Daily Papers

LLM agents combine models with execution harnesses, so agentic benchmark performance reflects their joint behavior. We argue that harnesses should therefore be evaluated through their interactions with underlying models. We develop a framework combining five complementary measures: (i) Valid Completion Rate (VCR), how reliably agents finish normally and deliver evaluable results, irrespective of task correctness; (ii) Model-Harness Fit, how well a harness supports task achievement through valid completion for a given model; (iii) Cross-Model Fit, a harness's overall suitability across evaluated models; (iv) Interaction Residuals, pairing-specific execution strengths and weaknesses hidden by component-level summaries; and (v) Token Load, the token demands of agent execution, including failed attempts. We evaluate four general-purpose harnesses (OpenCode, Codex CLI, Pi CLI, and DeepAgents) with four core models, plus two fixed native model-harness systems, on six benchmarks covering context management, tool use, long-context planning, multimodal interaction, and artifact handoff. Including native references and stress conditions, 111 evaluation settings yield 52,168 trajectories. Harness rankings vary across models and benchmarks; task performance and valid completion can favor different pairings, and similar task scores can accompany distinct execution profiles. OpenCode ranks first in cross-model performance, while DeepSeek V4 Flash Preview maintains consistently high Mean VCR across harnesses on the shared four-benchmark panel. These findings support evaluating model-harness interactions, training transferable harness-use capabilities in models, and harness designs adapted to the model and task.

Scientific agents increasingly analyze data, execute code, and produce research artifacts, yet most benchmarks emphasize final answers, isolated programs, or a single domain. We introduce FrontierChallenge, a cross-domain benchmark comprising 300 end-to-end scientific workflows. In this paper, we release and evaluate 97 of these tasks, spanning quantum chemistry, molecular dynamics, materials characterization, analytical chemistry, life science, and electrochemistry/environment. Each task provides fixed inputs and specifies a bundle of required scientific deliverables. We evaluate twelve frontier models with three agent scaffolds. Pass Rate measures the fraction of tasks satisfying the full-completion criterion, while Avg. Score captures partial progress. Each of the best-performing configurations completed only 20 of the 97 released tasks, yielding a Pass Rate of 20.6%. Partial progress translated especially poorly into complete delivery in analytical chemistry and electrochemistry/environment: Avg. Scores reached 87.6 and 94.9, but the highest Pass Rates were only 4% and 0%. Among non-passing Claude Code trajectories, 75.5% still ended with language claiming completion. These findings show that neither high partial scores nor confident claims of completion reliably indicate that a scientific task has been fully delivered, highlighting the need to evaluate end-to-end workflow execution and the completeness of scientific deliverables together.

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.

Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM) models play a vital role in code completion tasks, leveraging both prefix and suffix context to provide more accurate and contextually relevant suggestions. This paper presents approaches to improve FIM code completion while addressing the challenge of maintaining low latency for real-time coding assistance. We enhance FIM code completion by incorporating context and curriculum examples in the training process. We identify patterns where completion suggestions fail more frequently, revealing complexities that smaller language models struggle with. To address these challenges, we develop a curriculum dataset by extracting hard-to-complete patterns from code repositories and generate context examples using semantic and static analysis tools (e.g. TSC compiler). We fine-tune various sized models, including StarCoder and DeepSeek, on this enhanced dataset. Our evaluation encompasses three key dimensions: the Santa Coder FIM task, the Amazon CCEval benchmark, and a new Multi-Line Infilling evaluation benchmark derived from SWE-bench. Comprehensive ablation studies across multiple model sizes reveal that while all fine-tuned models show improvements, the performance gains are more pronounced for smaller parameter models and incorporating difficult-to-complete examples, as part of curriculum learning, improves the code completion performance. This finding is particularly significant given the latency constraints of code completion tasks. While larger models like GPT and Claude perform well in multi-line completions but are prohibitively challenging to use given high latency, and our fine-tuned models achieve a balance between performance and latency. Finally, we validate our approach through online A/B testing, demonstrating tangible improvements in Completion Acceptance Rate (CAR) and Completion Persistence Rate (CPR), with zero latency impact.

Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand. They are being deployed in enterprise workflows faster than they are being evaluated. Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, missing the multi-document, decision-grade work DRAs are deployed to produce. We introduce a benchmark targeting the structured analytical deliverables that fill a management consultant's typical week. We grade three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus 4.6 with web search, OpenAI o3-deep-research, and Google Gemini 3.1 Pro deep-research, on 42 SME-authored prompts. Each of the 126 responses is scored on two layers: deterministic ground-truth verifiers (mean 13.8 per task) and a five-criterion 0-3 SME rubric, composed into a Verifier-Rubric Score (VRS) on 0-100. Most prompts embed cognitive traps that penalize surface-pattern matching. Acceptance under our joint threshold (rubric mean >= 2.5 and verifier rate >= 80%) is uniformly low: Gemini 21.4%, o3 9.5%, Claude 9.5%. Mean VRS scores agree with published rubric-based benchmarks (our top 62.6 vs. APEX-v1 64.2, ProfBench 65.9, ResearchRubrics < 68%), validating the rubric construct. ACCEPT rates sit below APEX-Agents' MC-segment Pass@1 band (12.3-22.7%) on dedicated DR agents; our floor is three points lower despite the harness advantage, opened by stricter conjunctive grading and trap design. Each agent fails distinctively. Claude produces the deliverable most reliably (4.5x the others' rate on file-required tasks) but carries the highest fabrication signature. o3 has the cleanest reasoning average yet drops required sections and propagates arithmetic errors. Gemini is bimodal, with the highest acceptance rate alongside the most zero-scored rubric cells.

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

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper F_1, 0.441 evidence F_1 and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Benchmarks like MMLU suggest flagship language models approach factuality saturation above 90\%. LLMpedia shows this picture is incomplete. We materialize {sim}1.3M encyclopedia articles entirely from parametric memory across three model families, then audit every claim against Wikipedia and curated web evidence. For gpt-5-mini, the verifiable true rate is 68.4\% on Wikipedia-covered subjects - more than 21\,pp below MMLU - and the gap is driven by unverifiability (30.5\%), not refutation (1.2\%). Beyond Wikipedia, frontier articles audited against curated web evidence reach 57.6\%; Wikipedia covers only 56.7\% of model-surfaced subjects, and three model families overlap in just 7.3\% of subject choices. In a retrieval-trap benchmark inspired by prior analysis of Grokipedia, LLMpedia is more factual at roughly half the textual similarity to Wikipedia. Every prompt, article, and verdict is released. Data, code, interface: https://llmpedia.net.

As LLM-based shopping agents enter production, existing benchmarks fail to capture how a shopper's requirements arrive: stated implicitly in the query, recorded in a profile, or revealed only when the right question is asked. Benchmarks that expose full intent upfront and grade only the final choice can neither pose this long-horizon challenge nor explain which requirement an agent missed. To address this gap, we introduce EComAgentBench, a benchmark of 662 tasks grounded in real Amazon products and reviews. Each task scatters these requirements across a visible query, a tool-gated profile, and scripted clarification; an agent must uncover hidden intent, verify candidates against attributes and review evidence, and commit to a single product within 100 tool calls. Moreover, typed, source-tagged rubrics grade every task, attributing each failure to a requirement and its source. Construction is automated yet reliable, with every answer fixed in code before any text is generated and every sample validated. Our evaluation of seven models reveals that even the strongest attains only 57.1% overall accuracy, and rubric satisfaction degrades from visible to hidden sources. Overall, we believe EComAgentBench will serve as a reproducible foundation for moving shopping agents from single-query search toward dependable assistance over long horizons.

Long-horizon agentic tasks require an agent to modify an environment through a sequence of tool calls, with success determined by the final state. The standard recipe assigns a single outcome reward at the end and compares trajectories sampled for the same task. As a result, a group with no successful trajectory yields no training signal, failed attempts cannot be told apart by how close they came to completion, and turns that advance the task receive the same credit as turns that only query the environment. Prior work refines the unit of comparison from the trajectory to the step, or trains a reward model to supply intermediate signal: the former still derives its signal from final success alone, and the latter estimates it with a model. We observe that the acceptance checks that decide success can also be run on intermediate states, so progress is as verifiable as the outcome. We propose ProCredit, which turns this verified progress into credit: it reruns the acceptance checks after each turn, rewards the turn by its change in progress, and uses these rewards to assign credit both across attempts at the same task and across the turns within a trajectory. Starting from Qwen3.5 base models at three scales on AppWorld, ProCredit outperforms outcome-reward baselines and progress-based baselines in task completion rate at every scale on both test sets, exceeding the strongest outcome-reward baseline by 4.1 percentage points at 4B, and results in a second environment show the same direction of improvement. Ablations show that adding the final progress to the trajectory score alone does not improve performance: the gain comes from crediting progress to the turn where it occurs.

Context: Recent research indicates that Web queries written by software developers are not very successful in retrieving relevant results, performing measurably worse compared to general purpose Web queries. Most approaches up to this point have addressed this problem with software engineering-specific automated query reformulation techniques, which work without developer involvement but are limited by the content of the original query. In other words, these techniques automatically improve the existing query but can not contribute new, previously unmentioned, concepts. Objective: In this paper, we propose a technique to guide software developers in manually improving their own Web search queries. We examine a conversational approach that follows unsuccessful queries with a clarification question aimed at eliciting additional query terms, thus providing to the developer a clear dimension along which the query could be improved. Methods: We describe a set of clarification questions derived from a corpus of software developer queries and a neural approach to recommending them for a newly issued query. Results: Our evaluation indicates that the recommendation technique is accurate, predicting a valid clarification question 80% of the time and outperforms simple baselines, as well as, state-of-the-art Learning To Rank (LTR) baselines. Conclusion: As shown in the experimental results, the described approach is capable at recommending appropriate clarification questions to software developers and considered useful by a sample of developers ranging from novices to experienced professionals.

To enable building and testing models on long-document comprehension, we introduce QuALITY, a multiple-choice QA dataset with context passages in English that have an average length of about 5,000 tokens, much longer than typical current models can process. Unlike in prior work with passages, our questions are written and validated by contributors who have read the entire passage, rather than relying on summaries or excerpts. In addition, only half of the questions are answerable by annotators working under tight time constraints, indicating that skimming and simple search are not enough to consistently perform well. Our baseline models perform poorly on this task (55.4%) and significantly lag behind human performance (93.5%).

While large language models (LLMs) have proven to be effective on a large variety of tasks, they are also known to hallucinate information. To measure whether an LLM prefers factually consistent continuations of its input, we propose a new benchmark called FIB(Factual Inconsistency Benchmark) that focuses on the task of summarization. Specifically, our benchmark involves comparing the scores an LLM assigns to a factually consistent versus a factually inconsistent summary for an input news article. For factually consistent summaries, we use human-written reference summaries that we manually verify as factually consistent. To generate summaries that are factually inconsistent, we generate summaries from a suite of summarization models that we have manually annotated as factually inconsistent. A model's factual consistency is then measured according to its accuracy, i.e.\ the proportion of documents where it assigns a higher score to the factually consistent summary. To validate the usefulness of FIB, we evaluate 23 large language models ranging from 1B to 176B parameters from six different model families including BLOOM and OPT. We find that existing LLMs generally assign a higher score to factually consistent summaries than to factually inconsistent summaries. However, if the factually inconsistent summaries occur verbatim in the document, then LLMs assign a higher score to these factually inconsistent summaries than factually consistent summaries. We validate design choices in our benchmark including the scoring method and source of distractor summaries. Our code and benchmark data can be found at https://github.com/r-three/fib.

