Daily Papers

Long-lived AI agents are increasingly deployed as persistent operational systems, yet they are still evaluated like freshly initialized models. Day-one benchmarks miss a basic systems question: how long does an agent remain reliable after deployment? Even when model weights are frozen, an agent's effective state keeps changing as it compresses interaction history, retrieves from a growing memory store, revises facts after updates, and undergoes routine maintenance. Reliability therefore becomes a lifespan property of the full agent harness, not only a snapshot property of the base model. We introduce AgingBench, a longitudinal reliability benchmark for agent lifespan engineering: measuring not only whether deployed agents degrade, but what form the degradation takes and where repair should target. AgingBench organizes agent aging into four mechanisms: compression aging, interference aging, revision aging, and maintenance aging. To diagnose these failures, AgingBench uses temporal dependency graphs and paired counterfactual probes that produce diagnostic profiles for the write, retrieval, and utilization stages of the memory pipeline. Across 7 scenarios, 14 models, multiple memory policies, and both runner-controlled and autonomous agents, over ~400 runs spanning 8 - 200 sessions show that agent aging is not one-dimensional: behavioral tests can remain clean while factual precision decays; derived-state tracking can collapse sharply within a single model; and the same wrong answer can require different repairs depending on what the diagnostic profile points to. These results suggest that reliable agent deployment requires lifespan evaluation, mechanism-level diagnosis, and stage-targeted repair, not only stronger day-one models.

Benchmark quality is critical for meaningful evaluation and sustained progress in time series forecasting, particularly given the recent rise of pretrained models. Existing benchmarks often have narrow domain coverage or overlook important real-world settings, such as tasks with covariates. Additionally, their aggregation procedures often lack statistical rigor, making it unclear whether observed performance differences reflect true improvements or random variation. Many benchmarks also fail to provide infrastructure for consistent evaluation or are too rigid to integrate into existing pipelines. To address these gaps, we propose fev-bench, a benchmark comprising 100 forecasting tasks across seven domains, including 46 tasks with covariates. Supporting the benchmark, we introduce fev, a lightweight Python library for benchmarking forecasting models that emphasizes reproducibility and seamless integration with existing workflows. Usingfev, fev-bench employs principled aggregation methods with bootstrapped confidence intervals to report model performance along two complementary dimensions: win rates and skill scores. We report results on fev-bench for various pretrained, statistical and baseline models, and identify promising directions for future research.

Evaluation benchmarks are the cornerstone of measuring capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as well as driving progress in said capabilities. Originally designed to make claims about capabilities (or lack thereof) in fully pretrained models, evaluation benchmarks are now also extensively used to decide between various training choices. Despite this widespread usage, we rarely quantify the variance in our evaluation benchmarks, which dictates whether differences in performance are meaningful. Here, we define and measure a range of metrics geared towards measuring variance in evaluation benchmarks, including seed variance across initialisations, and monotonicity during training. By studying a large number of models -- both openly available and pretrained from scratch -- we provide empirical estimates for a variety of variance metrics, with considerations and recommendations for practitioners. We also evaluate the utility and tradeoffs of continuous versus discrete performance measures and explore options for better understanding and reducing this variance. We find that simple changes, such as framing choice tasks (like MMLU) as completion tasks, can often reduce variance for smaller scale (sim7B) models, while more involved methods inspired from human testing literature (such as item analysis and item response theory) struggle to meaningfully reduce variance. Overall, our work provides insights into variance in evaluation benchmarks, suggests LM-specific techniques to reduce variance, and more generally encourages practitioners to carefully factor in variance when comparing models.

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

Developing large language models is expensive and involves making decisions with small experiments, typically by evaluating on large, multi-task evaluation suites. In this work, we analyze specific properties which make a benchmark more reliable for such decisions, and interventions to design higher-quality evaluation benchmarks. We introduce two key metrics that show differences in current benchmarks: signal, a benchmark's ability to separate better models from worse models, and noise, a benchmark's sensitivity to random variability between training steps. We demonstrate that benchmarks with a better signal-to-noise ratio are more reliable when making decisions at small scale, and those with less noise have lower scaling law prediction error. These results suggest that improving signal or noise will lead to more useful benchmarks, so we introduce three interventions designed to directly affect signal or noise. For example, we propose that switching to a metric that has better signal and noise (e.g., perplexity rather than accuracy) leads to better reliability and improved scaling law error. We also find that filtering noisy subtasks, to improve an aggregate signal-to-noise ratio, leads to more reliable multi-task evaluations. We also find that averaging the output of a model's intermediate checkpoints to reduce noise leads to consistent improvements. We conclude by recommending that those creating new benchmarks, or selecting which existing benchmarks to use, aim for high signal and low noise. We use 30 benchmarks for these experiments, and 375 open-weight language models from 60M to 32B parameters, resulting in a new, publicly available dataset of 900K evaluation benchmark results, totaling 200M instances.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) from right-censored survival data is critical in high-stakes applications such as precision medicine and individualized policy-making. Yet, the survival analysis setting poses unique challenges for HTE estimation due to censoring, unobserved counterfactuals, and complex identification assumptions. Despite recent advances, from Causal Survival Forests to survival meta-learners and outcome imputation approaches, evaluation practices remain fragmented and inconsistent. We introduce SurvHTE-Bench, the first comprehensive benchmark for HTE estimation with censored outcomes. The benchmark spans (i) a modular suite of synthetic datasets with known ground truth, systematically varying causal assumptions and survival dynamics, (ii) semi-synthetic datasets that pair real-world covariates with simulated treatments and outcomes, and (iii) real-world datasets from a twin study (with known ground truth) and from an HIV clinical trial. Across synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world settings, we provide the first rigorous comparison of survival HTE methods under diverse conditions and realistic assumption violations. SurvHTE-Bench establishes a foundation for fair, reproducible, and extensible evaluation of causal survival methods. The data and code of our benchmark are available at: https://github.com/Shahriarnz14/SurvHTE-Bench .

Existing benchmarks for tool-using LLM agents primarily report single-run success rates and miss reliability properties required in production. We introduce ReliabilityBench, a benchmark for evaluating agent reliability across three dimensions: (i) consistency under repeated execution using pass^k, (ii) robustness to semantically equivalent task perturbations at intensity ε, and (iii) fault tolerance under controlled tool/API failures at intensity λ. ReliabilityBench contributes a unified reliability surface R(k,ε,λ), action metamorphic relations that define correctness via end-state equivalence rather than text similarity, and a chaos-engineering-style fault injection framework (timeouts, rate limits, partial responses, schema drift). We evaluate two models (Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o) and two agent architectures (ReAct, Reflexion) across four domains (scheduling, travel, customer support, e-commerce) over 1,280 episodes. Perturbations alone reduce success from 96.9% at ε=0 to 88.1% at ε=0.2. Rate limiting is the most damaging fault in ablations. ReAct is more robust than Reflexion under combined stress, and Gemini 2.0 Flash achieves comparable reliability to GPT-4o at much lower cost. ReliabilityBench provides a systematic framework for assessing production readiness of LLM agents.

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

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

Large Language Models (LLMs) effectiveness is usually evaluated by means of benchmarks such as MMLU, ARC-C, or HellaSwag, where questions are presented in their original wording, thus in a fixed, standardized format. However, real-world applications involve linguistic variability, requiring models to maintain their effectiveness across diverse rewordings of the same question or query. In this study, we systematically assess the robustness of LLMs to paraphrased benchmark questions and investigate whether benchmark-based evaluations provide a reliable measure of model capabilities. We systematically generate various paraphrases of all the questions across six different common benchmarks, and measure the resulting variations in effectiveness of 34 state-of-the-art LLMs, of different size and effectiveness. Our findings reveal that while LLM rankings remain relatively stable across paraphrased inputs, absolute effectiveness scores change, and decline significantly. This suggests that LLMs struggle with linguistic variability, raising concerns about their generalization abilities and evaluation methodologies. Furthermore, the observed performance drop challenges the reliability of benchmark-based evaluations, indicating that high benchmark scores may not fully capture a model's robustness to real-world input variations. We discuss the implications of these findings for LLM evaluation methodologies, emphasizing the need for robustness-aware benchmarks that better reflect practical deployment scenarios.

Longitudinal health agents must reason across multi-source trajectories that combine continuous device streams, sparse clinical exams, and episodic life events - yet evaluating them is hard: real-world data cannot be released at scale, and temporally grounded attribution questions seldom admit definitive answers without structured ground truth. We present ESL-Bench, an event-driven synthesis framework and benchmark providing 100 synthetic users, each with a 1-5 year trajectory comprising a health profile, a multi-phase narrative plan, daily device measurements, periodic exam records, and an event log with explicit per-indicator impact parameters. Each indicator follows a baseline stochastic process driven by discrete events with sigmoid-onset, exponential-decay kernels under saturation and projection constraints; a hybrid pipeline delegates sparse semantic artifacts to LLM-based planning and dense indicator dynamics to algorithmic simulation with hard physiological bounds. Users are each paired with 100 evaluation queries across five dimensions - Lookup, Trend, Comparison, Anomaly, Explanation - stratified into Easy, Medium, and Hard tiers, with all ground-truth answers programmatically computable from the recorded event-indicator relationships. Evaluating 13 methods spanning LLMs with tools, DB-native agents, and memory-augmented RAG, we find that DB agents (48-58%) substantially outperform memory RAG baselines (30-38%), with the gap concentrated on Comparison and Explanation queries where multi-hop reasoning and evidence attribution are required.

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has shown promising practical results. However, their low interpretability often leads to errors in unforeseen circumstances, limiting their utility. Many works have focused on creating comprehensive evaluation systems, but previous benchmarks have primarily assessed problem-solving abilities while neglecting the response's uncertainty, which may result in unreliability. Recent methods for measuring LLM reliability are resource-intensive and unable to test black-box models. To address this, we propose UBENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM reliability. UBENCH includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. Experimental results show that UBENCH has achieved state-of-the-art performance, while its single-sampling method significantly saves computational resources compared to baseline methods that require multiple samplings. Additionally, based on UBENCH, we evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding, closely followed by GPT-4. We also explore the impact of Chain-of-Thought prompts, role-playing prompts, option order, and temperature on LLM reliability, analyzing the varying effects on different LLMs.

We present DM-Bench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance across real-world decision-making tasks faced by individuals managing diabetes in their daily lives. Unlike prior health benchmarks that are either generic, clinician-facing or focused on clinical tasks (e.g., diagnosis, triage), DM-Bench introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework tailored to the unique challenges of prototyping patient-facing AI solutions in diabetes, glucose management, metabolic health and related domains. Our benchmark encompasses 7 distinct task categories, reflecting the breadth of real-world questions individuals with diabetes ask, including basic glucose interpretation, educational queries, behavioral associations, advanced decision making and long term planning. Towards this end, we compile a rich dataset comprising one month of time-series data encompassing glucose traces and metrics from continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and behavioral logs (e.g., eating and activity patterns) from 15,000 individuals across three different diabetes populations (type 1, type 2, pre-diabetes/general health and wellness). Using this data, we generate a total of 360,600 personalized, contextual questions across the 7 tasks. We evaluate model performance on these tasks across 5 metrics: accuracy, groundedness, safety, clarity and actionability. Our analysis of 8 recent LLMs reveals substantial variability across tasks and metrics; no single model consistently outperforms others across all dimensions. By establishing this benchmark, we aim to advance the reliability, safety, effectiveness and practical utility of AI solutions in diabetes care.

