 13 leading models, PCEval provides the first reproducible and automatically validated empirical assessment of LLMs' ability to reason about fundamental hardware implementation constraints within a simulation environment. Our findings reveal that while LLMs perform well in code generation and logical circuit design, they struggle significantly with physical breadboard layout creation, particularly in managing proper pin connections and avoiding circuit errors. PCEval advances our understanding of AI assistance in hardware-dependent computing environments and establishes a foundation for developing more effective tools to support physical computing education.

Generative UI tools promise to democratize UI design by turning natural language descriptions into complete interfaces. Alongside the interface, these tools generate user-facing design rationales that explain their layout, accessibility, and design choices. However, it remains unclear whether these stated rationales are actually reflected in the interfaces they produce. We call this disconnect ``Design Theater'': plausible and confident design rationales that have little relationship to the actual implementation. To study this phenomenon, we introduce a benchmark and three metrics for measuring Design Theater. The benchmark includes 24 UI generation tasks spanning structural, styling, and functional design requirements. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 120 interfaces created by five generative UI tools. On average, over 25\% of user-facing design rationales are not implemented in the generated interface, and the implementation failure increases to 34\% for functional requirements. Tools recognize roughly half of the UX principles embedded in prompts (mean = 0.54), with four of five tools implementing 6\% or fewer functional principles. We also measure interface similarity across tools and find convergence in visual appearance and layout organization, with greater variation in color choices. Overall, we contribute: 1) the concept of Design Theater; 2) a benchmark with metrics for assessing whether the stated reasoning of generative UI tools is reflected in their implementations; 3) and findings from a systematic evaluation of these tools. We discuss what these findings mean for the design and evaluation of generative UI tools.