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

Wu et al. (2026) showed that most frontier large language models (LLMs) recommend a sponsored, roughly twice-as-expensive flight when their system prompt contains a soft sponsorship cue. We reproduce their evaluation on ten open-weight chat models plus the two of their twenty-three models that are still reachable today (gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4o). All reported rates in this paper are produced under the same judge the original paper used (gpt-4o); we additionally store every label under an open-weight (gpt-oss-120b) and a smaller proprietary (gpt-4o-mini) judge for an ablation. Three findings emerge. First, a prose description of an LLM evaluation pipeline is not, on its own, sufficient for accurate reproduction: we surfaced three silent implementation failures that each shifted a reported rate by tens of percentage points. Second, the central claims do generalise - the gpt-3.5-turbo logistic-regression intercept of alpha = 0.81 is within four points of the original alpha = 0.86, and 200 of 200 trials on gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4o promote a payday lender to a financially distressed user. Third, a thirty-token user prompt that asks the assistant for a neutral comparison table first cuts sponsored recommendation from 46.9% to 1.0% averaged across our ten open-source models, and from 53.0% to 0% averaged across the two OpenAI models. AI literacy and price-comparison portals are likely market-level mitigations; the harmful-product cell is bounded by neither. Raw data, labels and analysis scripts are at https://github.com/akmaier/Paper-LLM-Ads .

We introduce Browsing Lost Unformed Recollections, a tip-of-the-tongue known-item search and reasoning benchmark for general AI assistants. BLUR introduces a set of 573 real-world validated questions that demand searching and reasoning across multi-modal and multilingual inputs, as well as proficient tool use, in order to excel on. Humans easily ace these questions (scoring on average 98%), while the best-performing system scores around 56%. To facilitate progress toward addressing this challenging and aspirational use case for general AI assistants, we release 350 questions through a public leaderboard, retain the answers to 250 of them, and have the rest as a private test set.

Context: Motivation is known to improve performance. In software development in particular, there has been considerable interest in the motivation of contributors to open source. Objective: We identify 11 motivators from the literature (enjoying programming, ownership of code, learning, self use, etc.), and evaluate their relative effect on motivation. Since motivation is an internal subjective feeling, we also analyze the validity of the answers. Method: We conducted a survey with 66 questions on motivation which was completed by 521 developers. Most of the questions used an 11 point scale. We evaluated the validity of the answers validity by comparing related questions, comparing to actual behavior on GitHub, and comparison with the same developer in a follow up survey. Results: Validity problems include moderate correlations between answers to related questions, as well as self promotion and mistakes in the answers. Despite these problems, predictive analysis, investigating how diverse motivators influence the probability of high motivation, provided valuable insights. The correlations between the different motivators are low, implying their independence. High values in all 11 motivators predict increased probability of high motivation. In addition, improvement analysis shows that an increase in most motivators predicts an increase in general motivation.

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

Language models in production do not write prose. They fill forms: JSON fields, function arguments, extraction templates. We show that the form itself causes hallucination. We ask thirteen models the same question about the same input and change only the answer format. The inputs are built so the question cannot be answered: a viral post showing 12,400 likes but no visible replies, a support ticket whose call was never transcribed. In free text, GPT-5.5 answers honestly. It says there is no reply data, 98% of the time. Given a required JSON field for sentiment, the same model invents an answer 40 times out of 40. It fabricates the mood of crowds it never saw and quotes customers it never heard. The pattern holds with force. Required fields drive fabrication to 100% in ten of thirteen models. An explicit "insufficient evidence" option rescues only the frontier: all nine open-weight models ignore it. A direct instruction, do not infer sentiment, is overridden by the schema in four of six models. Resistance does not come with scale: within a single model family, the smallest model refuses, the mid-sized model fabricates, the largest refuses again. Honesty under format pressure is a training outcome that no one is measuring. The fabrication hides exactly where hedging is impossible: in required enums and minimum-count arrays, fields where no disclaimer fits. We release PhantomFill, a benchmark with deterministic scoring and two reportable numbers: the Coerced Fabrication Rate and the Escape Utilization Rate. The fix we test is one line of schema. The failure we measure is everywhere.

Large language model agents increasingly undertake long-horizon tasks in complex environments characterized by fragmented evidence, partially completed states, and dependencies across resources and artifacts. Existing agents may satisfy individual requirements while failing to maintain these relationships, producing locally correct but incomplete outcomes. These failures arise because task completion depends on relationships among environmental evidence, consequential decisions, and required effects. To address this completion gap, we propose Interlock, a framework for task synthesis that represents each task as a typed completion graph. Grounding edges connect public evidence to decisions, coupling hyperedges impose joint constraints across components, and realization edges connect decisions to all required downstream effects. Interlock compiles this graph into a resettable workspace, a public request, and an evaluation rubric. A source-coverage review checks whether the original requirements survive generation, while a public-input review checks whether the rubric is supported by the materials available to the solver. An agent-as-judge inspects execution artifacts and runs verification scripts, retaining trajectories judged to satisfy all mandatory requirements. To evaluate training utility, we fine-tune two Qwen3.6 backbones on their own accepted trajectories. Across the two backbones, training improves AutomationBench task pass rates by 4.00-4.50 percentage points, JobBench weighted scores by 3.20-6.64 points, and Harvey LAB criterion pass rates by 3.89-4.16 percentage points. These results demonstrate the training utility of the synthesized experience across external task environments.

Transformer-based language models for automatic code completion have shown great promise so far, yet the evaluation of these models rarely uses real data. This study provides both quantitative and qualitative assessments of three public code language models when completing real-world code. We first developed an open-source IDE extension, Code4Me, for the online evaluation of the models. We collected real auto-completion usage data for over a year from more than 1200 users, resulting in over 600K valid completions. These models were then evaluated using six standard metrics across twelve programming languages. Next, we conducted a qualitative study of 1690 real-world completion requests to identify the reasons behind the poor model performance. A comparative analysis of the models' performance in online and offline settings was also performed, using benchmark synthetic datasets and two masking strategies. Our findings suggest that while developers utilize code completion across various languages, the best results are achieved for mainstream languages such as Python and Java. InCoder outperformed the other models across all programming languages, highlighting the significance of training data and objectives. Our study also revealed that offline evaluations do not accurately reflect real-world scenarios. Upon qualitative analysis of the model's predictions, we found that 66.3% of failures were due to the models' limitations, 24.4% occurred due to inappropriate model usage in a development context, and 9.3% were valid requests that developers overwrote. Given these findings, we propose several strategies to overcome the current limitations. These include refining training objectives, improving resilience to typographical errors, adopting hybrid approaches, and enhancing implementations and usability.

Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.

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

Long-horizon agents must complete workflows in which later activities depend on earlier outputs and changes to shared state. A key challenge for evaluation is to expand task requirements and their dependencies while keeping tasks executable and outcomes verifiable. We introduce SkillHorizon, a benchmark that constructs long-horizon tasks through skill composition in seven business environments. Its generators use domain-specific rules to turn reusable skill procedures into concrete business activities. These activities are connected through input-output dependencies, shared resources, and state updates, allowing workload and coordination demands to grow together. Successful reference executions validate task feasibility and measure interaction workload, while programmatic evaluators assess local completion and whole-task success. We evaluate five language models on 1,050 tasks with reference interaction workloads ranging from 64K to 1M tokens. Across these scales, mean local-goal completion falls from 90.4% to 46.8%, as completed work fails to keep pace with growing requirements. At larger workloads, agents more often submit unsuccessful final answers with substantial work unfinished and tool-call allowance remaining. Trace analysis also identifies cases where scripts execute successfully but their outputs fail downstream business checks. SkillHorizon provides a configurable testbed for studying sustained progress, dependency coordination, and complete task delivery in growing workflows. Our code is available at https://github.com/KnowComp/SkillHorizon.

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

Making the relevance judgments for a TREC-style test collection can be complex and expensive. A typical TREC track usually involves a team of six contractors working for 2-4 weeks. Those contractors need to be trained and monitored. Software has to be written to support recording relevance judgments correctly and efficiently. The recent advent of large language models that produce astoundingly human-like flowing text output in response to a natural language prompt has inspired IR researchers to wonder how those models might be used in the relevance judgment collection process. At the ACM SIGIR 2024 conference, a workshop ``LLM4Eval'' provided a venue for this work, and featured a data challenge activity where participants reproduced TREC deep learning track judgments, as was done by Thomas et al (arXiv:2408.08896, arXiv:2309.10621). I was asked to give a keynote at the workshop, and this paper presents that keynote in article form. The bottom-line-up-front message is, don't use LLMs to create relevance judgments for TREC-style evaluations.

Verification for retrieval-augmented generation usually scores each retrieved chunk and drops the ones that fail. We show this cannot work for multi-hop questions, and show what does. Per-chunk scoring assumes one chunk is a sufficient premise for the answer. Multi-hop questions are built so that none is, and the paragraph carrying the answer is the one the question does not name. Entailment scoring reaches 0.643, 0.523 and 0.560 AUC on HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA and MuSiQue, against 0.951 on single-hop SQuAD. Seven controls rule out model capacity, premise length, hypothesis template, decision threshold, retriever, answer-matching criterion and prompt. End to end across three datasets, three generator sizes and two prompts, per-chunk gating is significantly worse than not filtering at all in every cell, and its penalty grows with generator capability. The repair is to condition verification on the decomposed sub-question rather than the original query. Using MuSiQue's gold decomposition, entailment on a later hop rises from 0.546, which is chance, to 0.840, a paired lift of +0.355 with a bootstrap interval of [0.331, 0.382]. An off-the-shelf Qwen2.5-7B decomposer, given the question and the top retrieved paragraph, reaches 0.637 and captures 31% of that ceiling; decomposing without retrieval reaches 0.533, below the original question. Iterative retrieval systems already produce such decompositions and discard them before verifying.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents executing multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) trajectory-opaque grading that checks only final outputs, (2) underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and (3) narrow modality coverage and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps. It comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups (general service orchestration, multimodal perception and generation, and multi-turn professional dialogue). Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels (execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots), enabling trajectory-aware grading over 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, reporting Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models reveal that: (1) trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures that our hybrid pipeline catches; (2) controlled error injection primarily degrades consistency rather than peak capability, with Pass^3 dropping up to 24% while Pass@3 remains stable; (3) multimodal performance varies sharply, with most models performing poorer on video than on document or image, and no single model dominating across all modalities. Beyond benchmarking, Claw-Eval highlights actionable directions for agent development, shedding light on what it takes to build agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

Researchers have found that fake news spreads much times faster than real news. This is a major problem, especially in today's world where social media is the key source of news for many among the younger population. Fact verification, thus, becomes an important task and many media sites contribute to the cause. Manual fact verification is a tedious task, given the volume of fake news online. The Factify5WQA shared task aims to increase research towards automated fake news detection by providing a dataset with an aspect-based question answering based fact verification method. Each claim and its supporting document is associated with 5W questions that help compare the two information sources. The objective performance measure in the task is done by comparing answers using BLEU score to measure the accuracy of the answers, followed by an accuracy measure of the classification. The task had submissions using custom training setup and pre-trained language-models among others. The best performing team posted an accuracy of 69.56%, which is a near 35% improvement over the baseline.