When deploying large language models (LLMs), it is important to ensure that these models are not only capable, but also reliable. Many benchmarks have been created to track LLMs' growing capabilities, however there has been no similar focus on measuring their reliability. To understand the potential ramifications of this gap, we investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability. We find that pervasive label errors can compromise these evaluations, obscuring lingering model failures and hiding unreliable behavior. Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we then propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks, i.e., benchmarks carefully curated to minimize label errors and ambiguity. As a first attempt at constructing such benchmarks, we revise examples from fifteen existing popular benchmarks. We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks such as elementary-level math word problems. Analyzing these failures further reveals previously unidentified patterns of problems on which frontier models consistently struggle. We provide code at https://github.com/MadryLab/platinum-benchmarks

Recent advancements in Language Models (LMs) have catalyzed the creation of multiple benchmarks, designed to assess these models' general capabilities. A crucial task, however, is assessing the validity of the benchmarks themselves. This is most commonly done via Benchmark Agreement Testing (BAT), where new benchmarks are validated against established ones using some agreement metric (e.g., rank correlation). Despite the crucial role of BAT for benchmark builders and consumers, there are no standardized procedures for such agreement testing. This deficiency can lead to invalid conclusions, fostering mistrust in benchmarks and upending the ability to properly choose the appropriate benchmark to use. By analyzing over 40 prominent benchmarks, we demonstrate how some overlooked methodological choices can significantly influence BAT results, potentially undermining the validity of conclusions. To address these inconsistencies, we propose a set of best practices for BAT and demonstrate how utilizing these methodologies greatly improves BAT robustness and validity. To foster adoption and facilitate future research,, we introduce BenchBench, a python package for BAT, and release the BenchBench-leaderboard, a meta-benchmark designed to evaluate benchmarks using their peers. Our findings underscore the necessity for standardized BAT, ensuring the robustness and validity of benchmark evaluations in the evolving landscape of language model research. BenchBench Package: https://github.com/IBM/BenchBench Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/per/BenchBench

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

We introduce AutoMonitor-Bench, the first benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the reliability of LLM-based misbehavior monitors across diverse tasks and failure modes. AutoMonitor-Bench consists of 3,010 carefully annotated test samples spanning question answering, code generation, and reasoning, with paired misbehavior and benign instances. We evaluate monitors using two complementary metrics: Miss Rate (MR) and False Alarm Rate (FAR), capturing failures to detect misbehavior and oversensitivity to benign behavior, respectively. Evaluating 12 proprietary and 10 open-source LLMs, we observe substantial variability in monitoring performance and a consistent trade-off between MR and FAR, revealing an inherent safety-utility tension. To further explore the limits of monitor reliability, we construct a large-scale training corpus of 153,581 samples and fine-tune Qwen3-4B-Instruction to investigate whether training on known, relatively easy-to-construct misbehavior datasets improves monitoring performance on unseen and more implicit misbehaviors. Our results highlight the challenges of reliable, scalable misbehavior monitoring and motivate future work on task-aware designing and training strategies for LLM-based monitors.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on synthetic or social media data, and lack frameworks to assess when automated judges can be trusted. To address the need for large-scale dialogue datasets and judge reliability assessment, we introduce two benchmarks that provide a framework for generation and evaluation. MentalBench-100k consolidates 10,000 one-turn conversations from three real scenarios datasets, each paired with nine LLM-generated responses, yielding 100,000 response pairs. MentalAlign-70k}reframes evaluation by comparing four high-performing LLM judges with human experts across 70,000 ratings on seven attributes, grouped into Cognitive Support Score (CSS) and Affective Resonance Score (ARS). We then employ the Affective Cognitive Agreement Framework, a statistical methodology using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with confidence intervals to quantify agreement, consistency, and bias between LLM judges and human experts. Our analysis reveals systematic inflation by LLM judges, strong reliability for cognitive attributes such as guidance and informativeness, reduced precision for empathy, and some unreliability in safety and relevance. Our contributions establish new methodological and empirical foundations for reliable, large-scale evaluation of LLMs in mental health. We release the benchmarks and codes at: https://github.com/abeerbadawi/MentalBench/

The increasing versatility of language models LMs has given rise to a new class of benchmarks that comprehensively assess a broad range of capabilities. Such benchmarks are associated with massive computational costs reaching thousands of GPU hours per model. However the efficiency aspect of these evaluation efforts had raised little discussion in the literature. In this work we present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking namely intelligently reducing the computation costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability tradeoff. We propose to evaluate the reliability of such decisions by using a new measure Decision Impact on Reliability DIoR for short. We find for example that the current leader on HELM may change by merely removing a low-ranked model from the benchmark and observe that a handful of examples suffice to obtain the correct benchmark ranking. Conversely a slightly different choice of HELM scenarios varies ranking widely. Based on our findings we outline a set of concrete recommendations for more efficient benchmark design and utilization practices leading to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability often reducing computation by x100 or more.

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

Many benchmarks for automated causal inference evaluate a system's performance based on a single numerical output, such as an Average Treatment Effect (ATE). This approach conflates two distinct steps in causal analysis: identification-formulating a valid research design under stated assumptions-and estimation-implementing that design numerically on finite data. We introduce CausalReasoningBenchmark, a benchmark of 173 queries across 138 real-world datasets, curated from 85 peer-reviewed research papers and four widely-used causal-inference textbooks. For each query a system must produce (i) a structured identification specification that names the strategy, the treatment, outcome, and control variables, and all design-specific elements, and (ii) a point estimate with a standard error. By scoring these two components separately, our benchmark enables granular diagnosis: it distinguishes failures in causal reasoning from errors in numerical execution. Baseline results with a state-of-the-art LLM show that, while the model correctly identifies the high-level strategy in 84 % of cases, full identification-specification correctness drops to only 30 %, revealing that the bottleneck lies in the nuanced details of research design rather than in computation. CausalReasoningBenchmark is publicly available on Hugging Face and is designed to foster the development of more robust automated causal-inference systems.

The increasing complexity of large language models (LLMs) raises concerns about their ability to "cheat" on standard Question Answering (QA) benchmarks by memorizing task-specific data. This undermines the validity of benchmark evaluations, as they no longer reflect genuine model capabilities but instead the effects of data leakage. While prior work has focused on detecting such leakage, little attention has been given to mitigating its impact and preserving the long-term utility of benchmarks. In this paper, we introduce LastingBench, a novel framework designed to continuously reinforce and safeguard existing benchmarks against knowledge leakage. LastingBench identifies leakage points in the context through perturbation, then rewrites the leakage points to counterfactual ones-disrupting memorization while preserving the benchmark's original evaluative intent. Evaluations of state-of-the-art QA benchmarks show significant performance gaps, highlighting the efficacy of LastingBench in reducing memorization effects. LastingBench offers a practical and scalable solution to ensure benchmark robustness over time, promoting fairer and more interpretable evaluations of LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great potential for healthcare applications. However, existing evaluation benchmarks provide minimal coverage of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). To address this gap, we introduce ADRD-Bench, the first ADRD-specific benchmark dataset designed for rigorous evaluation of LLMs. ADRD-Bench has two components: 1) ADRD Unified QA, a synthesis of 1,352 questions consolidated from seven established medical benchmarks, providing a unified assessment of clinical knowledge; and 2) ADRD Caregiving QA, a novel set of 149 questions derived from the Aging Brain Care (ABC) program, a widely used, evidence-based brain health management program. Guided by a program with national expertise in comprehensive ADRD care, this new set was designed to mitigate the lack of practical caregiving context in existing benchmarks. We evaluated 33 state-of-the-art LLMs on the proposed ADRD-Bench. Results showed that the accuracy of open-weight general models ranged from 0.63 to 0.93 (mean: 0.78; std: 0.09). The accuracy of open-weight medical models ranged from 0.48 to 0.93 (mean: 0.82; std: 0.13). The accuracy of closed-source general models ranged from 0.83 to 0.91 (mean: 0.89; std: 0.03). While top-tier models achieved high accuracies (>0.9), case studies revealed that inconsistent reasoning quality and stability limit their reliability, highlighting a critical need for domain-specific improvement to enhance LLMs' knowledge and reasoning grounded in daily caregiving data. The entire dataset is available at https://github.com/IIRL-ND/ADRD-Bench.

For deploying foundation models, practitioners increasingly need prescriptive scaling laws: given a pre training compute budget, what downstream accuracy is attainable with contemporary post training practice, and how stable is that mapping as the field evolves? Using large scale observational evaluations with 5k observational and 2k newly sampled data on model performance, we estimate capability boundaries, high conditional quantiles of benchmark scores as a function of log pre training FLOPs, via smoothed quantile regression with a monotone, saturating sigmoid parameterization. We validate the temporal reliability by fitting on earlier model generations and evaluating on later releases. Across various tasks, the estimated boundaries are mostly stable, with the exception of math reasoning that exhibits a consistently advancing boundary over time. We then extend our approach to analyze task dependent saturation and to probe contamination related shifts on math reasoning tasks. Finally, we introduce an efficient algorithm that recovers near full data frontiers using roughly 20% of evaluation budget. Together, our work releases the Proteus 2k, the latest model performance evaluation dataset, and introduces a practical methodology for translating compute budgets into reliable performance expectations and for monitoring when capability boundaries shift across time.

Benchmarks measure whether a model is correct. They do not measure whether a model is reliable. This distinction is largely academic for single-shot inference, but becomes critical for agentic AI systems, where a single rephrased prompt can trigger cascading failures in multi-step execution. Yet this form of instability is not captured by existing evaluations. Hallucinations live in variance: they arise when semantically equivalent prompts activate inconsistent internal pathways, producing divergent outputs. Consistent but incorrect outputs reflect bias or missing knowledge; confident guessing reflects calibration failure. Neither constitutes hallucination under this definition. When error is variance-dominated, reducing redundant pathways improves reliability without adding knowledge. We formalize this through Semantic Stability (SS), measured via Paraphrase Consistency (PC@k): generate k paraphrases, greedy decode each, compute mode agreement. SS is a diagnostic for variance-driven unreliability, not a method for improving correctness. We show that a dense Qwen3-0.6B agrees with itself only 23.8% of the time; at 32% sparsity, agreement jumps to 55.9%. A phase diagram reveals the sweet spot where variance reduction outpaces bias accumulation, and regimes where stability collapses onto wrong answers.

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

The rapid proliferation of benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need for systematic methods to assess benchmark quality itself. We propose Benchmark^2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics: (1) Cross-Benchmark Ranking Consistency, measuring whether a benchmark produces model rankings aligned with peer benchmarks; (2) Discriminability Score, quantifying a benchmark's ability to differentiate between models; and (3) Capability Alignment Deviation, identifying problematic instances where stronger models fail but weaker models succeed within the same model family. We conduct extensive experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains, evaluating 11 LLMs across four model families. Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction based on our metrics can achieve comparable evaluation performance with substantially reduced test sets.

Existing long-horizon memory benchmarks mostly use multi-turn dialogues or synthetic user histories, which makes retrieval performance an imperfect proxy for person understanding. We present \BenchName, a publicly releasable benchmark built from long-form autobiographical narratives, where actions, context, and inner thoughts provide dense evidence for inferring stable motivations and decision principles. \BenchName~reconstructs each narrative into a flashback-aware, time-anchored stream and evaluates models with evidence-linked questions spanning factual recall, subjective state attribution, and principle-level reasoning. Across diverse narrative sources, retrieval-augmented systems mainly improve factual accuracy, while errors persist on temporally grounded explanations and higher-level inferences, highlighting the need for memory mechanisms beyond retrieval. Our data is in KnowMeBench{https://github.com/QuantaAlpha/KnowMeBench}.