Language-model agents are increasingly used as persistent coworkers that assist users across multiple working days. During such workflows, the surrounding environment may change independently of the agent: new emails arrive, calendar entries shift, knowledge-base records are updated, and evidence appears across images, scanned PDFs, audio, video, and spreadsheets. Existing benchmarks do not adequately evaluate this setting because they typically run within a single static episode and remain largely text-centric. We introduce , a benchmark for coworker agents built around multi-turn multi-day tasks, a stateful sandboxed service environment whose state evolves between turns, and rule-based verification. The current release contains 100 tasks across 13 professional scenarios, executed against five stateful sandboxed services (filesystem, email, calendar, knowledge base, spreadsheet) and scored by 1537 deterministic Python checkers over post-execution service state; no LLM-as-judge is invoked during scoring. We benchmark seven frontier agent systems. The strongest model reaches 75.8 weighted score, but the best strict Task Success is only 20.0\%, indicating that partial progress is common while complete end-to-end workflow completion remains rare. Turn-level analysis shows that performance drops after the first exogenous environment update, highlighting adaptation to changing state as a key open challenge. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and construction pipeline to support reproducible coworker-agent evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety. As patients and clinicians increasingly use LLMs for guidance on complex conditions such as pancreatic cancer, evaluation must extend beyond general medical knowledge. Existing frameworks, such as HealthBench, rely on simulated queries and lack disease-specific depth. Moreover, high rubric-based scores do not ensure factual correctness, underscoring the need to assess hallucinations. We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN). The resulting benchmark, PanCanBench, includes 3,130 question-specific criteria across 282 authentic patient questions. We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration. Models showed substantial variation in rubric-based completeness, with scores ranging from 46.5% to 82.3%. Factual errors were common, with hallucination rates (the percentages of responses containing at least one factual error) ranging from 6.0% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and GPT-4o to 53.8% for Llama-3.1-8B. Importantly, newer reasoning-optimized models did not consistently improve factuality: although o3 achieved the highest rubric score, it produced inaccuracies more frequently than other GPT-family models. Web-search integration did not inherently guarantee better responses. The average score changed from 66.8% to 63.9% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and from 73.8% to 72.8% for GPT-5 when web search was enabled. Synthetic AI-generated rubrics inflated absolute scores by 17.9 points on average while generally maintaining similar relative ranking.

Character Error Rate (CER), the standard metric for OCR and vision-language models (VLMs), charges a typo as much as a wrong name. We introduce semCER, which keeps CER's alignment and denominator and charges each grapheme edit a severity from an LLM judge, with no word segmentation. Normalized CER keeps the score of a whole transcription, where it tracks readers as well as semCER or better, and semCER breaks that score down into named edits. The charges track readers' ratings edit by edit in English, Vietnamese, and Chinese and put the edits readers rate most severe near the top of a sorted list. On pairs drawn where CER and semCER disagreed, readers side with semCER more often than with normalized CER in English and Chinese, and equally often in Vietnamese. Across 16 languages, the judge charges a wrong diacritic or tone mark almost nothing in Spanish but nearly a wrong letter's severity in Telugu. Where we can count real words, a general VLM's wrong letter forms one far above chance while a classical pipeline's stays near it. We release the 61 million judged edits, the aggregated reader ratings, and the distilled scorer at https://github.com/nguyenx2t/semcer.

For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, vulnerable to reward-hacking, and provide unactionable assessments. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking objective progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.

Language models trained with reinforcement learning may learn to optimize the grader's judgment rather than the intended objective. This "reward-seeking" is difficult to measure because a model that pursues the grader's judgment and one that pursues the intended objective behave identically whenever the grader rewards the intended behavior. We measure reward-seeking using Contrastive Synthetic Document Finetuning to change a model's beliefs about what the grader rewards, putting those beliefs in conflict with what users or developers want, and measuring the rate at which the model adopts each party's preferred behavior. Applied to intermediate checkpoints of a capabilities-focused OpenAI o3 RL run, without safety training, we find that these checkpoints often side with grader preferences over those of users or developers on coding and alignment tasks. This tendency to side with the grader trends upward throughout RL training. For example, in an environment that forces a choice between keeping a promise to a supervisor and breaking it to complete the task, a late capabilities-focused o3 checkpoint breaks the promise 87% of the time when SDF documents say the grader rewards task completion, versus 9% when they say it rewards honesty (a choice its chain-of-thought often makes explicit). An earlier checkpoint is far less sensitive (40% vs. 24%). Our method also generalizes to reward-hacking models. A model organism trained to reward-hack (gpt-oss-120b) is more than twice as sensitive to grader preferences as the unmodified model, with the mean behavioral shift in favor of the grader rising from 33% to 86%. These results indicate that RL can increase reward-seeking over the course of training, producing models that may act against their developers' intentions when they believe that doing so leads to higher reward.

We introduce a corpus of 7,032 sentences rated by human annotators for formality, informativeness, and implicature on a 1-7 scale. The corpus was annotated using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Reliability in the obtained judgments was examined by comparing mean ratings across two MTurk experiments, and correlation with pilot annotations (on sentence formality) conducted in a more controlled setting. Despite the subjectivity and inherent difficulty of the annotation task, correlations between mean ratings were quite encouraging, especially on formality and informativeness. We further explored correlation between the three linguistic variables, genre-wise variation of ratings and correlations within genres, compatibility with automatic stylistic scoring, and sentential make-up of a document in terms of style. To date, our corpus is the largest sentence-level annotated corpus released for formality, informativeness, and implicature.

The robot learning community has made great strides in recent years, proposing new architectures and showcasing impressive new capabilities; however, the dominant metric used in the literature, especially for physical experiments, is "success rate", i.e. the percentage of runs that were successful. Furthermore, it is common for papers to report this number with little to no information regarding the number of runs, the initial conditions, and the success criteria, little to no narrative description of the behaviors and failures observed, and little to no statistical analysis of the findings. In this paper we argue that to move the field forward, researchers should provide a nuanced evaluation of their methods, especially when evaluating and comparing learned policies on physical robots. To do so, we propose best practices for future evaluations: explicitly reporting the experimental conditions, evaluating several metrics designed to complement success rate, conducting statistical analysis, and adding a qualitative description of failures modes. We illustrate these through an evaluation on physical robots of several learned policies for manipulation tasks.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80\% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. The code and data will be released upon acceptance. red{Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.}

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

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), large language models have achieved substantial progress in domains with easily verifiable outcomes, such as mathematics and coding. However, when applied to more complex tasks like open-domain question answering, RLVR faces significant challenges due to the difficulty of verifying correctness. The nuanced and ambiguous nature of real-world knowledge makes it difficult to reliably evaluate correctness in these settings, necessitating further abilities that extend beyond mere logical consistency to encompass an understanding and assessment of both external and internal knowledge. Recent work has primarily focused on improving faithfulness, defined as semantic alignment with supporting documents, which can cause models to rely excessively on external sources and diminish their capacity for critical assessment. To address this, we propose the Thinking-supervised Reward Model (TRM), which incorporates sentence-level thinking supervision to endow reward models with critical thinking abilities. Given a query, answer, and supporting documents, TRM first assesses the faithfulness of each answer sentence to the supporting documents, and then applies a reasoning step to evaluate sentence-level correctness. By structuring reward modeling as a sequence of faithfulness, reasoning, and correctness evaluations, TRM encourages models to critically assess and leverage both external and internal knowledge. Experiments on reward signals demonstrate that TRM substantially improves the identification of incorrect sentences, and incorporating TRM into policy optimization leads to significant gains in both answer correctness and usefulness.

We introduce the Endless Exam, a benchmark spanning fourteen parameterised families of mathematical construction problems, with verifiable scores that distinguish progress before and beyond published mathematical frontiers. Each submitted object is checked automatically for validity and assigned a relative quality score against a published frontier or construction baseline, without capping improvements at 1. The benchmark draws long-term challenges from open mathematical problems and generates larger instances by varying their parameters. Compact certificates allow large constructions to be verified without listing every element. Across nine models evaluated on 69 distinct instances, continuous quality scores distinguish performance even though none of the 30 published-frontier references is surpassed. Size-quality curves show how construction quality changes as problem size increases. We release the generators, verifiers, references, model responses and analysis to support continued measurement before and beyond human frontiers.

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

A research proposal can describe an established mechanism correctly while claiming to introduce it. We study whether providing the earlier paper corrects such contribution claims. Three controlled experiments compare proposals generated with a contribution-bearing prior and a same-topic control. Providing the prior yields no clear aggregate reduction in unsupported novelty. Human analysis of 175 interpretable exposed proposals finds that 137 recognize the prior's relevance, but 61 correctly attribute the established contribution. Of 71 proposed remaining distinctions, 37 are covered by the same prior. We introduce Research Idea Novelty Inspection (RINI), which audits contribution claims against evidence, checks the remaining distinction, and applies local revisions. Five human annotators evaluate 1,080 original-revision pairs across three methods. On the same 240 originals judged to require correction, successful repair is 11.7% for Self-Revision, 39.1% for Retrieve-and-Revise, and 72.2% for RINI, with research tasks weighted equally. The improvement over same-evidence direct revision is 33.0 percentage points. The revised proposals retain their research questions and technical methods. These results motivate explicit contribution attribution when using literature to generate and revise research proposals.

Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.

Despite rapid progress on AI benchmarks, the real-world meaning of benchmark performance remains unclear. To quantify the capabilities of AI systems in terms of human capabilities, we propose a new metric: 50%-task-completion time horizon. This is the time humans typically take to complete tasks that AI models can complete with 50% success rate. We first timed humans with relevant domain expertise on a combination of RE-Bench, HCAST, and 66 novel shorter tasks. On these tasks, current frontier AI models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet have a 50% time horizon of around 50 minutes. Furthermore, frontier AI time horizon has been doubling approximately every seven months since 2019, though the trend may have accelerated in 2024. The increase in AI models' time horizons seems to be primarily driven by greater reliability and ability to adapt to mistakes, combined with better logical reasoning and tool use capabilities. We discuss the limitations of our results -- including their degree of external validity -- and the implications of increased autonomy for dangerous capabilities. If these results generalize to real-world software tasks, extrapolation of this trend predicts that within 5 years, AI systems will be capable of automating many software tasks that currently take humans a month.

Sycophancy in large language models risks amplifying unsupported claims or beliefs across the knowledge ecosystem as these systems increasingly contribute to research synthesis, evaluation, and decision-making. A reliable model should revise its judgement when a user identifies a genuine flaw, but should resist pushback based on fallacies, emotion, or irrelevant appeals to authority. While sycophancy is usually measured on questions with a verifiable answer, the evaluative tasks in which it is most difficult to detect have no such ground truth. We introduce Big-Big-SycoBench, which measures sycophancy through argument discernment: the ability to revise an evaluation after valid criticism while resisting invalid pressure. The benchmark consists of 450 text artefacts with 5,400 arguments for raising or lowering their quality scores, each reviewed by one or more of twelve human annotators. An LLM scores each artefact twenty times to establish its baseline score and uncertainty. The model is then given a valid or invalid argument and asked to update its score. We only count a revision if it exceeds the model's own baseline variability. We use the resulting score delta to distinguish responsiveness to valid arguments from compliance with invalid ones. Across ten models, responsiveness is 88-95\% for seven, 76-77\% for Kimi K3 and GLM-5.3, and 32\% for Opus 5.5. Compliance ranges from 0.2\% for GPT-6 Astra to 95\% for GPT-4o. Big-Big-SycoBench is intended to guide the development of models whose judgements can be corrected by sound arguments, but not displaced by unsupported pressure.

In this work, we propose an approach for collecting completion usage logs from the users in an IDE and using them to train a machine learning based model for ranking completion candidates. We developed a set of features that describe completion candidates and their context, and deployed their anonymized collection in the Early Access Program of IntelliJ-based IDEs. We used the logs to collect a dataset of code completions from users, and employed it to train a ranking CatBoost model. Then, we evaluated it in two settings: on a held-out set of the collected completions and in a separate A/B test on two different groups of users in the IDE. Our evaluation shows that using a simple ranking model trained on the past user behavior logs significantly improved code completion experience. Compared to the default heuristics-based ranking, our model demonstrated a decrease in the number of typing actions necessary to perform the completion in the IDE from 2.073 to 1.832. The approach adheres to privacy requirements and legal constraints, since it does not require collecting personal information, performing all the necessary anonymization on the client's side. Importantly, it can be improved continuously: implementing new features, collecting new data, and evaluating new models - this way, we have been using it in production since the end of 2020.