We investigate whether synthetic question-answer (QA) data generated by large language models (LLMs) can serve as an effective proxy for human-labeled benchmarks when such data is unavailable. We assess the reliability of synthetic benchmarks across two experiments: one varying retriever parameters while keeping the generator fixed, and another varying the generator with fixed retriever parameters. Across four datasets, of which two open-domain and two proprietary, we find that synthetic benchmarks reliably rank the RAGs varying in terms of retriever configuration, aligning well with human-labeled benchmark baselines. However, they fail to produce consistent RAG rankings when comparing generator architectures. The breakdown possibly arises from a combination of task mismatch between the synthetic and human benchmarks, and stylistic bias favoring certain generators.

Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.

While the field of Quality-Diversity (QD) has grown into a distinct branch of stochastic optimization, a few problems, in particular locomotion and navigation tasks, have become de facto standards. Are such benchmarks sufficient? Are they representative of the key challenges faced by QD algorithms? Do they provide the ability to focus on one particular challenge by properly disentangling it from others? Do they have much predictive power in terms of scalability and generalization? Existing benchmarks are not standardized, and there is currently no MNIST equivalent for QD. Inspired by recent works on Reinforcement Learning benchmarks, we argue that the identification of challenges faced by QD methods and the development of targeted, challenging, scalable but affordable benchmarks is an important step. As an initial effort, we identify three problems that are challenging in sparse reward settings, and propose associated benchmarks: (1) Behavior metric bias, which can result from the use of metrics that do not match the structure of the behavior space. (2) Behavioral Plateaus, with varying characteristics, such that escaping them would require adaptive QD algorithms and (3) Evolvability Traps, where small variations in genotype result in large behavioral changes. The environments that we propose satisfy the properties listed above.

Reward models are used throughout the post-training of language models to capture nuanced signals from preference data and provide a training target for optimization across instruction following, reasoning, safety, and more domains. The community has begun establishing best practices for evaluating reward models, from the development of benchmarks that test capabilities in specific skill areas to others that test agreement with human preferences. At the same time, progress in evaluation has not been mirrored by the effectiveness of reward models in downstream tasks -- simpler direct alignment algorithms are reported to work better in many cases. This paper introduces RewardBench 2, a new multi-skill reward modeling benchmark designed to bring new, challenging data for accuracy-based reward model evaluation -- models score about 20 points on average lower on RewardBench 2 compared to the first RewardBench -- while being highly correlated with downstream performance. Compared to most other benchmarks, RewardBench 2 sources new human prompts instead of existing prompts from downstream evaluations, facilitating more rigorous evaluation practices. In this paper, we describe our benchmark construction process and report how existing models perform on it, while quantifying how performance on the benchmark correlates with downstream use of the models in both inference-time scaling algorithms, like best-of-N sampling, and RLHF training algorithms like proximal policy optimization.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel on standardized medical exams, high scores often fail to translate to high-quality responses for real-world medical queries. Current evaluations rely heavily on multiple-choice questions, failing to capture the unstructured, ambiguous, and long-tail complexities inherent in genuine user inquiries. To bridge this gap, we introduce QuarkMedBench, an ecologically valid benchmark tailored for real-world medical LLM assessment. We compiled a massive dataset spanning Clinical Care, Wellness Health, and Professional Inquiry, comprising 20,821 single-turn queries and 3,853 multi-turn sessions. To objectively evaluate open-ended answers, we propose an automated scoring framework that integrates multi-model consensus with evidence-based retrieval to dynamically generate 220,617 fine-grained scoring rubrics (~9.8 per query). During evaluation, hierarchical weighting and safety constraints structurally quantify medical accuracy, key-point coverage, and risk interception, effectively mitigating the high costs and subjectivity of human grading. Experimental results demonstrate that the generated rubrics achieve a 91.8% concordance rate with clinical expert blind audits, establishing highly dependable medical reliability. Crucially, baseline evaluations on this benchmark reveal significant performance disparities among state-of-the-art models when navigating real-world clinical nuances, highlighting the limitations of conventional exam-based metrics. Ultimately, QuarkMedBench establishes a rigorous, reproducible yardstick for measuring LLM performance on complex health issues, while its framework inherently supports dynamic knowledge updates to prevent benchmark obsolescence.

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

The rapid release of both language models and benchmarks makes it increasingly costly to evaluate every model on every dataset. In practice, models are often evaluated on different samples, making scores difficult to compare across studies. To address this, we propose a framework based on multidimensional Item Response Theory (IRT) that uses anchor items to calibrate new benchmarks to the evaluation suite while holding previously calibrated item parameters fixed. Our approach supports a realistic evaluation setting in which datasets are introduced over time and models are evaluated only on the datasets available at the time of evaluation, while a fixed anchor set for each dataset is used so that results from different evaluation periods can be compared directly. In large-scale experiments on more than 400 models, our framework predicts full-evaluation performance within 2-3 percentage points using only 100 anchor questions per dataset, with Spearman ρgeq 0.9 for ranking preservation, showing that it is possible to extend benchmark suites over time while preserving score comparability, at a constant evaluation cost per new dataset. Code available at https://github.com/eliyahabba/growing-pains

We present HealthBench, an open-source benchmark measuring the performance and safety of large language models in healthcare. HealthBench consists of 5,000 multi-turn conversations between a model and an individual user or healthcare professional. Responses are evaluated using conversation-specific rubrics created by 262 physicians. Unlike previous multiple-choice or short-answer benchmarks, HealthBench enables realistic, open-ended evaluation through 48,562 unique rubric criteria spanning several health contexts (e.g., emergencies, transforming clinical data, global health) and behavioral dimensions (e.g., accuracy, instruction following, communication). HealthBench performance over the last two years reflects steady initial progress (compare GPT-3.5 Turbo's 16% to GPT-4o's 32%) and more rapid recent improvements (o3 scores 60%). Smaller models have especially improved: GPT-4.1 nano outperforms GPT-4o and is 25 times cheaper. We additionally release two HealthBench variations: HealthBench Consensus, which includes 34 particularly important dimensions of model behavior validated via physician consensus, and HealthBench Hard, where the current top score is 32%. We hope that HealthBench grounds progress towards model development and applications that benefit human health.

Various benchmarks have been proposed to assess the performance of large language models (LLMs) in different coding scenarios. We refer to them as code-related benchmarks. However, there are no systematic guidelines by which such a benchmark should be developed to ensure its quality, reliability, and reproducibility. We propose How2Bench, which is comprised of a 55- 55-criteria checklist as a set of guidelines to govern the development of code-related benchmarks comprehensively. Using HOW2BENCH, we profiled 274 benchmarks released within the past decade and found concerning issues. Nearly 70% of the benchmarks did not take measures for data quality assurance; over 10% did not even open source or only partially open source. Many highly cited benchmarks have loopholes, including duplicated samples, incorrect reference codes/tests/prompts, and unremoved sensitive/confidential information. Finally, we conducted a human study involving 49 participants, which revealed significant gaps in awareness of the importance of data quality, reproducibility, and transparency.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

Standardized benchmarks drive progress in machine learning. However, with repeated testing, the risk of overfitting grows as algorithms over-exploit benchmark idiosyncrasies. In our work, we seek to mitigate this challenge by compiling ever-expanding large-scale benchmarks called Lifelong Benchmarks. As exemplars of our approach, we create Lifelong-CIFAR10 and Lifelong-ImageNet, containing (for now) 1.69M and 1.98M test samples, respectively. While reducing overfitting, lifelong benchmarks introduce a key challenge: the high cost of evaluating a growing number of models across an ever-expanding sample set. To address this challenge, we also introduce an efficient evaluation framework: Sort \& Search (S&S), which reuses previously evaluated models by leveraging dynamic programming algorithms to selectively rank and sub-select test samples, enabling cost-effective lifelong benchmarking. Extensive empirical evaluations across 31,000 models demonstrate that S&S achieves highly-efficient approximate accuracy measurement, reducing compute cost from 180 GPU days to 5 GPU hours (1000x reduction) on a single A100 GPU, with low approximation error. As such, lifelong benchmarks offer a robust, practical solution to the "benchmark exhaustion" problem.

The prohibitive cost of evaluating large language models (LLMs) on comprehensive benchmarks necessitates the creation of small yet representative data subsets (i.e., tiny benchmarks) that enable efficient assessment while retaining predictive fidelity. Current methods for this task operate under a model-centric paradigm, selecting benchmarking items based on the collective performance of existing models. Such approaches are limited by large upfront costs, an inability to immediately handle new benchmarks (`cold-start'), and the fragile assumption that future models will share the failure patterns of their predecessors. In this work, we challenge this paradigm and propose a item-centric approach to benchmark subset selection, arguing that selection should be based on the intrinsic properties of the task items themselves, rather than on model-specific failure patterns. We instantiate this item-centric efficient benchmarking approach via a novel method, Scales++, where data selection is based on the cognitive demands of the benchmark samples. Empirically, we show Scales++ reduces the upfront selection cost by over 18x while achieving competitive predictive fidelity. On the Open LLM Leaderboard, using just a 0.5\% data subset, we predict full benchmark scores with a 2.9% mean absolute error. We demonstrate that this item-centric approach enables more efficient model evaluation without significant fidelity degradation, while also providing better cold-start performance and more interpretable benchmarking.

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

The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) and the real world has outpaced the static nature of widely used evaluation benchmarks, raising concerns about their reliability for evaluating LLM factuality. While substantial works continue to rely on the popular but old benchmarks, their temporal misalignment with real-world facts and modern LLMs, and their effects on LLM factuality evaluation remain underexplored. Therefore, in this work, we present a systematic investigation of this issue by examining five popular factuality benchmarks and eight LLMs released across different years. An up-to-date fact retrieval pipeline and three metrics are tailored to quantify benchmark aging and its impact on LLM factuality evaluation. Experimental results and analysis illustrate that a considerable portion of samples in the widely used factuality benchmarks are outdated, leading to unreliable assessments of LLM factuality. We hope our work can provide a testbed to assess the reliability of a benchmark for LLM factuality evaluation and inspire more research on the benchmark aging issue. Codes are available in https://github.com/JiangXunyi/BenchAge.

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

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

Understanding how language model capabilities transfer from pretraining to supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is fundamental to efficient model development and data curation. In this work, we investigate four core questions: RQ1. To what extent do accuracy and confidence rankings established during pretraining persist after SFT? RQ2. Which benchmarks serve as robust cross-stage predictors and which are unreliable? RQ3. How do transfer dynamics shift with model scale? RQ4. How well does model confidence align with accuracy, as a measure of calibration quality? Does this alignment pattern transfer across training stages? We address these questions through a suite of correlation protocols applied to accuracy and confidence metrics across diverse data mixtures and model scales. Our experiments reveal that transfer reliability varies dramatically across capability categories, benchmarks, and scales -- with accuracy and confidence exhibiting distinct, sometimes opposing, scaling dynamics. These findings shed light on the complex interplay between pretraining decisions and downstream outcomes, providing actionable guidance for benchmark selection, data curation, and efficient model development.

Most popular benchmarks for comparing LLMs rely on a limited set of prompt templates, which may not fully capture the LLMs' abilities and can affect the reproducibility of results on leaderboards. Many recent works empirically verify prompt sensitivity and advocate for changes in LLM evaluation. In this paper, we consider the problem of estimating the performance distribution across many prompt variants instead of finding a single prompt to evaluate with. We introduce PromptEval, a method for estimating performance across a large set of prompts borrowing strength across prompts and examples to produce accurate estimates under practical evaluation budgets. The resulting distribution can be used to obtain performance quantiles to construct various robust performance metrics (e.g., top 95% quantile or median). We prove that PromptEval consistently estimates the performance distribution and demonstrate its efficacy empirically on three prominent LLM benchmarks: MMLU, BIG-bench Hard, and LMentry. For example, PromptEval can accurately estimate performance quantiles across 100 prompt templates on MMLU with a budget equivalent to two single-prompt evaluations. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/felipemaiapolo/prompt-eval.

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

Advanced LLMs have achieved near-ceiling instruction-following accuracy on benchmarks such as IFEval. However, these impressive scores do not necessarily translate to reliable services in real-world use, where users often vary their phrasing, contextual framing, and task formulations. In this paper, we study nuance-oriented reliability: whether models exhibit consistent competence across cousin prompts that convey analogous user intents but with subtle nuances. To quantify this, we introduce a new metric, reliable@k, and develop an automated pipeline that generates high-quality cousin prompts via data augmentation. Building upon this, we construct IFEval++ for systematic evaluation. Across 20 proprietary and 26 open-source LLMs, we find that current models exhibit substantial insufficiency in nuance-oriented reliability -- their performance can drop by up to 61.8% with nuanced prompt modifications. What's more, we characterize it and explore three potential improvement recipes. Our findings highlight nuance-oriented reliability as a crucial yet underexplored next step toward more dependable and trustworthy LLM behavior. Our code and benchmark are accessible: https://github.com/jianshuod/IFEval-pp.

Existing works increasingly adopt memory-centric mechanisms to process long contexts in a segment manner, and effective memory management is one of the key capabilities that enables large language models to effectively propagate information across the entire sequence. Therefore, leveraging reward models (RMs) to automatically and reliably evaluate memory quality is critical. In this work, we introduce MemoryRewardBench, the first benchmark to systematically study the ability of RMs to evaluate long-term memory management processes. MemoryRewardBench covers both long-context comprehension and long-form generation tasks, featuring 10 distinct settings with different memory management patterns, with context length ranging from 8K to 128K tokens. Evaluations on 13 cutting-edge RMs indicate a diminishing performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, with newer-generation models consistently outperforming their predecessors regardless of parameter count. We further expose the capabilities and fundamental limitations of current RMs in evaluating LLM memory management across diverse settings.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, the need for up-to-date and well-organized benchmarks becomes increasingly critical. However, many existing datasets are scattered, difficult to manage, and make it challenging to perform evaluations tailored to specific needs or domains, despite the growing importance of domain-specific models in areas such as math or code. In this paper, we introduce BenchHub, a dynamic benchmark repository that empowers researchers and developers to evaluate LLMs more effectively. BenchHub aggregates and automatically classifies benchmark datasets from diverse domains, integrating 303K questions across 38 benchmarks. It is designed to support continuous updates and scalable data management, enabling flexible and customizable evaluation tailored to various domains or use cases. Through extensive experiments with various LLM families, we demonstrate that model performance varies significantly across domain-specific subsets, emphasizing the importance of domain-aware benchmarking. We believe BenchHub can encourage better dataset reuse, more transparent model comparisons, and easier identification of underrepresented areas in existing benchmarks, offering a critical infrastructure for advancing LLM evaluation research.

Noise plagues many numerical datasets, where the recorded values in the data may fail to match the true underlying values due to reasons including: erroneous sensors, data entry/processing mistakes, or imperfect human estimates. We consider general regression settings with covariates and a potentially corrupted response whose observed values may contain errors. By accounting for various uncertainties, we introduced veracity scores that distinguish between genuine errors and natural data fluctuations, conditioned on the available covariate information in the dataset. We propose a simple yet efficient filtering procedure for eliminating potential errors, and establish theoretical guarantees for our method. We also contribute a new error detection benchmark involving 5 regression datasets with real-world numerical errors (for which the true values are also known). In this benchmark and additional simulation studies, our method identifies incorrect values with better precision/recall than other approaches.

Large Language Models (LLMs) vary in their abilities on a range of tasks. Initiatives such as the Open LLM Leaderboard aim to quantify these differences with several large benchmarks (sets of test items to which an LLM can respond either correctly or incorrectly). However, high correlations within and between benchmark scores suggest that (1) there exists a small set of common underlying abilities that these benchmarks measure, and (2) items tap into redundant information and the benchmarks may thus be considerably compressed. We use data from n > 5000 LLMs to identify the most informative items of six benchmarks, ARC, GSM8K, HellaSwag, MMLU, TruthfulQA and WinoGrande (with d=28,632 items in total). From them we distill a sparse benchmark, metabench, that has less than 3% of the original size of all six benchmarks combined. This new sparse benchmark goes beyond point scores by yielding estimators of the underlying benchmark-specific abilities. We show that these estimators (1) can be used to reconstruct each original individual benchmark score with, on average, 1.5% root mean square error (RMSE), (2) reconstruct the original total score with 0.8% RMSE, and (3) have a single underlying common factor whose Spearman correlation with the total score is r = 0.93.

Click-through rate (CTR) prediction is a critical task for many applications, as its accuracy has a direct impact on user experience and platform revenue. In recent years, CTR prediction has been widely studied in both academia and industry, resulting in a wide variety of CTR prediction models. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of standardized benchmarks and uniform evaluation protocols for CTR prediction research. This leads to non-reproducible or even inconsistent experimental results among existing studies, which largely limits the practical value and potential impact of their research. In this work, we aim to perform open benchmarking for CTR prediction and present a rigorous comparison of different models in a reproducible manner. To this end, we ran over 7,000 experiments for more than 12,000 GPU hours in total to re-evaluate 24 existing models on multiple datasets and settings. Surprisingly, our experiments show that with sufficient hyper-parameter search and model tuning, many deep models have smaller differences than expected. The results also reveal that making real progress on the modeling of CTR prediction is indeed a very challenging research task. We believe that our benchmarking work could not only allow researchers to gauge the effectiveness of new models conveniently but also make them fairly compare with the state of the arts. We have publicly released the benchmarking code, evaluation protocols, and hyper-parameter settings of our work to promote reproducible research in this field.

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

The primary way to establish and compare competencies in foundation and generative AI models has shifted from peer-reviewed literature to press releases and company blog posts, where model builders highlight results on selected benchmarks. These artifacts now largely define the state of the art for researchers and the public. Despite their prominence, which benchmarks model builders choose to highlight, and what they communicate through this selection, is underexamined. To investigate, we introduce and open-source Benchmarking-Cultures-25, a dataset of 231 benchmarks highlighted across 139 model releases in 2025 from 11 major AI builders, alongside an interactive tool to explore the data. Our analysis reveals a fragmented evaluation landscape with limited cross-model comparability: 63.2% of highlighted benchmarks are used by a single builder, and 38.5% appear in just one release. Few achieve widespread use (e.g., GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench, AIME 2025). Moreover, benchmarks are attributed different competencies by different builders, depending on their narrative. To disentangle these conflicting presentations, we develop a unified taxonomy mapping diverging terminology to a shared framework of measured signals based on what benchmark authors claim to measure. "General knowledge application" is the second most popular, yet vaguely defined, category. Qualitative analysis shows many such benchmarks deemphasize construct validity, instead framing results as indicators of progress toward AGI. Their authors claim to measure knowledge or reasoning broadly, yet mostly evaluate STEM subjects (especially math). We argue that highlighted benchmarks function less as standardized measurement tools and more as flexible narrative devices prioritizing market positioning over scientific evaluation. Data: https://hf.co/datasets/matybohacek/benchmarking-cultures-25; tool: https://bench-cultures.net.

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools capable of handling diverse tasks. Comparing and selecting appropriate LLMs for specific tasks requires systematic evaluation methods, as models exhibit varying capabilities across different domains. However, finding suitable benchmarks is difficult given the many available options. This complexity not only increases the risk of benchmark misuse and misinterpretation but also demands substantial effort from LLM users, seeking the most suitable benchmarks for their specific needs. To address these issues, we introduce BenchmarkCards, an intuitive and validated documentation framework that standardizes critical benchmark attributes such as objectives, methodologies, data sources, and limitations. Through user studies involving benchmark creators and users, we show that BenchmarkCards can simplify benchmark selection and enhance transparency, facilitating informed decision-making in evaluating LLMs. Data & Code: https://github.com/SokolAnn/BenchmarkCards

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

Can the rapid advances in code generation, function calling, and data analysis using large language models (LLMs) help automate the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets? To evaluate this question, we present DiscoveryBench, the first comprehensive benchmark that formalizes the multi-step process of data-driven discovery. The benchmark is designed to systematically assess current model capabilities in discovery tasks and provide a useful resource for improving them. Our benchmark contains 264 tasks collected across 6 diverse domains, such as sociology and engineering, by manually deriving discovery workflows from published papers to approximate the real-world challenges faced by researchers, where each task is defined by a dataset, its metadata, and a discovery goal in natural language. We additionally provide 903 synthetic tasks to conduct controlled evaluations across task complexity. Furthermore, our structured formalism of data-driven discovery enables a facet-based evaluation that provides useful insights into different failure modes. We evaluate several popular LLM-based reasoning frameworks using both open and closed LLMs as baselines on DiscoveryBench and find that even the best system scores only 25%. Our benchmark, thus, illustrates the challenges in autonomous data-driven discovery and serves as a valuable resource for the community to make progress.

Lack of rigorous reproducibility and validation are major hurdles for scientific development across many fields. Materials science in particular encompasses a variety of experimental and theoretical approaches that require careful benchmarking. Leaderboard efforts have been developed previously to mitigate these issues. However, a comprehensive comparison and benchmarking on an integrated platform with multiple data modalities with both perfect and defect materials data is still lacking. This work introduces JARVIS-Leaderboard, an open-source and community-driven platform that facilitates benchmarking and enhances reproducibility. The platform allows users to set up benchmarks with custom tasks and enables contributions in the form of dataset, code, and meta-data submissions. We cover the following materials design categories: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Electronic Structure (ES), Force-fields (FF), Quantum Computation (QC) and Experiments (EXP). For AI, we cover several types of input data, including atomic structures, atomistic images, spectra, and text. For ES, we consider multiple ES approaches, software packages, pseudopotentials, materials, and properties, comparing results to experiment. For FF, we compare multiple approaches for material property predictions. For QC, we benchmark Hamiltonian simulations using various quantum algorithms and circuits. Finally, for experiments, we use the inter-laboratory approach to establish benchmarks. There are 1281 contributions to 274 benchmarks using 152 methods with more than 8 million data-points, and the leaderboard is continuously expanding. The JARVIS-Leaderboard is available at the website: https://pages.nist.gov/jarvis_leaderboard

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has shifted time series analysis from narrow analytics to general-purpose reasoning. Yet, existing benchmarks cover only a small set of health time series modalities and tasks, failing to reflect the diverse domains and extensive temporal dependencies inherent in real-world physiological modeling. To bridge these gaps, we introduce HEARTS (Health Reasoning over Time Series), a unified benchmark for evaluating hierarchical reasoning capabilities of LLMs over general health time series. HEARTS integrates 16 real-world datasets across 12 health domains and 20 signal modalities, and defines a comprehensive taxonomy of 110 tasks grouped into four core capabilities: Perception, Inference, Generation, and Deduction. Evaluating 14 state-of-the-art LLMs on more than 20K test samples reveals intriguing findings. First, LLMs substantially underperform specialized models, and their performance is only weakly related to general reasoning scores. Moreover, LLMs often rely on simple heuristics and struggle with multi-step temporal reasoning. Finally, performance declines with increasing temporal complexity, with similar failure modes within model families, indicating that scaling alone is insufficient. By making these gaps measurable, HEARTS provides a standardized testbed and living benchmark for developing next-generation LLM agents capable of reasoning over diverse health signals.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked growing interest in their application to time series analysis tasks. However, their ability to perform complex reasoning over temporal data in real-world application domains remains underexplored. To move toward this goal, a first step is to establish a rigorous benchmark dataset for evaluation. In this work, we introduce the TSAIA Benchmark, a first attempt to evaluate LLMs as time-series AI assistants. To ensure both scientific rigor and practical relevance, we surveyed over 20 academic publications and identified 33 real-world task formulations. The benchmark encompasses a broad spectrum of challenges, ranging from constraint-aware forecasting to anomaly detection with threshold calibration: tasks that require compositional reasoning and multi-step time series analysis. The question generator is designed to be dynamic and extensible, supporting continuous expansion as new datasets or task types are introduced. Given the heterogeneous nature of the tasks, we adopt task-specific success criteria and tailored inference-quality metrics to ensure meaningful evaluation for each task. We apply this benchmark to assess eight state-of-the-art LLMs under a unified evaluation protocol. Our analysis reveals limitations in current models' ability to assemble complex time series analysis workflows, underscoring the need for specialized methodologies for domain-specific adaptation. Our benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Melady/TSAIA, and the code is available at https://github.com/USC-Melady/TSAIA.