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

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to boost human productivity by speeding up task completion -- provided users know when to offload cognitive work to them. But we do not know if users are well-calibrated in estimating these potential time savings. We conducted a preregistered large-scale behavioral study (N = 1237) to characterize mismatches between expectations and reality, with a focus on simple cognitive tasks. While actual completion times between independent completion and AI-assisted completion did not differ, participants predicted AI to be significantly faster. The same bias was not observed when imagining help from another human participant. We identify a speedup illusion where people have accurate forecasts of independent completion times but significantly underestimate AI-assisted times. Additionally, time and effort dissociate: participants reported lower subjective effort with AI despite equivalent completion times. This suggests that completion time itself is not sufficient to characterize efficiency gains.

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.

Terminal-agent benchmarks have become a primary signal for measuring the coding and system-administration capabilities of large language models. As the market for evaluation environments grows, so does the pressure to ship tasks quickly, often without thorough adversarial review of the verification logic. This paper is a guideline for writing good benchmark tasks, drawn from over a year of contributing to and reviewing tasks for Terminal Bench. Most people write benchmark tasks the way they write prompts. They shouldn't. A prompt is designed to help the agent succeed; a benchmark is designed to find out if it can. We argue that good tasks are adversarial, difficult, and legible, and that a large class of common failure modes -- AI-generated instructions, over-prescriptive specifications, clerical difficulty, oracle solutions that assume hidden knowledge, tests that validate the wrong things, and reward-hackable environments -- are predictable consequences of treating task authoring as prompt authoring. We catalog these failure modes, argue that real difficulty is conceptual rather than environmental, and discuss recent empirical evidence that over 15% of tasks in popular terminal-agent benchmarks are reward-hackable. We hope this serves as a useful reference for benchmark maintainers, task contributors, and researchers using benchmark scores as evidence.

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

Changes produced by coding agents can pass functional tests while leaving repository contribution requirements unmet. Following repository-specific norms requires identifying guidance dispersed across repository sources and interpreting its conditions and exceptions. Retrieval and documentation approaches supply general context, but agents must still determine which norms apply. We introduce RepoNorm to acquire explicit and implicit repository norms independently of coding tasks. It checks norm content and applicability using repository evidence, consults Git history when needed, and delivers norm packages to existing coding agents. Our evaluation uses three coding models and 121 tasks from RepoNormBench. Against the baseline with no additional generated guidance (Raw), relative improvements are 7.42-10.77% for Overall Norm Compliance Rate (NCR), 31.64-45.44% for Contribution NCR, and 11.34-17.69% for Prompt-omitted NCR. All three coding models also obtain higher values on these NCR measures with RepoNorm than with CodeWiki documentation. Functional success rates show observed gains of 5.79-9.09 percentage points over Raw; the paired comparisons do not reach the significance threshold. Sampled precision is 86% with RepoNorm's default configuration.

Query Auto Completion (QAC), as the starting point of information retrieval tasks, is critical to user experience. Generally it has two steps: generating completed query candidates according to query prefixes, and ranking them based on extracted features. Three major challenges are observed for a query auto completion system: (1) QAC has a strict online latency requirement. For each keystroke, results must be returned within tens of milliseconds, which poses a significant challenge in designing sophisticated language models for it. (2) For unseen queries, generated candidates are of poor quality as contextual information is not fully utilized. (3) Traditional QAC systems heavily rely on handcrafted features such as the query candidate frequency in search logs, lacking sufficient semantic understanding of the candidate. In this paper, we propose an efficient neural QAC system with effective context modeling to overcome these challenges. On the candidate generation side, this system uses as much information as possible in unseen prefixes to generate relevant candidates, increasing the recall by a large margin. On the candidate ranking side, an unnormalized language model is proposed, which effectively captures deep semantics of queries. This approach presents better ranking performance over state-of-the-art neural ranking methods and reduces sim95\% latency compared to neural language modeling methods. The empirical results on public datasets show that our model achieves a good balance between accuracy and efficiency. This system is served in LinkedIn job search with significant product impact observed.

Medical large language models (LLMs) research often makes bold claims, from encoding clinical knowledge to reasoning like a physician. These claims are usually backed by evaluation on competitive benchmarks; a tradition inherited from mainstream machine learning. But how do we separate real progress from a leaderboard flex? Medical LLM benchmarks, much like those in other fields, are arbitrarily constructed using medical licensing exam questions. For these benchmarks to truly measure progress, they must accurately capture the real-world tasks they aim to represent. In this position paper, we argue that medical LLM benchmarks should (and indeed can) be empirically evaluated for their construct validity. In the psychological testing literature, "construct validity" refers to the ability of a test to measure an underlying "construct", that is the actual conceptual target of evaluation. By drawing an analogy between LLM benchmarks and psychological tests, we explain how frameworks from this field can provide empirical foundations for validating benchmarks. To put these ideas into practice, we use real-world clinical data in proof-of-concept experiments to evaluate popular medical LLM benchmarks and report significant gaps in their construct validity. Finally, we outline a vision for a new ecosystem of medical LLM evaluation centered around the creation of valid benchmarks.

Quantifying bias in retrieval functions through document retrievability scores is vital for assessing recall-oriented retrieval systems. However, many studies investigating retrieval model bias lack validation of their query generation methods as accurate representations of retrievability for real users and their queries. This limitation results from the absence of established criteria for query generation in retrievability assessments. Typically, researchers resort to using frequent collocations from document corpora when no query log is available. In this study, we address the issue of reproducibility and seek to validate query generation methods by comparing retrievability scores generated from artificially generated queries to those derived from query logs. Our findings demonstrate a minimal or negligible correlation between retrievability scores from artificial queries and those from query logs. This suggests that artificially generated queries may not accurately reflect retrievability scores as derived from query logs. We further explore alternative query generation techniques, uncovering a variation that exhibits the highest correlation. This alternative approach holds promise for improving reproducibility when query logs are unavailable.

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer semantics rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0\% to 57.5\% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number \(k\) of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5\%) at both \(k=0\) and the adapter's training-time \(k=1\), 188/200 (94.0\%) at the packaged runtime's default \(k=3\) --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of \(k=3\), selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~zhao2024ratescore decrease as \(k\) grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant (\(p \ge 0.29\)); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0\% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20\% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43\% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).

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

Real-world business requests often leave key requirements unstated because frontline practitioners struggle to articulate rules they know from experience. Forward-deployed engineers (FDEs) must elicit these requirements through dialogue and iteratively optimize solutions until they meet customer acceptance criteria. Existing optimization benchmarks typically start from explicit objectives, while clarification benchmarks often introduce information gaps into existing tasks. We introduce FDE-Bench, the first benchmark built from real customer projects to evaluate agents on end-to-end delivery tasks that require interactive requirement clarification and iterative optimization. Its 49 cases span combinatorial optimization and machine learning. Clarification targets are distilled from discussions between frontline practitioners and FDEs. Agents elicit missing requirements from a simulated customer, and case-specific evaluators assess final artifacts against acceptance criteria using customer-accepted FDE solutions as quality references. Across 18 agent configurations, the highest mean delivery score is only 0.5510, compared with an FDE reference of 1.0. The highest delivery success rate (DSR), defined as the fraction of planned runs reaching this reference, is only 6.12%. These results show that reliable FDE-level end-to-end delivery remains out of reach for the evaluated agents on underspecified real-world business tasks. The benchmark project page is available at https://baidubce.github.io/FM-Agent/FDE-Bench/.

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

We present an empirical evaluation of various outputs generated by nine of the most widely-available large language models (LLMs). Our analysis is done with off-the-shelf, readily-available tools. We find a correlation between percentage of memorized text, percentage of unique text, and overall output quality, when measured with respect to output pathologies such as counterfactual and logically-flawed statements, and general failures like not staying on topic. Overall, 80.0% of the outputs evaluated contained memorized data, but outputs containing the most memorized content were also more likely to be considered of high quality. We discuss and evaluate mitigation strategies, showing that, in the models evaluated, the rate of memorized text being output is reduced. We conclude with a discussion on potential implications around what it means to learn, to memorize, and to evaluate quality text.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

We present GPQA, a challenging dataset of 448 multiple-choice questions written by domain experts in biology, physics, and chemistry. We ensure that the questions are high-quality and extremely difficult: experts who have or are pursuing PhDs in the corresponding domains reach 65% accuracy (74% when discounting clear mistakes the experts identified in retrospect), while highly skilled non-expert validators only reach 34% accuracy, despite spending on average over 30 minutes with unrestricted access to the web (i.e., the questions are "Google-proof"). The questions are also difficult for state-of-the-art AI systems, with our strongest GPT-4 based baseline achieving 39% accuracy. If we are to use future AI systems to help us answer very hard questions, for example, when developing new scientific knowledge, we need to develop scalable oversight methods that enable humans to supervise their outputs, which may be difficult even if the supervisors are themselves skilled and knowledgeable. The difficulty of GPQA both for skilled non-experts and frontier AI systems should enable realistic scalable oversight experiments, which we hope can help devise ways for human experts to reliably get truthful information from AI systems that surpass human capabilities.

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

We introduce Crypto Accounting Bench (CAB), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier and open-weight language models can reconstruct the complete journal entry that an organization actually posted for a crypto-asset transaction. CAB contains 118 evaluation tasks drawn from 7 pseudonymized organizations. Each task combines transaction mechanics, asset quantities and base-currency values, wallet and legal-entity context, counterparty evidence, related transaction legs, recurrence, tax-lot evidence, and the organization's complete chart of accounts. The target is a balanced structured entry with every required account, side, amount, currency, and full-precision asset quantity. We evaluate 12 models spanning proprietary frontier systems and open-weight releases over 3 independent attempts per task, producing 4,248 trajectories. We report 3 metrics: Mean Score, Best@3, and Pass@3. Pass@3 is the fraction of tasks with at least 1 of 3 attempts that satisfies every rubric criterion and required gate. The leading model reaches 77.43% Mean Score, while the best Pass@3 is 56.78%. Deterministic diagnostics, read from each task's best of 3 attempts and macro-averaged across the 12 models, show higher base-amount agreement (97.8%) than deciding-account accuracy (56.3%). Together with the failure analysis, these results identify account selection and complete-entry composition as the main remaining challenges on CAB.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant advancements in various natural language processing tasks, including question answering (QA) tasks. While incorporating new information with the retrieval of relevant passages is a promising way to improve QA with LLMs, the existing methods often require additional fine-tuning which becomes infeasible with recent LLMs. Augmenting retrieved passages via prompting has the potential to address this limitation, but this direction has been limitedly explored. To this end, we design a simple yet effective framework to enhance open-domain QA (ODQA) with LLMs, based on the summarized retrieval (SuRe). SuRe helps LLMs predict more accurate answers for a given question, which are well-supported by the summarized retrieval that could be viewed as an explicit rationale extracted from the retrieved passages. Specifically, SuRe first constructs summaries of the retrieved passages for each of the multiple answer candidates. Then, SuRe confirms the most plausible answer from the candidate set by evaluating the validity and ranking of the generated summaries. Experimental results on diverse ODQA benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of SuRe, with improvements of up to 4.6% in exact match (EM) and 4.0% in F1 score over standard prompting approaches. SuRe also can be integrated with a broad range of retrieval methods and LLMs. Finally, the generated summaries from SuRe show additional advantages to measure the importance of retrieved passages and serve as more preferred rationales by models and humans.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE

Software delegates more of its branches to models every year: which queue a ticket enters, whether a command is safe to run, whether a claim clears without a person. What the program needs back is not prose. It is one of n declared options and a number it can threshold. Today that costs a round trip to a frontier model -- hundreds of milliseconds, a per-token bill, and a parser -- for a question that is usually a conjunction of three clauses. this-that-model-1.0 is a 2B-parameter typed decision model. Its answer is read directly from the hidden state at a designated position and restricted to the option set the caller declared, so no text is generated, nothing can be malformed, and every question in a request is answered in the same forward pass. It decides in 30.9 ms on one laptop GPU and generates zero output tokens doing it, where a frontier API call costs 8758 ms and the hosted systems that answer these questions well spend between 21 and 212 generated tokens per question thinking first, billed for every one. It sustains 32 decisions per second on one consumer GPU and never lets the state leave the machine. On a third party's recorded cohort of 68 decision questions, on their inputs and their wording, it scores 0.941 with a Brier score of 0.042, against 0.765 and 0.133 for the hosted service Jev on the same items. One pass of our 42-family internal suite takes 32 seconds and 0.000217 USD of electricity; the most accurate hosted model we measured needs 155.2 minutes and 10.636 USD. We also report where it loses. On multi-step arithmetic, which a single forward pass cannot carry intermediate results through, it scores 0.560 against their 0.98 to 1.00, and a targeted second training round improved the five task families it was written for and transferred to none of the other 13. The model is open-sourced in https://huggingface.co/flock-io/this-that-model-1.0

AI scientist systems are increasingly deployed for autonomous research, yet their academic integrity has never been systematically evaluated. We introduce SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH, the first benchmark designed around a dilemmatic evaluation paradigm: each of its 33 scenarios across 11 trap categories is constructed so that honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct response, while task completion requires misconduct. Across 231 evaluation runs spanning 7 state-of-the-art LLMs, the overall integrity problem rate reaches 34.2%, and no model achieves zero failures. Most strikingly, across missing-data scenarios, all seven models generate synthetic data rather than acknowledging infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution. A further prompt ablation study separates two drivers: removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication from 20.6% to 3.2%, while the underlying synthesis rate remains unchanged, revealing an intrinsic completion bias that persists independent of prompt-level instructions. These findings point to the absence of honest refusal as a trained disposition as the primary driver of observed failures. We release SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH at https://github.com/liuxingtong/Sci-Integrity-Bench.