A Mamba state-space model trained only for next-step prediction appears to recover Granger-causal structure through a simple readout S = |W_{out} W_{in}|, with early experiments suggesting the phenomenon generalized across architectures and benefited from interventional data at p < 10^{-5}. We package the protocol used to test that claim -- standardized synthetic generators (VAR/Lorenz/CauseMe-style), three intervention semantics (do(X=c), soft-noise, random-forcing), edge-provenance cards on three real datasets, and size-matched control arms -- as a reusable falsification benchmark, and walk the claim through it in five stages. The method-level claim does not survive: (i) a plain linear bottleneck does as well or better; (ii) tuned Lasso beats the bottleneck on synthetic CauseMe-style benchmarks, and on Lorenz-96 (the only real benchmark with unambiguous ground truth) classical PCMCI and Granger lead a tight cluster in which the bottleneck trails; (iii) the headline intervention advantage is roughly 60% a sample-size confound, and the residual disappears under standard do(X=c) interventions, surviving only under a non-standard random-forcing scheme; (iv) even that residual reproduces, with a larger effect, in classical bivariate Granger -- the effect is method-agnostic. What survives is a narrow characterization result; the benchmark is the lasting artifact, and each stage above is one of its control arms.

Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass.

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.

Evaluating the real-world applicability of large language models (LLMs) provides valuable insights for their development and use in software development tasks. Existing benchmarks often focus on standalone coding problems or specific libraries, overlooking multi-file, project-based scenarios and lacking a rigorous evaluation of consistency. The HackerRank-ASTRA Benchmark introduces project-based coding problems that mirror real-world scenarios. It evaluates model consistency through 32 runs (k = 32) and median standard deviation while incorporating taxonomy-level analysis to assess sub-skill capabilities. Initial evaluations on 65 problems show that the top three models -- o1, o1-preview, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet-1022 -- achieved comparable average scores of 75%, with no statistically significant differences in performance. Notably, Claude-3.5-Sonnet-1022 demonstrated the highest consistency across problems, with low variability (SD = 0.0497), which was statistically significant compared to other models, highlighting its reliability for real-world software development tasks.

Evaluating the quality of synthetic data remains a key challenge for ensuring privacy and utility in data-driven research. In this work, we present an evaluation framework that quantifies how well synthetic data replicates original distributional properties while ensuring privacy. The proposed approach employs a holdout-based benchmarking strategy that facilitates quantitative assessment through low- and high-dimensional distribution comparisons, embedding-based similarity measures, and nearest-neighbor distance metrics. The framework supports various data types and structures, including sequential and contextual information, and enables interpretable quality diagnostics through a set of standardized metrics. These contributions aim to support reproducibility and methodological consistency in benchmarking of synthetic data generation techniques. The code of the framework is available at https://github.com/mostly-ai/mostlyai-qa.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLM) capable of processing extremely long texts highlight the need for a dedicated evaluation benchmark to assess their long-context capabilities. However, existing methods, like the needle-in-a-haystack test, do not effectively assess whether these models fully utilize contextual information, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation techniques. To thoroughly examine the effectiveness of existing benchmarks, we introduce a new metric called information coverage (IC), which quantifies the proportion of the input context necessary for answering queries. Our findings indicate that current benchmarks exhibit low IC; although the input context may be extensive, the actual usable context is often limited. To address this, we present ETHIC, a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' ability to leverage the entire context. Our benchmark comprises 2,648 test instances spanning four long-context tasks with high IC scores in the domains of books, debates, medicine, and law. Our evaluations reveal significant performance drops in contemporary LLMs, highlighting a critical challenge in managing long contexts. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/ETHIC.

Machine unlearning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is required for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), yet current evaluation practices are inconsistent. We present the first systematic study of metric reliability in multimodal unlearning. Five standard metrics, Forget Accuracy (FA), Retain Accuracy (RA), Membership Inference Attack (MIA), Activation Distance (AD), and JS divergence (JS), yield conflicting method rankings across three VQA benchmarks (MLLMU-Bench, UnLOK-VQA, MMUBench). Kendall tau analysis over 36 unlearned LLaVA-1.5-7B models reveals two opposing clusters, {FA, RA, MIA} and {AD, JS}, with tau_FA_AD = -0.26, reproduced on BLIP-2 OPT-2.7B. Agreement is lower in multimodal VQA (average tau = 0.086) than in unimodal classification (average tau = 0.158; difference = 0.072), indicating that dual image-and-text pathways amplify inconsistency. We introduce the Unified Quality Score (UQS), a composite metric with weights derived from each metric's Spearman correlation with the oracle distance d(M_hat, M_star), where M_star is the oracle model retrained only on the retain set. RA shows the strongest reliability (rho = 0.484, p = 0.003), while FA is negatively correlated (rho = -0.418, p = 0.011). UQS yields stable rankings under 100 random weight perturbations (tau = 0.647 +- 0.262). We release the benchmark, 36 checkpoints, and an interactive leaderboard. Code and pre-computed results are available at https://github.com/neurips26/UnifiedUnl.

The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) via benchmarks is widespread, yet inconsistencies between different leaderboards and poor separability among top models raise concerns about their ability to accurately reflect authentic model capabilities. This paper provides a critical analysis of benchmark effectiveness, examining main-stream prominent LLM benchmarks using results from diverse models. We first propose a new framework for accurate and reliable estimations of item characteristics and model abilities. Specifically, we propose Pseudo-Siamese Network for Item Response Theory (PSN-IRT), an enhanced Item Response Theory framework that incorporates a rich set of item parameters within an IRT-grounded architecture. Based on PSN-IRT, we conduct extensive analysis which reveals significant and varied shortcomings in the measurement quality of current benchmarks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that leveraging PSN-IRT is able to construct smaller benchmarks while maintaining stronger alignment with human preference.

This study presents a novel benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) using challenges derived from the Financial Modeling World Cup (FMWC) Excel competitions. We introduce a methodology for converting 113 existing FMWC challenges into programmatically evaluable JSON formats and use this dataset to compare the performance of several leading LLMs. Our findings demonstrate significant variations in performance across different challenge categories, with models showing specific strengths in pattern recognition tasks but struggling with complex numerical reasoning. The benchmark provides a standardized framework for assessing LLM capabilities in realistic business-oriented tasks rather than abstract academic problems. This research contributes to the growing field of AI benchmarking by establishing proficiency among the 1.5 billion people who daily use Microsoft Excel as a meaningful evaluation metric that bridges the gap between academic AI benchmarks and practical business applications.

The fast-growing demands in using Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle complex multi-step data science tasks create an emergent need for accurate benchmarking. There are two major gaps in existing benchmarks: (i) the lack of standardized, process-aware evaluation that captures instruction adherence and process fidelity, and (ii) the scarcity of accurately labeled training data. To bridge these gaps, we introduce DARE-bench, a benchmark designed for machine learning modeling and data science instruction following. Unlike many existing benchmarks that rely on human- or model-based judges, all tasks in DARE-bench have verifiable ground truth, ensuring objective and reproducible evaluation. To cover a broad range of tasks and support agentic tools, DARE-bench consists of 6,300 Kaggle-derived tasks and provides both large-scale training data and evaluation sets. Extensive evaluations show that even highly capable models such as gpt-o4-mini struggle to achieve good performance, especially in machine learning modeling tasks. Using DARE-bench training tasks for fine-tuning can substantially improve model performance. For example, supervised fine-tuning boosts Qwen3-32B's accuracy by 1.83x and reinforcement learning boosts Qwen3-4B's accuracy by more than 8x. These significant improvements verify the importance of DARE-bench both as an accurate evaluation benchmark and critical training data.

The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on the computational aspect of this task, testing agents' ability to reproduce or replicate research outcomes when having access to the code and data. This setting, while foundational, (1) fails to capture the inconsistent availability of new data for replication as opposed to reproduction, and (2) lacks ground-truth diversity by focusing only on reproducible papers, thereby failing to evaluate an agent's ability to identify non-replicable research. Furthermore, most benchmarks only evaluate outcomes rather than the replication process. In response, we introduce ReplicatorBench, an end-to-end benchmark, including human-verified replicable and non-replicable research claims in social and behavioral sciences for evaluating AI agents in research replication across three stages: (1) extraction and retrieval of replication data; (2) design and execution of computational experiments; and (3) interpretation of results, allowing a test of AI agents' capability to mimic the activities of human replicators in real world. To set a baseline of AI agents' capability, we develop ReplicatorAgent, an agentic framework equipped with necessary tools, like web search and iterative interaction with sandboxed environments, to accomplish tasks in ReplicatorBench. We evaluate ReplicatorAgent across four underlying large language models (LLMs), as well as different design choices of programming language and levels of code access. Our findings reveal that while current LLM agents are capable of effectively designing and executing computational experiments, they struggle with retrieving resources, such as new data, necessary to replicate a claim. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety' and 'robustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

Forecasting has become a natural benchmark for reasoning under uncertainty. Yet existing evaluations of large language models remain limited to judgmental tasks in simple formats, such as binary or multiple-choice questions. In practice, however, forecasting spans a far broader scope. Across domains such as economics, public health, and social demographics, decisions hinge on numerical estimates over continuous quantities, a capability that current benchmarks do not capture. Evaluating such estimates requires a format that makes uncertainty explicit and testable. We propose prediction intervals as a natural and rigorous interface for this purpose. They demand scale awareness, internal consistency across confidence levels, and calibration over a continuum of outcomes, making them a more suitable evaluation format than point estimates for numerical forecasting. To assess this capability, we introduce a new benchmark QuantSightBench, and evaluate frontier models under multiple settings, assessing both empirical coverage and interval sharpness. Our results show that none of the 11 evaluated frontier and open-weight models achieves the 90\% coverage target, with the top performers Gemini 3.1 Pro (79.1\%), Grok 4 (76.4\%), and GPT-5.4 (75.3\%) all falling at least 10 percentage points short. Calibration degrades sharply at extreme magnitudes, revealing systematic overconfidence across all evaluated models.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation allows to enhance Large Language Models with external knowledge. In response to the recent popularity of generative LLMs, many RAG approaches have been proposed, which involve an intricate number of different configurations such as evaluation datasets, collections, metrics, retrievers, and LLMs. Inconsistent benchmarking poses a major challenge in comparing approaches and understanding the impact of each component in the pipeline. In this work, we study best practices that lay the groundwork for a systematic evaluation of RAG and present BERGEN, an end-to-end library for reproducible research standardizing RAG experiments. In an extensive study focusing on QA, we benchmark different state-of-the-art retrievers, rerankers, and LLMs. Additionally, we analyze existing RAG metrics and datasets. Our open-source library BERGEN is available under https://github.com/naver/bergen.

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

We introduce AInsteinBench, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating whether large language model (LLM) agents can operate as scientific computing development agents within real research software ecosystems. Unlike existing scientific reasoning benchmarks which focus on conceptual knowledge, or software engineering benchmarks that emphasize generic feature implementation and issue resolving, AInsteinBench evaluates models in end-to-end scientific development settings grounded in production-grade scientific repositories. The benchmark consists of tasks derived from maintainer-authored pull requests across six widely used scientific codebases, spanning quantum chemistry, quantum computing, molecular dynamics, numerical relativity, fluid dynamics, and cheminformatics. All benchmark tasks are carefully curated through multi-stage filtering and expert review to ensure scientific challenge, adequate test coverage, and well-calibrated difficulty. By leveraging evaluation in executable environments, scientifically meaningful failure modes, and test-driven verification, AInsteinBench measures a model's ability to move beyond surface-level code generation toward the core competencies required for computational scientific research.

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

Event sequences, characterized by irregular sampling intervals and a mix of categorical and numerical features, are common data structures in various real-world domains such as healthcare, finance, and user interaction logs. Despite advances in temporal data modeling techniques, there is no standardized benchmarks for evaluating their performance on event sequences. This complicates result comparison across different papers due to varying evaluation protocols, potentially misleading progress in this field. We introduce EBES, a comprehensive benchmarking tool with standardized evaluation scenarios and protocols, focusing on regression and classification problems with sequence-level targets. Our library simplifies benchmarking, dataset addition, and method integration through a unified interface. It includes a novel synthetic dataset and provides preprocessed real-world datasets, including the largest publicly available banking dataset. Our results provide an in-depth analysis of datasets, identifying some as unsuitable for model comparison. We investigate the importance of modeling temporal and sequential components, as well as the robustness and scaling properties of the models. These findings highlight potential directions for future research. Our benchmark aim is to facilitate reproducible research, expediting progress and increasing real-world impacts.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on clinical text understanding, they struggle with longitudinal prediction tasks such as dementia prognosis, which require reasoning over complex, non-monotonic symptom trajectories across multiple visits. Standard supervised training lacks explicit annotations for symptom evolution, while direct Reinforcement Learning (RL) is hindered by sparse binary rewards. To address this challenge, we introduce Dementia-R1, an RL-based framework for longitudinal dementia prognosis from unstructured clinical notes. Our approach adopts a Cold-Start RL strategy that pre-trains the model to predict verifiable clinical indices extracted from patient histories, enhancing the capability to reason about disease progression before determining the final clinical status. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Dementia-R1 achieves an F1 score of 77.03% on real-world unstructured clinical datasets. Notably, on the ADNI benchmark, our 7B model rivals GPT-4o, effectively capturing fluctuating cognitive trajectories. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/dementiar1-CDB5

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust evaluation methodologies. Current benchmarking approaches often rely on comparing model outputs against predefined prompts and reference outputs. Relying on predefined reference outputs hinders flexible adaptation of benchmarks to the rapidly evolving capabilities of LLMs. This limitation necessitates periodic efforts to prepare new benchmarks. To keep pace with rapidly evolving LLM capabilities, we propose a more flexible benchmarking approach. Our method, \textbf{Varco Arena}, provides reference-free benchmarking of LLMs in tournament style. \textbf{Varco Arena} directly compares LLM outputs across a diverse set of prompts, determining model rankings through a single-elimination tournament structure. This direct pairwise comparison offers two key advantages: (1) Direct comparison, unmediated by reference text, more effectively orders competing LLMs, resulting in more reliable rankings, and (2) reference-free approach to benchmarking adds flexibility in updating benchmark prompts by eliminating the need for quality references. Our empirical results, supported by simulation experiments, demonstrate that the \textbf{Varco Arena} tournament approach aligns better with the current Elo model for benchmarking LLMs. The alignment is measured in terms of Spearman correlation, showing improvement over current practice of benchmarking that use reference outputs as comparison anchors.

Current long-context benchmarks primarily focus on retrieval-based tests, requiring Large Language Models (LLMs) to locate specific information within extensive input contexts, such as the needle-in-a-haystack (NIAH) benchmark. Long-context generation refers to the ability of a language model to generate coherent and contextually accurate text that spans across lengthy passages or documents. While recent studies show strong performance on NIAH and other retrieval-based long-context benchmarks, there is a significant lack of benchmarks for evaluating long-context generation capabilities. To bridge this gap and offer a comprehensive assessment, we introduce a synthetic benchmark, LongGenBench, which allows for flexible configurations of customized generation context lengths. LongGenBench advances beyond traditional benchmarks by redesigning the format of questions and necessitating that LLMs respond with a single, cohesive long-context answer. Upon extensive evaluation using LongGenBench, we observe that: (1) both API accessed and open source models exhibit performance degradation in long-context generation scenarios, ranging from 1.2% to 47.1%; (2) different series of LLMs exhibit varying trends of performance degradation, with the Gemini-1.5-Flash model showing the least degradation among API accessed models, and the Qwen2 series exhibiting the least degradation in LongGenBench among open source models.

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

Despite widespread deployment of Large Language Models, systematic evaluation of instruction-following capabilities remains challenging. While comprehensive benchmarks exist, focused assessments that quickly diagnose specific instruction adherence patterns are valuable. As newer models may be trained on existing benchmarks, novel evaluation approaches are needed to assess genuine capabilities rather than memorized performance. This paper presents a streamlined evaluation framework using twenty carefully designed prompts to assess LLM instruction-following across diverse task categories. We demonstrate this framework through a large-scale empirical study conducted on October 14, 2025, testing 256 verified working models from 331 available via OpenRouter. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent selection bias, we first verified each model's basic functionality before inclusion. Unlike large-scale benchmarks requiring extensive computational resources, our approach offers a practical diagnostic tool researchers and practitioners can readily apply. Our methodology builds upon verifiable instructions while introducing a compact test suite balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Each prompt targets distinct aspects of instruction following, including format compliance, content constraints, logical sequencing, and multi-step task execution. We evaluate models from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral) and emerging implementations (Qwen, DeepSeek, community models), providing comparative performance analysis. Our findings reveal consistent failure modes and identify specific instruction types posing particular challenges. This work contributes both a practical evaluation tool and one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of instruction-following capabilities across the contemporary LLM landscape.

As large language models (LLMs) become primary sources of health information for millions, their accuracy in women's health remains critically unexamined. We introduce the Women's Health Benchmark (WHB), the first benchmark evaluating LLM performance specifically in women's health. Our benchmark comprises 96 rigorously validated model stumps covering five medical specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, primary care, oncology, and neurology), three query types (patient query, clinician query, and evidence/policy query), and eight error types (dosage/medication errors, missing critical information, outdated guidelines/treatment recommendations, incorrect treatment advice, incorrect factual information, missing/incorrect differential diagnosis, missed urgency, and inappropriate recommendations). We evaluated 13 state-of-the-art LLMs and revealed alarming gaps: current models show approximately 60\% failure rates on the women's health benchmark, with performance varying dramatically across specialties and error types. Notably, models universally struggle with "missed urgency" indicators, while newer models like GPT-5 show significant improvements in avoiding inappropriate recommendations. Our findings underscore that AI chatbots are not yet fully able of providing reliable advice in women's health.

Evaluation is critical for assessing capabilities, tracking scientific progress, and informing model selection. In this paper, we present three desiderata for a good benchmark for language models: (i) salience (e.g., knowledge about World War II is more salient than a random day in history), (ii) novelty (i.e., the benchmark reveals new trends in model rankings not shown by previous benchmarks), and (iii) difficulty (i.e., the benchmark should be difficult for existing models, leaving headroom for future improvement). We operationalize these three desiderata and cast benchmark creation as a search problem, that of finding benchmarks that that satisfy all three desiderata. To tackle this search problem, we present AutoBencher, which uses a language model to automatically search for datasets that meet the three desiderata. AutoBencher uses privileged information (e.g. relevant documents) to construct reliable datasets, and adaptivity with reranking to optimize for the search objective. We use AutoBencher to create datasets for math, multilingual, and knowledge-intensive question answering. The scalability of AutoBencher allows it to test fine-grained categories and tail knowledge, creating datasets that are on average 27% more novel and 22% more difficult than existing benchmarks. A closer investigation of our constructed datasets shows that we can identify specific gaps in LM knowledge in language models that are not captured by existing benchmarks, such as Gemini Pro performing much worse on question answering about the Permian Extinction and Fordism, while OpenAGI-7B performing surprisingly well on QA about COVID-19.

We introduce EQ-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate aspects of emotional intelligence in Large Language Models (LLMs). We assess the ability of LLMs to understand complex emotions and social interactions by asking them to predict the intensity of emotional states of characters in a dialogue. The benchmark is able to discriminate effectively between a wide range of models. We find that EQ-Bench correlates strongly with comprehensive multi-domain benchmarks like MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2020) (r=0.97), indicating that we may be capturing similar aspects of broad intelligence. Our benchmark produces highly repeatable results using a set of 60 English-language questions. We also provide open-source code for an automated benchmarking pipeline at https://github.com/EQ-bench/EQ-Bench and a leaderboard at https://eqbench.com

Large language models~(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs in different aspects. Despite that a number of high-quality benchmarks have been released, the concerns about the appropriate use of these benchmarks and the fair comparison of different models are increasingly growing. Considering these concerns, in this paper, we discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results. Specially, we focus on a special issue that would lead to inappropriate evaluation, \ie benchmark leakage, referring that the data related to evaluation sets is occasionally used for model training. This phenomenon now becomes more common since pre-training data is often prepared ahead of model test. We conduct extensive experiments to study the effect of benchmark leverage, and find that it can dramatically boost the evaluation results, which would finally lead to an unreliable assessment of model performance. To improve the use of existing evaluation benchmarks, we finally present several guidelines for both LLM developers and benchmark maintainers. We hope this work can draw attention to appropriate training and evaluation of LLMs.

Evaluating AI agents within complex, interactive environments that mirror real-world challenges is critical for understanding their practical capabilities. While existing agent benchmarks effectively assess skills like tool use or performance on structured tasks, they often do not fully capture an agent's ability to operate autonomously in exploratory environments that demand sustained, self-directed reasoning over a long and growing context. To spur the development of agents capable of more robust intrinsic reasoning over long horizons, we introduce TextQuests, a benchmark based on the Infocom suite of interactive fiction games. These text-based adventures, which can take human players over 30 hours and require hundreds of precise actions to solve, serve as an effective proxy for evaluating AI agents on focused, stateful tasks. The benchmark is specifically designed to assess an LLM agent's capacity for self-contained problem-solving by precluding the use of external tools, thereby focusing on intrinsic long-context reasoning capabilities in an exploratory environment characterized by the need for trial-and-error learning and sustained problem-solving within a single interactive session. We release TextQuests at https://textquests.ai.

Time series forecasting is critical across finance, healthcare, and cloud computing, yet progress is constrained by a fundamental bottleneck: the scarcity of large-scale, high-quality benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce QuitoBench, a regime-balanced benchmark for time series forecasting with coverage across eight trendtimesseasonalitytimesforecastability (TSF) regimes, designed to capture forecasting-relevant properties rather than application-defined domain labels. The benchmark is built upon Quito, a billion-scale time series corpus of application traffic from Alipay spanning nine business domains. Benchmarking 10 models from deep learning, foundation models, and statistical baselines across 232,200 evaluation instances, we report four key findings: (i) a context-length crossover where deep learning models lead at short context (L=96) but foundation models dominate at long context (L ge 576); (ii) forecastability is the dominant difficulty driver, producing a 3.64 times MAE gap across regimes; (iii) deep learning models match or surpass foundation models at 59 times fewer parameters; and (iv) scaling the amount of training data provides substantially greater benefit than scaling model size for both model families. These findings are validated by strong cross-benchmark and cross-metric consistency. Our open-source release enables reproducible, regime-aware evaluation for time series forecasting research.