Generative search engines directly generate responses to user queries, along with in-line citations. A prerequisite trait of a trustworthy generative search engine is verifiability, i.e., systems should cite comprehensively (high citation recall; all statements are fully supported by citations) and accurately (high citation precision; every cite supports its associated statement). We conduct human evaluation to audit four popular generative search engines -- Bing Chat, NeevaAI, perplexity.ai, and YouChat -- across a diverse set of queries from a variety of sources (e.g., historical Google user queries, dynamically-collected open-ended questions on Reddit, etc.). We find that responses from existing generative search engines are fluent and appear informative, but frequently contain unsupported statements and inaccurate citations: on average, a mere 51.5% of generated sentences are fully supported by citations and only 74.5% of citations support their associated sentence. We believe that these results are concerningly low for systems that may serve as a primary tool for information-seeking users, especially given their facade of trustworthiness. We hope that our results further motivate the development of trustworthy generative search engines and help researchers and users better understand the shortcomings of existing commercial systems.

Nearly all jurisdictions in the United States require a professional license exam, commonly referred to as "the Bar Exam," as a precondition for law practice. To even sit for the exam, most jurisdictions require that an applicant completes at least seven years of post-secondary education, including three years at an accredited law school. In addition, most test-takers also undergo weeks to months of further, exam-specific preparation. Despite this significant investment of time and capital, approximately one in five test-takers still score under the rate required to pass the exam on their first try. In the face of a complex task that requires such depth of knowledge, what, then, should we expect of the state of the art in "AI?" In this research, we document our experimental evaluation of the performance of OpenAI's `text-davinci-003` model, often-referred to as GPT-3.5, on the multistate multiple choice (MBE) section of the exam. While we find no benefit in fine-tuning over GPT-3.5's zero-shot performance at the scale of our training data, we do find that hyperparameter optimization and prompt engineering positively impacted GPT-3.5's zero-shot performance. For best prompt and parameters, GPT-3.5 achieves a headline correct rate of 50.3% on a complete NCBE MBE practice exam, significantly in excess of the 25% baseline guessing rate, and performs at a passing rate for both Evidence and Torts. GPT-3.5's ranking of responses is also highly-correlated with correctness; its top two and top three choices are correct 71% and 88% of the time, respectively, indicating very strong non-entailment performance. While our ability to interpret these results is limited by nascent scientific understanding of LLMs and the proprietary nature of GPT, we believe that these results strongly suggest that an LLM will pass the MBE component of the Bar Exam in the near future.

Fact-checking is extensively studied in the context of misinformation and disinformation, addressing objective inaccuracies. However, a softer form of misinformation involves responses that are factually correct but lack certain features such as clarity and relevance. This challenge is prevalent in formal Question-Answer (QA) settings such as press conferences in finance, politics, sports, and other domains, where subjective answers can obscure transparency. Despite this, there is a lack of manually annotated datasets for subjective features across multiple dimensions. To address this gap, we introduce SubjECTive-QA, a human annotated dataset on Earnings Call Transcripts' (ECTs) QA sessions as the answers given by company representatives are often open to subjective interpretations and scrutiny. The dataset includes 49,446 annotations for long-form QA pairs across six features: Assertive, Cautious, Optimistic, Specific, Clear, and Relevant. These features are carefully selected to encompass the key attributes that reflect the tone of the answers provided during QA sessions across different domain. Our findings are that the best-performing Pre-trained Language Model (PLM), RoBERTa-base, has similar weighted F1 scores to Llama-3-70b-Chat on features with lower subjectivity, such as Relevant and Clear, with a mean difference of 2.17% in their weighted F1 scores. The models perform significantly better on features with higher subjectivity, such as Specific and Assertive, with a mean difference of 10.01% in their weighted F1 scores. Furthermore, testing SubjECTive-QA's generalizability using QAs from White House Press Briefings and Gaggles yields an average weighted F1 score of 65.97% using our best models for each feature, demonstrating broader applicability beyond the financial domain. SubjECTive-QA is publicly available under the CC BY 4.0 license

Users browsing the web daily struggle to quickly locate relevant information in cluttered pages, complete unfamiliar multi-step tasks, and stay focused amid distracting content. State-of-the-art AI assistants (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) and browser agents (e.g., OpenAI Operator, Browser Use) can answer questions and automate actions, yet they return answers without showing where the information comes from on the page, forcing users to manually verify results and blindly trust every automated steps. We present PageGuide, a browser extension that grounds LLM answers directly in the HTML DOM via visual overlays, addressing three core user needs: (a) Find-locating and highlighting relevant evidence in-situ so users can instantly verify answers on the page; (b) Guide-showing step-by-step instructions (e.g. how to change password) one at a time so users can follow and perform actions by themselves; and (c) Hide-hiding distracting content-giving users a chance to decide to hide an element or not. In a user study (N=94), PageGuide outperform unaided browsing across all modes: Hide accuracy improve by 26 percentage points (86.7% relative gain) and task completion time drops by 70%; Guide completion rate increases by 30 percentage points; and Find reduces manual search effort, with Ctrl+F usage falling by 80% and task time decreasing by 19%. Code and demo is at: pageguide.github.io.

In Machine Translation (MT) evaluation, metric performance is assessed based on agreement with human judgments. In recent years, automatic metrics have demonstrated increasingly high levels of agreement with humans. To gain a clearer understanding of metric performance and establish an upper bound, we incorporate human baselines in the MT meta-evaluation, that is, the assessment of MT metrics' capabilities. Our results show that human annotators are not consistently superior to automatic metrics, with state-of-the-art metrics often ranking on par with or higher than human baselines. Despite these findings suggesting human parity, we discuss several reasons for caution. Finally, we explore the broader implications of our results for the research field, asking: Can we still reliably measure improvements in MT evaluation? With this work, we aim to shed light on the limits of our ability to measure progress in the field, fostering discussion on an issue that we believe is crucial to the entire MT evaluation community.

A common way of assessing language learners' mastery of vocabulary is via multiple-choice cloze (i.e., fill-in-the-blank) questions. But the creation of test items can be laborious for individual teachers or in large-scale language programs. In this paper, we evaluate a new method for automatically generating these types of questions using large language models (LLM). The VocaTT (vocabulary teaching and training) engine is written in Python and comprises three basic steps: pre-processing target word lists, generating sentences and candidate word options using GPT, and finally selecting suitable word options. To test the efficiency of this system, 60 questions were generated targeting academic words. The generated items were reviewed by expert reviewers who judged the well-formedness of the sentences and word options, adding comments to items judged not well-formed. Results showed a 75% rate of well-formedness for sentences and 66.85% rate for suitable word options. This is a marked improvement over the generator used earlier in our research which did not take advantage of GPT's capabilities. Post-hoc qualitative analysis reveals several points for improvement in future work including cross-referencing part-of-speech tagging, better sentence validation, and improving GPT prompts.

Benchmark gains are often treated as evidence of greater LLM capability. Yet the same gain can reflect different changes in model behavior. A model may reach new answers, or produce answers that were already within reach. Aggregate scores do not distinguish these changes question by question. We establish a question-level audit under fixed budgets, temperatures, and answer formats. A question is realized when the default deployment procedure produces the correct answer. A question is reachable when a specified probe finds that answer within a fixed budget. We first test whether inference-time layer routing can expand reachability. Under a matched budget, random routes match or exceed structured search in all 43 model and task settings. Answer-blind procedures retain almost none of this gain, which instead requires access to the correct answer. We then ask why reachable answers sometimes fail to appear. Across six cases spanning 0.5B to 31B, silencing one identified MLP block repairs 68 to 92 percent of a predefined failure set. We next test whether training closes the gap by expanding reachability. In five of six matched evaluations, deployed performance rises while the reachable ceiling remains flat or falls. For DAPO, the deployed score rises by 14.7 points while the reachable ceiling falls by 13.3 points. Across the settings we audit, realization and reachability therefore do not always change together. Claims of capability expansion should report both realized performance and reachability under matched evaluation conditions. Code is available at https://github.com/LiZaiyuan0619/reachability-not-realization

Augmenting worker capabilities in the physical world through guidance has been a decades-long goal for AI agents. One key supporting capability is to understand what the worker is doing, seeing through the human's camera or smart glasses, and assist them in documentation. Despite advances in vision language models, their capabilities in these settings remain uncertain and are challenging to benchmark because most physical work data is proprietary, and involves too much variability to study in a principled manner. Unlike structured settings such as kitchens and warehouses that have predictable lighting, geometry, and objects, field-facing tasks such as rooftop solar installation and vehicle repair are unconstrained and high variance. Here, we model real-world physical work in Blender across eleven environments, incorporating variants in both image acceptability and documentation. The acceptability task asks whether a particular view would be suitable proof-of-work and documentation asks whether an agent can understand the task-relevant state of the environment from that view. Across 26 vision-language models, we find that top models largely solve documentation when the answer is text in frame, but are weak at reading measurements and at judging small parts and spatial relations, such as whether a tape measure leans. Acceptability is harder to pin down because human raters disagree with each other. Measured against a scorer that agrees with the raters' majority about as often as a single rater does, the best models cannot be distinguished from a single non-author rater, at a cost within the range of a human pass. In the three environments where we can trace acceptability errors, most wrong rejections come from misreading the scene rather than the requirement. On the three documentation questions for which we have real images, model rankings on rendered frames transfer to real images.

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

In the age of open and free information, a concerning trend of reliance on AI is emerging. However, existing AI tools struggle to evaluate the credibility of information and to justify their assessments. Hence, there is a growing need for systems that can help users evaluate the trustworthiness of online information. Although major search engines incorporate AI features, they often lack clear reliability indicators. We present TrueGL, a model that makes trustworthy search results more accessible. The model is a fine-tuned version of IBM's Granite-1B, trained on the custom dataset and integrated into a search engine with a reliability scoring system. We evaluate the system using prompt engineering and assigning each statement a continuous reliability score from 0.1 to 1, then instructing the model to return a textual explanation alongside the score. Each model's predicted scores are measured against real scores using standard evaluation metrics. TrueGL consistently outperforms other small-scale LLMs and rule-based approaches across all experiments on key evaluation metrics, including MAE, RMSE, and R2. The model's high accuracy, broad content coverage, and ease of use make trustworthy information more accessible and help reduce the spread of false or misleading content online. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/AlgazinovAleksandr/TrueGL, and our model is publicly released at https://huggingface.co/JoydeepC/trueGL.