Observational studies can yield clinically actionable evidence at scale, but executing them on real-world databases is open-ended and requires coherent decisions across cohort construction, analysis, and reporting. Prior evaluations of LLM agents emphasize isolated steps or single answers, missing the integrity and internal structure of the resulting evidence bundle. To address this gap, we introduce RWE-bench, a benchmark grounded in MIMIC-IV and derived from peer-reviewed observational studies. Each task provides the corresponding study protocol as the reference standard, requiring agents to execute experiments in a real database and iteratively generate tree-structured evidence bundles. We evaluate six LLMs (three open-source, three closed-source) under three agent scaffolds using both question-level correctness and end-to-end task metrics. Across 162 tasks, task success is low: the best agent reaches 39.9%, and the best open-source model reaches 30.4%. Agent scaffolds also matter substantially, causing over 30% variation in performance metrics. Furthermore, we implement an automated cohort evaluation method to rapidly localize errors and identify agent failure modes. Overall, the results highlight persistent limitations in agents' ability to produce end-to-end evidence bundles, and efficient validation remains an important direction for future work. Code and data are available at https://github.com/somewordstoolate/RWE-bench.

The Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) has become a standard evaluation platform for text embedding models. While previous work has established the core benchmark methodology, this paper focuses on the engineering aspects that ensure MTEB's continued reproducibility and extensibility. We present our approach to maintaining robust continuous integration pipelines that validate dataset integrity, automate test execution, and assess benchmark results' generalizability. We detail the design choices that collectively enhance reproducibility and usability. Furthermore, we discuss our strategies for handling community contributions and extending the benchmark with new tasks and datasets. These engineering practices have been instrumental in scaling MTEB to become more comprehensive while maintaining quality and, ultimately, relevance to the field. Our experiences offer valuable insights for benchmark maintainers facing similar challenges in ensuring reproducibility and usability in machine learning evaluation frameworks. The MTEB repository is available at: https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/mteb

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

As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks times 5 runs), we find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy: Claude achieves the lowest variance (CV: 15.2\%) and highest accuracy (58\%), GPT-5 is intermediate (CV: 32.2\%, accuracy: 32\%), and Llama shows the highest variance (CV: 47.0\%) with lowest accuracy (4\%). However, within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations. Our analysis reveals a critical nuance: consistency amplifies outcomes rather than guaranteeing correctness. 71\% of Claude's failures stem from "consistent wrong interpretation": making the same incorrect assumption across all runs. Interestingly, GPT-5 achieves similar early strategic agreement as Claude (diverging at step 3.4 vs.\ 3.2) but exhibits 2.1times higher variance, suggesting that divergence timing alone does not determine consistency. These findings suggest that for production deployment, interpretation accuracy matters more than execution consistency, with implications for agent evaluation and training.

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant paradigm for grading model outputs at scale, yet the same model assigns systematically different scores when its output format changes (e.g., a 1-5 rating vs. a True/False label). Existing diagnoses of these format-induced inconsistencies stop at the input-output level. Using Position-aware Edge Attribution Patching (PEAP), we causally investigate the internal mechanism in Gemma-3, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3. We find that judgments across structured understanding and open-ended preference tasks share a sparse, generalized Latent Evaluator sub-graph in the mid-to-late multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs); zero-ablating it collapses judgment while preserving world knowledge in architecturally modular models. By structurally decoupling abstract judging from output formatting, we provide a mechanistic account of format-induced inconsistency on the open-weight models we study: a continuous judgment signal computed in the shared trunk is mapped through fragile, format-specific terminal branches, enabling format-independent preference to be isolated downstream of the requested output format. Our findings imply that benchmark-level reliability comparisons across formats are partially measuring formatter geometry rather than evaluation quality.

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

Quality benchmarks are essential for fairly and accurately tracking scientific progress and enabling practitioners to make informed methodological choices. Outlier detection (OD) on tabular data underpins numerous real-world applications, yet existing OD benchmarks remain limited. The prominent OD benchmark AdBench is the de facto standard in the literature, yet comprises only 57 datasets. In addition to other shortcomings discussed in this work, its small scale severely restricts diversity and statistical power. We introduce MacrOData, a large-scale benchmark suite for tabular OD comprising three carefully curated components: OddBench, with 790 datasets containing real-world semantic anomalies; OvrBench, with 856 datasets featuring real-world statistical outliers; and SynBench, with 800 synthetically generated datasets spanning diverse data priors and outlier archetypes. Owing to its scale and diversity, MacrOData enables comprehensive and statistically robust evaluation of tabular OD methods. Our benchmarks further satisfy several key desiderata: We provide standardized train/test splits for all datasets, public/private benchmark partitions with held-out test labels for the latter reserved toward an online leaderboard, and annotate our datasets with semantic metadata. We conduct extensive experiments across all benchmarks, evaluating a broad range of OD methods comprising classical, deep, and foundation models, over diverse hyperparameter configurations. We report detailed empirical findings, practical guidelines, as well as individual performances as references for future research. All benchmarks containing 2,446 datasets combined are open-sourced, along with a publicly accessible leaderboard hosted at https://huggingface.co/MacrOData-CMU.

Longitudinal analysis has great potential to reveal developmental trajectories and monitor disease progression in medical imaging. This process relies on consistent and robust joint 4D segmentation. Traditional techniques are dependent on the similarity of images over time and the use of subject-specific priors to reduce random variation and improve the robustness and sensitivity of the overall longitudinal analysis. This is however slow and computationally intensive as subject-specific templates need to be rebuilt every time. The focus of this work to accelerate this analysis with the use of deep learning. The proposed approach is based on deep CNNs and incorporates semantic segmentation and provides a longitudinal relationship for the same subject. The proposed approach is based on deep CNNs and incorporates semantic segmentation and provides a longitudinal relationship for the same subject. The state of art using 3D patches as inputs to modified Unet provides results around {0.91 pm 0.5} Dice and using multi-view atlas in CNNs provide around the same results. In this work, different models are explored, each offers better accuracy and fast results while increasing the segmentation quality. These methods are evaluated on 135 scans from the EADC-ADNI Harmonized Hippocampus Protocol. Proposed CNN based segmentation approaches demonstrate how 2D segmentation using prior slices can provide similar results to 3D segmentation while maintaining good continuity in the 3D dimension and improved speed. Just using 2D modified sagittal slices provide us a better Dice and longitudinal analysis for a given subject. For the ADNI dataset, using the simple UNet CNN technique gives us {0.84 pm 0.5} and while using modified CNN techniques on the same input yields {0.89 pm 0.5}. Rate of atrophy and RMS error are calculated for several test cases using various methods and analyzed.

Recent advances in reinforcement learning (RL) have led to substantial improvements in the mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs, as measured by standard benchmarks. Yet these gains often persist even when models are trained with flawed signals, such as random or inverted rewards. This raises a fundamental question: do such improvements reflect genuine reasoning, or are they merely artifacts of overfitting to benchmark-specific patterns? To answer this question, we adopt an evaluation-centric perspective and highlight two critical shortcomings in existing protocols. First, benchmark contamination arises because test problems are publicly available, thereby increasing the risk of data leakage. Second, evaluation fragility results from reliance on single-instance assessments, which are sensitive to stochastic outputs and fail to capture reasoning consistency. These limitations suggest the need for a new evaluation paradigm that can probe reasoning ability beyond memorization and one-off success. As response, we propose VAR-MATH, a symbolic evaluation framework that converts fixed numerical problems into parameterized templates and requires models to solve multiple instantiations of each. This design enforces consistency across structurally equivalent variants, mitigates contamination, and enhances robustness through bootstrapped metrics. We apply VAR-MATH to transform three popular benchmarks, AMC23, AIME24, and AIME25, into their symbolic counterparts, VAR-AMC23, VAR-AIME24, and VAR-AIME25. Experimental results show substantial performance drops for RL-trained models on these variabilized benchmarks, especially for smaller models, with average declines of 47.9\% on AMC23, 58.8\% on AIME24, and 72.9\% on AIME25. These findings indicate that some existing RL methods rely on superficial heuristics and fail to generalize beyond specific numerical forms.

Reward models are critical in techniques like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Inference Scaling Laws, where they guide language model alignment and select optimal responses. Despite their importance, existing reward model benchmarks often evaluate models by asking them to distinguish between responses generated by models of varying power. However, this approach fails to assess reward models on subtle but critical content changes and variations in style, resulting in a low correlation with policy model performance. To this end, we introduce RM-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate reward models based on their sensitivity to subtle content differences and resistance to style biases. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RM-Bench strongly correlates with policy model performance, making it a reliable reference for selecting reward models to align language models effectively. We evaluate nearly 40 reward models on RM-Bench. Our results reveal that even state-of-the-art models achieve an average performance of only 46.6%, which falls short of random-level accuracy (50%) when faced with style bias interference. These findings highlight the significant room for improvement in current reward models. Related code and data are available at https://github.com/THU-KEG/RM-Bench.

Existing benchmarks do not test language agents on their interaction with human users or ability to follow domain-specific rules, both of which are vital for deploying them in real world applications. We propose tau-bench, a benchmark emulating dynamic conversations between a user (simulated by language models) and a language agent provided with domain-specific API tools and policy guidelines. We employ an efficient and faithful evaluation process that compares the database state at the end of a conversation with the annotated goal state. We also propose a new metric (pass^k) to evaluate the reliability of agent behavior over multiple trials. Our experiments show that even state-of-the-art function calling agents (like gpt-4o) succeed on <50% of the tasks, and are quite inconsistent (pass^8 <25% in retail). Our findings point to the need for methods that can improve the ability of agents to act consistently and follow rules reliably.

Frontier language models sometimes recognize that they are being evaluated and adjust their behavior, undermining validity of benchmark results. Yet the field studies it without a shared foundation, conflating properties of the evaluation with properties of the model, and detection with behavioral response. We ground evaluation awareness in social psychology, decomposing it into an environment component (how recognizable the task is) and a model component that separates recognition from propensity to act on it. We operationalize the environment component through eight categorized trigger factors, such as placeholder entities and grading-style output formats, and study recognition and behavior through chain-of-thought monitoring. Across nine frontier models and four benchmarks, recognition rates depend on the specific pairing of model and benchmark rather than on either in isolation. Recognition rarely leads to behavioral change, and when it does, the direction depends on the type of evaluation perceived. Models are also more sensitive to safety than capability evaluations, placing safety benchmark validity at greater risk. To study which factors each model is sensitive to and how they interact, we propose EvalAwareBench, a factor-controlled benchmark of 100 paired safety-capability tasks where each of the eight factors can be independently toggled, varying evaluative signals while holding the underlying request fixed. Through EvalAwareBench, we find that no single factor uniformly affects all models, but stacking factors progressively raises evaluation awareness across all of them. Our framework and EvalAwareBench provide the tools to measure, attribute, and mitigate evaluation awareness, pointing to behavioral consistency under recognition as a promising path forward.

Table Question Answering (TQA) aims at composing an answer to a question based on tabular data. While prior research has shown that TQA models lack robustness, understanding the underlying cause and nature of this issue remains predominantly unclear, posing a significant obstacle to the development of robust TQA systems. In this paper, we formalize three major desiderata for a fine-grained evaluation of robustness of TQA systems. They should (i) answer questions regardless of alterations in table structure, (ii) base their responses on the content of relevant cells rather than on biases, and (iii) demonstrate robust numerical reasoning capabilities. To investigate these aspects, we create and publish a novel TQA evaluation benchmark in English. Our extensive experimental analysis reveals that none of the examined state-of-the-art TQA systems consistently excels in these three aspects. Our benchmark is a crucial instrument for monitoring the behavior of TQA systems and paves the way for the development of robust TQA systems. We release our benchmark publicly.

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

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

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

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.

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

The ``LLM-as-a-judge'' paradigm has become a standard method for evaluating open-ended generation. To address the quadratic scalability costs of pairwise comparisons, popular benchmarks like Arena-Hard and AlpacaEval compare all models against a single anchor. However, despite its widespread use, the impact of anchor selection on the reliability of the results remains largely unexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate the effect of anchor selection by evaluating 22 different anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset. We find that the choice of anchor is critical: a poor anchor can dramatically reduce correlation with human rankings. We identify that common anchor choices (best-performing and worst-performing models) make poor anchors. Because these extreme anchors are consistently better or worse than all other models, they are seldom indicative of the relative ranking of the models. We further quantify the effect size of anchor selection, showing it is comparable to the selection of a judge model. We conclude with actionable recommendations. First, we conduct a power analysis, and compute sufficient benchmark sizes for anchor-based evaluation, finding that standard benchmark sizes are insufficient for pairwise evaluation and fail to distinguish between competitive models reliably. Second, we provide guidelines for selecting informative anchors to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation practices.

We introduce a novel Longitudinal Focused Attention Meditation Electroencephalography (L-FAME) dataset and an accompanying benchmark, designed to foster research into the neural effects of various meditation practices and the evolution of these effects over a six-week training period. The dataset contains EEG recordings and psychological assessments from 74 healthy college participants, collected at two distinct time points: pre-intervention and post-intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three distinct meditation groups: two mantra-based techniques (SA-TA-NA-MA and Hare Krishna) and one Breath Focus practice. Leveraging this unique longitudinal and comparative dataset, we propose a benchmark suite comprising three distinct classification tasks: (1) cognitive state decoding to distinguish between resting and meditation states, (2) fine-grained classification of the specific meditation techniques, and (3) cross-session adaptation to evaluate model generalization across the longitudinal time gap. We provide comprehensive baseline results for these tasks utilizing a range of classical machine learning algorithms and deep learning architectures. The complete dataset, preprocessing pipelines, and benchmark evaluation code will be publicly released, offering a valuable resource and a standardized framework for the development and comparison of new analytical methods in computational meditation research and EEG-based machine learning. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/L-FAME-Dataset-Benchmark/L-FAME

Existing evaluation methods largely rely on clean, static benchmarks, which can overestimate true model performance by failing to capture the noise and variability inherent in real-world user inputs. This is especially true for language models, which can face human-generated text queries containing mistakes, typos, or alternative ways of phrasing the same question. In this work, we introduce a theoretical framework for quantifying model sensitivity to prompt variants, or brittleness, that can enable us to disentangle data-induced difficulty from prompt-related variability. Using this framework, we design a novel evaluation pipeline, Brittlebench, to holistically evaluate the sensitivity of frontier models. We apply semantics-preserving perturbations to a suite of popular benchmarks, and observe model performance to degrade as much as 12%. However, these perturbations do not affect all models equally: even a single perturbation alters the relative ranking of models in 63% of cases, impacting conclusions about comparative model performance. Decomposing the total variance of both state-of-the-art open-weight and commercial models, we find that semantics-preserving input perturbations can account for up to half of the performance variance for a given model. Brittlebench highlights the need for more robust evaluations and models, and allows us to systematically understand model brittleness.

Radiology reports convey detailed clinical observations and capture diagnostic reasoning that evolves over time. However, existing evaluation methods are limited to single-report settings and rely on coarse metrics that fail to capture fine-grained clinical semantics and temporal dependencies. We introduce LUNGUAGE,a benchmark dataset for structured radiology report generation that supports both single-report evaluation and longitudinal patient-level assessment across multiple studies. It contains 1,473 annotated chest X-ray reports, each reviewed by experts, and 80 of them contain longitudinal annotations to capture disease progression and inter-study intervals, also reviewed by experts. Using this benchmark, we develop a two-stage framework that transforms generated reports into fine-grained, schema-aligned structured representations, enabling longitudinal interpretation. We also propose LUNGUAGESCORE, an interpretable metric that compares structured outputs at the entity, relation, and attribute level while modeling temporal consistency across patient timelines. These contributions establish the first benchmark dataset, structuring framework, and evaluation metric for sequential radiology reporting, with empirical results demonstrating that LUNGUAGESCORE effectively supports structured report evaluation. The code is available at: https://github.com/SuperSupermoon/Lunguage

With the growing popularity of deep learning and foundation models for tabular data, the need for standardized and reliable benchmarks is higher than ever. However, current benchmarks are static. Their design is not updated even if flaws are discovered, model versions are updated, or new models are released. To address this, we introduce TabArena, the first continuously maintained living tabular benchmarking system. To launch TabArena, we manually curate a representative collection of datasets and well-implemented models, conduct a large-scale benchmarking study to initialize a public leaderboard, and assemble a team of experienced maintainers. Our results highlight the influence of validation method and ensembling of hyperparameter configurations to benchmark models at their full potential. While gradient-boosted trees are still strong contenders on practical tabular datasets, we observe that deep learning methods have caught up under larger time budgets with ensembling. At the same time, foundation models excel on smaller datasets. Finally, we show that ensembles across models advance the state-of-the-art in tabular machine learning and investigate the contributions of individual models. We launch TabArena with a public leaderboard, reproducible code, and maintenance protocols to create a living benchmark available at https://tabarena.ai.

Evaluating tabular generators remains a challenging problem, as the unique causal structural prior of heterogeneous tabular data does not lend itself to intuitive human inspection. Recent work has introduced structural fidelity as a tabular-specific evaluation dimension to assess whether synthetic data complies with the causal structures of real data. However, existing benchmarks often neglect the interplay between structural fidelity and conventional evaluation dimensions, thus failing to provide a holistic understanding of model performance. Moreover, they are typically limited to toy datasets, as quantifying existing structural fidelity metrics requires access to ground-truth causal structures, which are rarely available for real-world datasets. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework that jointly considers structural fidelity and conventional evaluation dimensions. We introduce a new evaluation metric, global utility, which enables the assessment of structural fidelity even in the absence of ground-truth causal structures. In addition, we present TabStruct, a comprehensive evaluation benchmark offering large-scale quantitative analysis on 13 tabular generators from nine distinct categories, across 29 datasets. Our results demonstrate that global utility provides a task-independent, domain-agnostic lens for tabular generator performance. We release the TabStruct benchmark suite, including all datasets, evaluation pipelines, and raw results. Code is available at https://github.com/SilenceX12138/TabStruct.

Chest Xray imaging is a widely used diagnostic tool in modern medicine, and its high utilization creates substantial workloads for radiologists. To alleviate this burden, vision language models are increasingly applied to automate Chest Xray radiology report generation (CXRRRG), aiming for clinically accurate descriptions while reducing manual effort. Conventional approaches, however, typically rely on single images, failing to capture the longitudinal context necessary for producing clinically faithful comparison statements. Recently, growing attention has been directed toward incorporating longitudinal data into CXR RRG, enabling models to leverage historical studies in ways that mirror radiologists diagnostic workflows. Nevertheless, existing surveys primarily address single image CXRRRG and offer limited guidance for longitudinal settings, leaving researchers without a systematic framework for model design. To address this gap, this survey provides the first comprehensive review of longitudinal radiology report generation (LRRG). Specifically, we examine dataset construction strategies, report generation architectures alongside longitudinally tailored designs, and evaluation protocols encompassing both longitudinal specific measures and widely used benchmarks. We further summarize LRRG methods performance, alongside analyses of different ablation studies, which collectively highlight the critical role of longitudinal information and architectural design choices in improving model performance. Finally, we summarize five major limitations of current research and outline promising directions for future development, aiming to lay a foundation for advancing this emerging field.

Comprehensive evaluations of language models (LM) during both development and deployment phases are necessary because these models possess numerous capabilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning, legal support, or medical diagnostic) as well as safety risks (e.g., racial bias, toxicity, or misinformation). The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of these LMs in practice. Currently, holistic evaluations are costly due to the large volume of benchmark questions, making frequent evaluations impractical. A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark. This approach, unfortunately, often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset. Item response theory (IRT) was designed to address this challenge, providing a reliable measurement by careful controlling for question difficulty. Unfortunately, question difficulty is expensive to estimate. Facing this challenge, we train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost. In addition, we leverage this difficulty predictor to further improve the evaluation efficiency through training a question generator given a difficulty level. This question generator is essential in adaptive testing, where, instead of using a random subset of the benchmark questions, informative questions are adaptively chosen based on the current estimation of LLM performance. Experiments on 22 common natural language benchmarks and 172 LMs show that this approach is more reliable and efficient compared to current common practice.

As the demand for comprehensive evaluations of diverse model capabilities steadily increases, benchmark suites have correspondingly grown significantly in scale. Despite notable advances in redundancy reduction and subset-level performance prediction, a systematic framework that effectively integrates these methods to ensure both prediction accuracy and ranking consistency is still largely elusive. In this paper, we first perform a sample-level analysis of benchmark redundancy and identify several highly similar samples that can be eliminated. Besides, we frame benchmark compression as an optimization problem with the aim of score reconstruction. Building on these, we then propose EssenceBench, a coarse-to-fine framework utilizing an iterative Genetic Algorithm (GA), which takes the advantages of fitness-based subset search and attribution-based sample search. Compared to previous methods, our approach yields superior compression results with lower reconstruction error and markedly higher efficiency. In particular, on the HellaSwag benchmark (10K samples), our method preserves the ranking of all models shifting within 5% using 25x fewer samples, and achieves 95% ranking preservation shifting within 5% using only 200x fewer samples.

Decisions about managing patients on the heart transplant waitlist are currently made by committees of doctors who consider multiple factors, but the process remains largely ad-hoc. With the growing volume of longitudinal patient, donor, and organ data collected by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) since 2018, there is increasing interest in analytical approaches to support clinical decision-making at the time of organ availability. In this study, we benchmark machine learning models that leverage longitudinal waitlist history data for time-dependent, time-to-event modeling of waitlist mortality. We train on 23,807 patient records with 77 variables and evaluate both survival prediction and discrimination at a 1-year horizon. Our best model achieves a C-Index of 0.94 and AUROC of 0.89, significantly outperforming previous models. Key predictors align with known risk factors while also revealing novel associations. Our findings can support urgency assessment and policy refinement in heart transplant decision making.

There have been many benchmarks for evaluating long-context language models (LCLMs), but developers often rely on synthetic tasks like needle-in-a-haystack (NIAH) or arbitrary subsets of tasks. It remains unclear whether they translate to the diverse downstream applications of LCLMs, and the inconsistency further complicates model comparison. We investigate the underlying reasons behind current practices and find that existing benchmarks often provide noisy signals due to low coverage of applications, insufficient lengths, unreliable metrics, and incompatibility with base models. In this work, we present HELMET (How to Evaluate Long-context Models Effectively and Thoroughly), a comprehensive benchmark encompassing seven diverse, application-centric categories. We also address many issues in previous benchmarks by adding controllable lengths up to 128k tokens, model-based evaluation for reliable metrics, and few-shot prompting for robustly evaluating base models. Consequently, we demonstrate that HELMET offers more reliable and consistent rankings of frontier LCLMs. Through a comprehensive study of 51 LCLMs, we find that (1) synthetic tasks like NIAH are not good predictors of downstream performance; (2) the diverse categories in HELMET exhibit distinct trends and low correlation with each other; and (3) while most LCLMs achieve perfect NIAH scores, open-source models significantly lag behind closed ones when the task requires full-context reasoning or following complex instructions -- the gap widens with increased lengths. Finally, we recommend using our RAG tasks for fast model development, as they are easy to run and more predictive of other downstream performance; ultimately, we advocate for a holistic evaluation across diverse tasks.

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.