Ask a language model the same question about the same document twenty times, and it sometimes returns two different answers. We built Probity, a benchmark of 60 tasks and 470 items from real venture-financing filings, to measure how often this happens. Then we audited our own corpus and found a defect any excerpt-built benchmark can carry: items whose evidence is missing from the window of text the model is shown. The audit flags 36 items and separates two failures a single flag would conflate: evidence genuinely absent from the window and answers that must be computed from numbers the window does supply. Flagged items change their answers far more often, wobbling at 0.255 against 0.087 on the 427 clean items, and excluding them cuts apparent cross-model agreement by about a fifth. Before testing whether the missing evidence explains the instability, we registered a prediction: re-cut each window to hold its evidence, and instability should fall below a set threshold. It failed: the repair moved wobble by 0.058, with an interval containing zero. We report the association as correlational. Almost all measurements sit where instability cannot show, which bounds what a corpus built for accuracy can say about stability. We release the corpus, all 112,800 raw responses, and the audit as a runnable check for any document benchmark.

We introduce IndiaFinBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available evaluation benchmark for assessing large language model (LLM) performance on Indian financial regulatory text. Existing financial NLP benchmarks draw exclusively from Western financial corpora (SEC filings, US earnings reports, and English-language financial news), leaving a significant gap in coverage of non-Western regulatory frameworks. IndiaFinBench addresses this gap with 406 expert-annotated question-answer pairs drawn from 192 documents sourced from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), spanning four task types: regulatory interpretation (174 items), numerical reasoning (92 items), contradiction detection (62 items), and temporal reasoning (78 items). Annotation quality is validated through a model-based secondary pass (kappa=0.918 on contradiction detection) and a 60-item human inter-annotator agreement evaluation (kappa=0.611; 76.7% overall agreement). We evaluate twelve models under zero-shot conditions, with accuracy ranging from 70.4% (Gemma 4 E4B) to 89.7% (Gemini 2.5 Flash). All models substantially outperform a non-specialist human baseline of 60.0%. Numerical reasoning is the most discriminative task, with a 35.9 percentage-point spread across models. Bootstrap significance testing (10,000 resamples) reveals three statistically distinct performance tiers. The dataset, evaluation code, and all model outputs are available at https://github.com/rajveerpall/IndiaFinBench

Evaluating the factuality of long-form generations has focused predominantly on precision, measuring whether the claims a model makes are correct. The dominant decompose-search-verify pipeline catches incorrect claims well but says little about whether a response contains all the information it should. Measuring factual completeness, the missing half of factuality, is harder: it requires enumerating the full set of facts a complete answer should contain, and these facts rarely form a flat list. They often involve open-ended sets where coverage is what matters, ordered processes, and relationships among facts that a list of independent boolean checks fails to capture. We introduce a two-level meta-rubric framework for evaluating open-ended generation, and instantiate it as Gamut (Grounded Assessment of Multimodal Factuality), a benchmark for factual completeness in long-form generation. The framework rests on a two-level rubric representation: a structured meta-rubric captures the organization and importance of the required content, which is then mechanically compiled into a flat checklist of binary, machine-gradable rubrics that an LLM judge scores reliably. We construct 1,813 questions grounded in real wearable imagery across 10 diverse domains, each paired with an evidence-backed rubric verified by expert human annotators. Because the framework is modality-agnostic, we also release a text-only variant. Evaluating 14 frontier and open-weight models, we find the benchmark genuinely challenging (best score 58.7% from Gemini 3.1 Pro), highly discriminative, and robust to the choice of judge.

When can an agent failure be caught? An audit is usually limited by the record rather than by the method. CatchBench therefore puts one auditor's question to three information states: the declared configuration before a run (PRE), a growing prefix of its trace (LIVE), and the finished trace (POST). Prior benchmarks fix one of these states or vary the telemetry; to our knowledge none scores all three under one task-method interface. Each state admits different questions, so seven task contracts carry their own labels and metrics rather than one leaderboard. Four are evidential; three are Gold-derived mechanism diagnostics. The release scores 72 entrants, from rule scanners and structural models to eleven LLM judges across nine model families (GPT, Claude, Gemini, Gemma, Llama, Qwen, DeepSeek, Mistral, Nova), over 1187 declared configurations and 1162 recorded runs. Most of the arena does not order: 56 of 138 registered contrasts separate, and the rest are published unresolved rather than ranked. The two sharpest results cut against our own data. One rule ignores every name and permission; it flags each capability declared after the first. On one of six configuration sources it reaches a perfect F1, so a score there measures how the corpus was built rather than how well a method reasons. Our admissibility bar then rejected one injected substrate and withheld evidential status from the other. A benchmark number is therefore not interpretable until the process behind its labels is published and tested for the shortcut it may leave. We report both, and regenerate every ordering from released predictions with no model call.

Naturally occurring information-seeking questions often contain questionable assumptions -- assumptions that are false or unverifiable. Questions containing questionable assumptions are challenging because they require a distinct answer strategy that deviates from typical answers for information-seeking questions. For instance, the question "When did Marie Curie discover Uranium?" cannot be answered as a typical "when" question without addressing the false assumption "Marie Curie discovered Uranium". In this work, we propose (QA)^2 (Question Answering with Questionable Assumptions), an open-domain evaluation dataset consisting of naturally occurring search engine queries that may or may not contain questionable assumptions. To be successful on (QA)^2, systems must be able to detect questionable assumptions and also be able to produce adequate responses for both typical information-seeking questions and ones with questionable assumptions. Through human rater acceptability on end-to-end QA with (QA)^2, we find that current models do struggle with handling questionable assumptions, leaving substantial headroom for progress.

We introduce SimpleQA Verified, a 1,000-prompt benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) short-form factuality based on OpenAI's SimpleQA. It addresses critical limitations in OpenAI's benchmark, including noisy and incorrect labels, topical biases, and question redundancy. SimpleQA Verified was created through a rigorous multi-stage filtering process involving de-duplication, topic balancing, and source reconciliation to produce a more reliable and challenging evaluation set, alongside improvements in the autorater prompt. On this new benchmark, Gemini 2.5 Pro achieves a state-of-the-art F1-score of 55.6, outperforming other frontier models, including GPT-5. This work provides the research community with a higher-fidelity tool to track genuine progress in parametric model factuality and to mitigate hallucinations. The benchmark dataset, evaluation code, and leaderboard are available at: https://www.kaggle.com/benchmarks/deepmind/simpleqa-verified.

Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference solutions, or simulators with a known generative structure. Real scientific requests arrive differently. They are underspecified, they carry attachments, and lack ground truth. We report K-Bench 01, an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web and run end to end by nine frontier models in identical sandboxes, yielding 1,602 completed agent runs. Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric. On a rubric whose 8-anchor instructs judges that a domain scientist would accept the work with minor edits, no model clears the line under all three judges. gpt-5.6-sol has the highest pooled mean, 8.04, but its 95% interval [7.80, 8.23] spans the threshold, and two of the three judges rank claude-opus-5 first instead. We therefore report the ordering of systems as the reproducible quantity, the absolute level as an attribute of the instrument, and the top of the table as unresolved. Across all 39,934 scored judgments -- the eight dimension scores plus a holistic overall for each assessment, excluding not-applicable cells -- 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold. Difficulty is not uniform across the rubric: scientific accuracy averages 6.22 against 7.33 for communication, on identical denominators and in the same direction within every one of the nine models. The single leading failure tag is overclaiming, on 31.4% of assessments. We argue that the informative quantity for scientific agents is not a leaderboard position but the joint distribution of what was delivered, what was claimed, and what artifacts were produced.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal drafting and research workflows, where incorrect citations or fabricated precedents can cause serious professional harm. Existing legal benchmarks largely emphasize statutory reasoning, contract understanding, or general legal question answering, but they do not directly study a central common-law failure mode: when asked to provide case authorities without external grounding, models may return plausible-looking but incorrect citations or cases. We introduce LegalCiteBench, a benchmark for studying closed-book citation recovery, citation verification, and case matching in legal language models. LegalCiteBench contains approximately 24K evaluation instances constructed from 1,000 real U.S. judicial opinions from the Case Law Access Project. The benchmark covers five citation-centric tasks: citation retrieval, citation completion, citation error detection, case matching, and case verification and correction. Across 21 LLMs, exact citation recovery remains highly challenging in this closed-book setting: even the strongest models score below 7/100 on citation retrieval and completion. Within the evaluated models, scale and legal-domain pretraining provide limited gains and do not resolve this difficulty. Models also frequently provide concrete but incorrect or low-overlap authorities under our evaluation protocol, with Misleading Answer Rates (MAR) exceeding 94% for 20 of 21 evaluated models on retrieval-heavy tasks. A prompt-only abstention experiment shows that explicit uncertainty instructions reduce some confident fabrication but do not improve citation correctness. LegalCiteBench is intended as a diagnostic framework for studying authority generation failures, verification behavior, and abstention when external grounding is absent, incomplete, or bypassed.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently confident, eloquent, and well versed. A natural question arises: do they know what they don't know? To answer this question, we borrow the concept of epistemic honesty and develop a novel metric to systematically evaluate whether an LLM appropriately acknowledges the boundaries of its knowledge. In this work, we introduce the Epistemic Honesty Quotient (EHQ), which reports three observable sub-scores across two operational axes (epistemic restraint and substantive-answer calibration), and construct EHQ-3000, a 3,000-question benchmark spanning Fabricated Entity, Post-Cutoff Event, Hyper-Niche True, and Context-Conditioned Questions. From a frozen registry of 21 model API routes, 15 completed the protocol after endpoint and eligibility checks; 14 entered the confirmatory analysis because severe provider-side truncation made one route's score indeterminate. The study reveals substantial variation across models, including a difference that can not be explained by their capability to extract explicitly available information. Composite EHQ ranges from 0.31 to 0.81 across the analysed panel, despite near-ceiling performance on the document-grounded capability probe. The two restraint criteria overlap strongly under the present category composition, whereas substantive-answer calibration varies across models and does not reliably co-vary with restraint; however, the small panel leaves substantial uncertainty. Thus, EHQ reveals behavioral differences that are not visible to conventional correctness-based assessment, while also showing why dataset composition, provider behavior, and confidence elicitation must remain part of the interpretation.

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

AI-generated text is proliferating across domains, from creative writing and journalism to marketing content and scientific articles. Models can follow user-provided instructions to generate coherent and grammatically correct outputs but in this work, we study a more fundamental question: how do we evaluate and improve the writing quality of AI-generated text? Writing quality assessment has received less attention from the community, in part because it is fundamentally subjective and requires expertise. We first introduce the Writing Quality Benchmark (WQ) by consolidating five writing-preference datasets into 4,729 writing quality judgments. Our experiments show that most of the competitive baselines, including state-of-the-art LLMs that excel at reasoning tasks, barely outperform random baselines on WQ. We then train specialized Writing Quality Reward Models (WQRM) of various sizes for writing quality assessment that demonstrate strong generalization on four out-of-distribution test sets and 74% accuracy on the WQ benchmark. To further show WQRM's practical benefits during inference, we leverage additional test-time compute to generate and rank multiple candidate revisions, allowing us to select higher-quality outputs from an initial draft. Human evaluation with 9 experienced writers confirm that WQRM-based selection produces writing samples preferred by experts 66% overall, and 72.2% when the reward gap is larger than 1 point. We release our datasets and models to encourage community engagement with writing quality assessment and development of AI writing systems better aligned with human preferences.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

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

This paper presents FormationEval, an open multiple-choice question benchmark for evaluating language models on petroleum geoscience and subsurface disciplines. The dataset contains 505 questions across seven domains including petrophysics, petroleum geology and reservoir engineering, derived from three authoritative sources using a reasoning model with detailed instructions and a concept-based approach that avoids verbatim copying of copyrighted text. Each question includes source metadata to support traceability and audit. The evaluation covers 72 models from major providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and open-weight alternatives. The top performers achieve over 97\% accuracy, with Gemini 3 Pro Preview reaching 99.8\%, while tier and domain gaps persist. Among open-weight models, GLM-4.7 leads at 98.6\%, with several DeepSeek, Llama, Qwen and Mistral models also exceeding 93\%. The performance gap between open-weight and closed models is narrower than expected, with several lower-cost open-weight models exceeding 90\% accuracy. Petrophysics emerges as the most challenging domain across all models, while smaller models show wider performance variance. Residual length bias in the dataset (correct answers tend to be longer) is documented along with bias mitigation strategies applied during construction. The benchmark, evaluation code and results are publicly available.

We study the ability of state-of-the art models to answer constraint satisfaction queries for information retrieval (e.g., 'a list of ice cream shops in San Diego'). In the past, such queries were considered to be tasks that could only be solved via web-search or knowledge bases. More recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated initial emergent abilities in this task. However, many current retrieval benchmarks are either saturated or do not measure constraint satisfaction. Motivated by rising concerns around factual incorrectness and hallucinations of LLMs, we present KITAB, a new dataset for measuring constraint satisfaction abilities of language models. KITAB consists of book-related data across more than 600 authors and 13,000 queries, and also offers an associated dynamic data collection and constraint verification approach for acquiring similar test data for other authors. Our extended experiments on GPT4 and GPT3.5 characterize and decouple common failure modes across dimensions such as information popularity, constraint types, and context availability. Results show that in the absence of context, models exhibit severe limitations as measured by irrelevant information, factual errors, and incompleteness, many of which exacerbate as information popularity decreases. While context availability mitigates irrelevant information, it is not helpful for satisfying constraints, identifying fundamental barriers to constraint satisfaction. We open source our contributions to foster further research on improving constraint satisfaction abilities of future models.

Voice agents in production must handle several requests, background speech, and customers who lose patience. We introduce VAmoS Energy, a benchmark that combines these challenges in 100 calls about utility billing and payment assistance. Each caller makes two to four requests. The agent has sixteen tools backed by a stateful Stripe billing twin and the Apache Fineract loan engine, with account access blocked until caller verification succeeds. The tasks use public household electricity data and a policy based on Pennsylvania's residential billing rules. An LLM-as-a-verifier checks the agent's actions and spoken figures against explicit requirements. On a calibration run, it agrees with a code verifier on 99.1% of checks. Across fourteen voice stacks and three repeats per task, completion ranges from 17.3% to 44.7%. Grok Voice leads, and Gemini 3.8 Live and GPT-Live follow at about the same cost per call. Background television reduces pooled completion from 38.7% to 8.6%. The simulated caller often accepts an incorrect result because it hears the agent's words but cannot inspect its actions. These findings show why voice agents need evaluation across the whole call, including what they say, what they change, and how they handle competing speech.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on jurisdiction-specific legal reasoning remains underexplored. We present TW-LegalBench that utilizes Taiwanese legal system's rich official corpus open to the public to fill the gap in evaluating LLMs on Taiwanese law, among common-law benchmarks that focus on English sources and civil-law benchmarks focusing on sources of Simplified Chinese. TW-LegalBench comprises three task types: (1) over 16,000 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) across five years of official examinations in 18 professional domains; (2) 117 open-ended essay questions (OEQs) from examinations for legal professionals with official scoring rubrics; and (3) more than 14,000 legal judgment prediction (LJP) instances covering hundreds of crime categories. We evaluate 13 LLMs using accuracy for MCQs, a decomposed LLM-as-Judge framework based on the scoring rubric points for OEQs, and metrics for sentencing accuracy and statute citation for LJP. Our results reveal that top-performing models exceed the passing threshold for qualified lawyers (passing rate: 11%) but fall short of that for judges and prosecutors (passing rate: 1~2%). For LJP, while models demonstrate reasonable verdict type accuracy and sentence prediction capability, they struggle to cite exact legal articles. These findings highlight that reliable legal text generation remains challenging for LLMs, even though their performance on qualification examinations approaches human level.

Context: Code reviews are crucial for software quality. Recent AI advances have allowed large language models (LLMs) to review and fix code; now, there are tools that perform these reviews. However, their reliability and accuracy have not yet been systematically evaluated. Objective: This study compares different LLMs' performance in detecting code correctness and suggesting improvements. Method: We tested GPT4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash on 492 AI generated code blocks of varying correctness, along with 164 canonical code blocks from the HumanEval benchmark. To simulate the code review task objectively, we expected LLMs to assess code correctness and improve the code if needed. We ran experiments with different configurations and reported on the results. Results: With problem descriptions, GPT4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash correctly classified code correctness 68.50% and 63.89% of the time, respectively, and corrected the code 67.83% and 54.26% of the time for the 492 code blocks of varying correctness. Without problem descriptions, performance declined. The results for the 164 canonical code blocks differed, suggesting that performance depends on the type of code. Conclusion: LLM code reviews can help suggest improvements and assess correctness, but there is a risk of faulty outputs. We propose a process that involves humans, called the "Human in the loop LLM Code Review" to promote knowledge sharing while mitigating the risk of faulty outputs.

Despite the recent advances in Large Language Models, benchmarks for evaluating legal writing remain scarce due to the inherent complexity of assessing open-ended responses in this domain. One of the key challenges in evaluating language models on domain-specific tasks is finding test datasets that are public, frequently updated, and contain comprehensive evaluation guidelines. The Brazilian Bar Examination meets these requirements. We introduce oab-bench, a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam. The benchmark includes comprehensive evaluation guidelines and reference materials used by human examiners to ensure consistent grading. We evaluate the performance of four LLMs on oab-bench, finding that Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams. We also investigated whether LLMs can serve as reliable automated judges for evaluating legal writing. Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams, suggesting their potential as reliable automated evaluators despite the inherently subjective nature of legal writing assessment. The source code and the benchmark -- containing questions, evaluation guidelines, model-generated responses, and their respective automated evaluations -- are publicly available.

Reference-free faithfulness metrics verify each atomic claim a model makes against ground truth, and are increasingly used to evaluate grounded generation. We show they share a blind spot: they measure only precision -- are the stated claims supported? -- and therefore reward abstention, since a model can score near-perfect faithfulness by saying almost nothing. We make this measurable using Formula 1 telemetry, a domain where strategic ground truth is derived deterministically and, crucially, completely: for each decision we know the full set of facts that mattered. This completeness -- absent in open-domain faithfulness benchmarks -- lets us measure recall (coverage of the relevant facts) exactly, alongside precision. On a multilingual (EN/ES/PT) benchmark of 7,253 decision instances spanning 150 races, the most precise frontier model covers under half of the relevant facts and ranks last by F1, so requiring coverage reorders the systems; the same effect reappears in a second complete-oracle domain (NOAA weather forecasts). A prompt ablation shows the low coverage is not an under-prompting artifact: explicitly asking models to be thorough does not close the gap. We pair faithfulness with coverage into a single score, validate the metric (controlled perturbation; agreement across a model-free regex extractor and a cross-family LLM extractor, system-level Spearman 1.0), and give a verifier-guided generation method that improves precision and recall without references. We release the benchmark, structured annotations, metric, baselines, and an interactive demo.

Evaluating the reliability of news sources is a routine task for journalists and organizations committed to acquiring and disseminating accurate information. Recent research has shown that predicting sources' reliability represents an important first-prior step in addressing additional challenges such as fake news detection and fact-checking. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for source reliability estimation that leverages reinforcement learning strategies for estimating the reliability degree of news sources. Contrary to previous research, our proposed approach models the problem as the estimation of a reliability degree, and not a reliability label, based on how all the news media sources interact with each other on the Web. We validated the effectiveness of our method on a news media reliability dataset that is an order of magnitude larger than comparable existing datasets. Results show that the estimated reliability degrees strongly correlates with journalists-provided scores (Spearman=0.80) and can effectively predict reliability labels (macro-avg. F_1 score=81.05). We release our implementation and dataset, aiming to provide a valuable resource for the NLP community working on information verification.

Benchmarks increasingly guide deployment, procurement and scientific screening, yet a score supports only the response it records, not necessarily the deployment action. We introduce deployment-complete benchmarking, which tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action. A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber; mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity. In controlled response spaces, benchmark-channel conformal coverage of 94.98% transferred poorly to an unmeasured deployment channel (10.07%), whereas response-rank intervals achieved 94.91% coverage; even zero benchmark error certified only 45.4% of candidates at the largest residual size. Public audits revealed incompleteness, including 97.9% mixed Tox21 fibers and zero median certifiable fraction in main Matbench and JARVIS audits. In held-out replays, certify-then-acquire reduced false decisions from 1.19% to 0.027% in Tox21 and from 20.3% to 0.128% in JARVIS, while changing model choice and identifying deployment-relevant probes. Deployment-ready benchmarks should report evidence, supported actions, ambiguity and completion cost rather than scores alone.

We present an enhanced benchmark for evaluating linguistic acceptability in Danish. We first analyze the most common errors found in written Danish. Based on this analysis, we introduce a set of fourteen corruption functions that generate incorrect sentences by systematically introducing errors into existing correct Danish sentences. To ensure the accuracy of these corruptions, we assess their validity using both manual and automatic methods. The results are then used as a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models on a linguistic acceptability judgement task. Our findings demonstrate that this extension is both broader and more comprehensive than the current state of the art. By incorporating a greater variety of corruption types, our benchmark provides a more rigorous assessment of linguistic acceptability, increasing task difficulty, as evidenced by the lower performance of LLMs on our benchmark compared to existing ones. Our results also suggest that our benchmark has a higher discriminatory power which allows to better distinguish well-performing models from low-performing ones.

Reproducing a machine learning paper involves most research steps, from installing software and debugging to running experiments, work that AI agents increasingly do. We introduce RECLAIM, a benchmark of 100 NeurIPS 2025 papers that can be rebuilt yearly from new conferences. For each paper we fix in advance the result to reproduce, what counts as a successful reproduction, and a GPU-hour budget. An agent must reproduce that result using the paper and whatever its authors released. What the authors released decides the difficulty tier. Run-tier releases include code, data, and weights; Retrain-tier releases lack weights, so the agent trains the model; Reimplement-tier releases lack code, so the agent writes it. A separate language model grades runs from logs and outputs rather than agents' reports. We run four agents once per paper; the best agent in each tier reproduces only 41% of Run-tier papers, 27% at Retrain, and 15% at Reimplement, where every agent does worst. Failed attempts use on average 29% of their budget, so most stop with budget left. The most common agent error is writing the method without checking any part against the paper's numbers, in 63 of 400 runs.

Understanding research papers remains challenging for foundation models due to specialized scientific discourse and complex figures and tables, yet existing benchmarks offer limited fine-grained evaluation at scale. To address this gap, we introduce RPC-Bench, a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers, containing 15K human-verified QA pairs. We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts. We also define an elaborate LLM-human interaction annotation framework to support large-scale labeling and quality control. Following the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, we develop a scalable framework that evaluates models on correctness-completeness and conciseness, with high agreement to human judgment. Experiments reveal that even the strongest models (GPT-5) achieve only 68.2% correctness-completeness, dropping to 37.46% after conciseness adjustment, highlighting substantial gaps in precise academic paper understanding. Our code and data are available at https://rpc-bench.github.io/.

Code completion has become a central task, gaining significant attention with the rise of large language model (LLM)-based tools in software engineering. Although recent advances have greatly improved LLMs' code completion abilities, evaluation methods have not advanced equally. Most current benchmarks focus solely on functional correctness of code completions based on given context, overlooking models' ability to follow user instructions during completion-a common scenario in LLM-assisted programming. To address this limitation, we present the first instruction-guided code completion benchmark, Controllable Code Completion Benchmark (C3-Bench), comprising 2,195 carefully designed completion tasks. Through comprehensive evaluation of over 40 mainstream LLMs across C3-Bench and conventional benchmarks, we reveal substantial gaps in instruction-following capabilities between open-source and advanced proprietary models during code completion tasks. Moreover, we develop a straightforward data synthesis pipeline that leverages Qwen2.5-Coder to generate high-quality instruction-completion pairs for supervised fine-tuning (SFT). The resulting model, Qwen2.5-Coder-C3, achieves state-of-the-art performance on C3-Bench. Our findings provide valuable insights for enhancing LLMs' code completion and instruction-following capabilities, establishing new directions for future research in code LLMs. To facilitate reproducibility and foster further research in code LLMs, we open-source all code, datasets, and models.

We introduce the Formally Verified Automated Programming Progress Standards, or FVAPPS, a benchmark of 4715 samples for writing programs and proving their correctness, the largest formal verification benchmark, including 1083 curated and quality controlled samples. Previously, APPS provided a benchmark and dataset for programming puzzles to be completed in Python and checked against unit tests, of the kind seen in technical assessments in the software engineering industry. Building upon recent approaches for benchmarks in interactive theorem proving, we generalize the unit tests to Lean 4 theorems given without proof (i.e., using Lean's "sorry" keyword). On the 406 theorems of 100 randomly selected samples, Sonnet correctly proves 30% and Gemini correctly proves 18%. We challenge the machine learning and program synthesis communities to solve both each general purpose programming problem and its associated correctness specifications. The benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/quinn-dougherty/fvapps.

Advances in training, post-training, and inference-time methods have enabled frontier reasoning models to win gold medals in math competitions and settle challenging open problems. Gaining trust in the responses of these models requires that natural language proofs be checked for errors. LLM judges are increasingly being adopted to meet the growing demand for evaluating such proofs. While verification is considered easier than generation, what model capability does reliable verification actually require? We systematically evaluate four open-source and two frontier LLMs on datasets of human-graded natural language proofs of competition-level problems. We consider two key metrics: verifier accuracy and self-consistency (the rate of agreement across repeated judgments on the same proof). We observe that smaller open-source models are only up to ~10% behind frontier models in accuracy but they are up to ~25% more inconsistent. Furthermore, we see that verifier accuracy is sensitive to prompt choice across all models. We then demonstrate that the smaller models, in fact, do possess the mathematical capabilities to verify proofs at the level of frontier models, but they struggle to reliably elicit these capabilities with general judging prompts. Through an LLM-guided prompt search, we synthesize an ensemble of specialized prompts that overcome the specific failure modes of smaller models, boosting their performance by up to 9.1% in accuracy and 15.9% in self-consistency. These gains are realized across models and datasets, allowing models like Qwen3.5-35B to perform on par with frontier models such as Gemini 3.1 Pro for proof verification.

Using an LLM to generate training data for another is among the most general ways to train one, and it remains common practice. Some frontier teams have closed that route for their own models: what comes back is an answer, or a short summary, without the detailed reasoning trace behind it. That is a little ironic: they were themselves built on distilling human knowledge, and distilling an open-source model is still entirely routine; the restriction applies to their own outputs alone. Recent work recovers the hidden reasoning by replaying encrypted blocks across models. It somehow works, but it breaks the providers' terms of service, so it is not something a product can be built on long-term. We built the alternative. We take the context and the teacher's answer as input, and generate the reasoning trace ourselves, in the style of the student's own model family. Training is two-stage, supervised and then adversarial: a generator learns to regenerate the family's own reasoning traces from their context and answer, and a critic learns how real a reasoning trace looks. Applied to a teacher's answer, the generator writes one in the family's style. An independent judge rates how likely traces are to be genuine on a scale from 0 to 1: ours average 0.68, real traces 0.66, and traces selected by the critic from four candidates 0.82. These are authenticity scores, not correctness rates. We test the idea on five benchmarks with everything else held fixed. On general tasks the five training corpora are about the same; on coding, the generated reasoning beats Fable 5's own thinking content. With the same 5,000 questions and the same teacher answers, HumanEval+ improves by 3.7 points and MBPP+ by 7.1 at the final checkpoint, and the MBPP+ lead holds at every checkpoint. We suspect that reasoning written in the student's family style is easier for it to learn from.

Live pitch displays, score followers and accompaniment systems must know which pitches are sounding within tens of milliseconds, but instrument-agnostic multi-pitch estimation (MPE) has mainly been designed and evaluated offline. We present JIT-MPE, a causal MPE model of 86k parameters for mixed ensembles. It gives an immediate estimate of each 20 ms frame and re-estimates the same frame as 20, 40, 80 and 160 ms of further audio arrive, so that a live display can show pitches at once and then refine them. We score each output only at a deadline by which it can be computed from the audio that has arrived, on five development sets and four held-out sets evaluated only after all design choices were frozen. At a 50 ms deadline, which reads the update made with 40 ms of lookahead, JIT-MPE is significantly more accurate than five of six published offline MPE systems in 38 of 45 comparisons (15 of 20 on the held-out sets) and less accurate in only two, although these systems read the whole recording and all but one have 6 to 170 times as many parameters; the sixth, supervised on URMP, is higher on four of the nine sets. The deadline costs little: on the held-out sets, JIT-MPE at 50 ms is within -1.27 to +0.60 points of recording-level macro F1 of its own final output with 160 ms of lookahead and within -2.08 to +0.79 points of a bidirectional model of similar size. Waiting pays off where the immediate estimate is weakest: the update at 50 ms adds 1.7-3.6 points over it on the development data and three of the four held-out sets, and raises the recall of reference frames in the first 20 ms after a note onset from 9.8% to 38.4% on the held-out AAM set. The slowest measured frame takes at most 4.15 ms on one CPU thread. Code and trained weights are available at https://github.com/Frieve-A/jit-mpe.

The application of large language models (LLMs) in the field of coding is evolving rapidly: from code assistants, to autonomous coding agents, and then to generating complete projects through natural language. Early LLM code benchmarks primarily focused on code generation accuracy, but these benchmarks have gradually become saturated. Benchmark saturation weakens their guiding role for LLMs. For example, HumanEval Pass@1 has reached 99.4% and MBPP 94.2%. Among various attempts to address benchmark saturation, approaches based on software engineering have stood out, but the saturation of existing software engineering benchmarks is rapidly increasing. To address this, we propose a new benchmark, Web-Bench, which contains 50 projects, each consisting of 20 tasks with sequential dependencies. The tasks implement project features in sequence, simulating real-world human development workflows. When designing Web-Bench, we aim to cover the foundational elements of Web development: Web Standards and Web Frameworks. Given the scale and complexity of these projects, which were designed by engineers with 5 to 10 years of experience, each presents a significant challenge. On average, a single project takes 4 to 8 hours for a senior engineer to complete. On our given benchmark agent (Web-Agent), SOTA (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) achieves only 25.1% Pass@1, significantly lower (better) than SWE-Bench's Verified (65.4%) and Full (33.8%) scores. Finally, we discuss that in any development field, Standards and Frameworks represent foundational knowledge and efficiency tools, respectively, and LLMs require optimization tailored to them.

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

We present and test the largest benchmark for vericoding, LLM-generation of formally verified code from formal specifications - in contrast to vibe coding, which generates potentially buggy code from a natural language description. Our benchmark contains 12,504 formal specifications, with 3,029 in Dafny, 2,334 in Verus/Rust and 7,141 in Lean. Of these, 6,174 are new unseen problems. We find vericoding success rates of 27% in Lean, 44% in Verus/Rust and 82% in Dafny using off-the-shelf LLMs. Adding natural-language descriptions does not significantly improve performance. We also find that LLM progress has improved progress on pure Dafny verification from 68% to 96% over the past year. The benchmark and vericoding results are shared at https://github.com/Beneficial-AI-Foundation/vericoding-benchmark

From professional research to everyday planning, many tasks are bottlenecked by wide-scale information seeking, which is more repetitive than cognitively complex. With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), automated search agents powered by LLMs offer a promising solution to liberate humans from this tedious work. However, the capability of these agents to perform such "wide-context" collection reliably and completely remains largely unevaluated due to a lack of suitable benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we introduce WideSearch, a new benchmark engineered to evaluate agent reliability on these large-scale collection tasks. The benchmark features 200 manually curated questions (100 in English, 100 in Chinese) from over 15 diverse domains, grounded in real user queries. Each task requires agents to collect large-scale atomic information, which could be verified one by one objectively, and arrange it into a well-organized output. A rigorous five-stage quality control pipeline ensures the difficulty, completeness, and verifiability of the dataset. We benchmark over 10 state-of-the-art agentic search systems, including single-agent, multi-agent frameworks, and end-to-end commercial systems. Most systems achieve overall success rates near 0\%, with the best performer reaching just 5\%. However, given sufficient time, cross-validation by multiple human testers can achieve a near 100\% success rate. These results demonstrate that present search agents have critical deficiencies in large-scale information seeking, underscoring urgent areas for future research and development in agentic search. Our dataset, evaluation pipeline, and benchmark results have been publicly released at https://widesearch-seed.github.io/

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

RL for code correctness is now established: have the model generate a program, run it against hidden test cases, and reward solutions that pass. Extending this to code optimization seems straightforward: just add execution time to the reward. But in practice, once timing drives the reward, small problems in measurement noise, reward sparsity, or GRPO instability overwhelm the signal and make RL fail: generated solutions are barely faster, and more of them can fail. We make execution time learnable through three stages: (1) how code is tested, by building DMC-Optim with large optimization tests and a calibrated sandbox; (2) how speed is turned into reward, by composing correctness and speed in the RL environment and using an offline simulator to predict the most promising configurations; and (3) how the model learns from that reward, by adapting GRPO and evaluation to the sparser, noisier timed-execution setting. On DMC-Optim, the strongest optimization-aware configurations improve strict top-50% pass@1 from 18.0% to 31.3% on Qwen 2.5 7B and from 30.7% to 50.4% on CWM 32B. These gains further increase at stricter percentiles such as top-30%, with 125% relative improvement for CWM 32B, while preserving pure-correctness scores. When the timing sandbox is degraded, robust optimization RL reaches 100% to 200% improvement over standard RLVR, depending on the evaluation criterion. On LCB, CWM 32B wins up to 83% of median-sample speed comparisons against standard RLVR. Relative to the fastest correct human submissions per problem, it reaches about half the human rate of complexity-class improvements (14% vs. 28%).

Tool-using language model agents are usually evaluated by whether they finish the user's task. That metric misses a common failure: an agent can complete the requested work while also taking an unauthorized side-effecting action, such as writing to the wrong object, expanding the scope of the request, or contacting an unintended recipient. We call this failure mode collateral damage (CD). We introduce SABench (Side-effect-Aware Benchmark), a benchmark of 201 email, calendar, and ticket tasks. Each task crosses one of four state structures (independent, dependent, externally reachable, cross-tool) with one of four trap families (ambiguity, mis-targeting, cascade harm, overreach), and each task has a deterministic trace-based oracle for both goal satisfaction and authorization compliance. Across 2,211 model-task pairs from 11 frontier LLMs spanning major commercial and open model families, 15.2% of all runs incur CD, with risk concentrated in ambiguity tasks (38.8% violation rate) while non-ambiguous traps average 8.4% CD. Among goal-satisfied runs, 12.8% still produce unauthorized writes. Cross-tool and dependent states have about twice the CD rate of independent states. CD rates vary by 4.7x across models at comparable goal rates, which suggests that task success alone is a poor proxy for safe tool use. The SABench task corpus is released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Phaedrus/sabench; the traces, oracle, code, and analysis pipeline are released at https://github.com/hjj194/sabench-artifact.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage -- a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline-which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation-and are subsequently validated through expert review. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

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.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.