Daily Papers

Zeroth-order (ZO) fine-tuning is attractive for large language models because it replaces backpropagation with forward objective evaluations. Existing implementations nevertheless execute ZO algorithms inside conventional training loops, even though their dominant work is repeated scoring under nearby parameter states. This creates a workload-runtime mismatch: the algorithm asks for structured inference-style scoring, while the system exposes a sequence of fragmented training-loop steps. We show that LLM ZO fine-tuning is an inference-dominated workload and execute its repeated scoring phase through a serving runtime. On OPT-13B SST-2, the resulting vLLM execution path completes the 20k-step LoZO run in 0.51 estimated training hours versus 4.15 hours for the official LoZO baseline under the matched LoRA-only setting, an 8.13x speedup, while reaching 0.922 final evaluation accuracy and 0.931 final full-validation accuracy. In core-step scaling experiments across OPT-1.3B to OPT-13B, the same runtime reorganization gives 2.34x--7.72x speedups. A MeZO-style high-rank factorized experiment shows that the same runtime paradigm can track a MeZO-like loss trajectory while running up to 2.55x faster. More broadly, representing ZO updates as dynamic adapter states suggests a practical path toward inference-time training, where lightweight adaptation can be scheduled as an inference-like workload rather than as a separate training job.

What a language model internalizes from fine-tuning is usually diagnosed after the fact. We make it an experimental variable. OraclePhys is a systematic fine-tuning framework with three components: OraclePhys-Bench, an exactly-graded structural-mechanics benchmark whose finite-element oracle scores every answer and counterfactual edit -- no human labels, no LLM judging; OraclePhys-30K, a supervision dataset of seven answer forms over byte-identical structure descriptions; and a controlled training study across the seven forms and three verifier roles. The study yields two findings. First, the label's answer form -- not its bit count -- causally determines what fine-tuning teaches: a ranking objective installs an out-of-distribution forward model where the untrained base sits at the guessing prior, a scalar objective at best a partial one, a boolean nothing detectable; the vector-scalar gulf survives a second physics domain, a second model family, and a paraphrased evaluation surface. Second, written or score-filtered answers install this capability, while advantage-weighted scores (GRPO) raise reward yet leave the model statistically equivalent to its start on held-out physics -- within the recipes and budgets tested -- sufficing only for routing. The trained 8B -- the first LLM on spatial structural response -- reaches the task's data-precision frontier: above a frontier LLM at zero- and 32-shot, at a specialist's level. What the label spells out about the target computation is what fine-tuning teaches; what you train on is what you route.

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.

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

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

Evaluation has traditionally focused on ranking candidates for a specific skill. Modern generalist models, such as Large Language Models (LLMs), decidedly outpace this paradigm. Open-ended evaluation systems, where candidate models are compared on user-submitted prompts, have emerged as a popular solution. Despite their many advantages, we show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental, due to their sensitivity to redundancies. To address this issue, we propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy. We show that our method leads to intuitive ratings and provide insights into the competitive landscape of LLM development.

Large language models (LLMs) garner significant attention for their unprecedented performance, leading to an increasing number of researches evaluating LLMs. However, these evaluation benchmarks are limited to assessing the instruction-following capabilities, overlooking the fundamental abilities that emerge during the pre-training stage. Previous subjective evaluation methods mainly reply on scoring by API models. However, in the absence of references, large models have shown limited ability to discern subtle differences. To bridge the gap, we propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. The tasks in F-Eval include multi-choice objective tasks, open-ended objective tasks, reference-based subjective tasks and reference-free subjective tasks. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models. We conduct evaluations on 13 advanced LLMs. Results show that our evaluation methods show higher correlation coefficients and larger distinction than other evaluators. Additionally, we discuss the influence of different model sizes, dimensions, and normalization methods. We anticipate that F-Eval will facilitate the study of LLMs' fundamental abilities.

Empirical evaluation serves as the primary compass guiding research progress in foundation models. Despite a large body of work focused on training frontier vision-language models (VLMs), approaches to their evaluation remain nascent. To guide their maturation, we propose three desiderata that evaluations should satisfy: (1) faithfulness to the modality and application, (2) discriminability between models of varying quality, and (3) efficiency in compute. Through this lens, we identify critical failure modes that violate faithfulness and discriminability, misrepresenting model capabilities: (i) multiple-choice formats reward guessing, poorly reflect downstream use cases, and saturate early as models improve; (ii) blindly solvable questions, which can be answered without images, constitute up to 70% of some evaluations; and (iii) mislabeled or ambiguous samples compromise up to 42% of examples in certain datasets. Regarding efficiency, the computational burden of evaluating frontier models has become prohibitive: by some accounts, nearly 20% of development compute is devoted to evaluation alone. Rather than discarding existing benchmarks, we curate them via transformation and filtering to maximize fidelity and discriminability. We find that converting multiple-choice questions to generative tasks reveals sharp capability drops of up to 35%. In addition, filtering blindly solvable and mislabeled samples improves discriminative power while simultaneously reducing computational cost. We release DatBench-Full, a cleaned evaluation suite of 33 datasets spanning nine VLM capabilities, and DatBench, a discriminative subset that achieves 13x average speedup (up to 50x) while closely matching the discriminative power of the original datasets. Our work outlines a path toward evaluation practices that are both rigorous and sustainable as VLMs continue to scale.

Benchmark contamination has become a significant concern in the LLM evaluation community. Previous Agents-as-an-Evaluator address this issue by involving agents in the generation of questions. Despite their success, the biases in Agents-as-an-Evaluator methods remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a theoretical formulation of evaluation bias, providing valuable insights into designing unbiased evaluation protocols. Furthermore, we identify two type of bias in Agents-as-an-Evaluator through carefully designed probing tasks on a minimal Agents-as-an-Evaluator setup. To address these issues, we propose the Unbiased Evaluator, an evaluation protocol that delivers a more comprehensive, unbiased, and interpretable assessment of LLMs.Extensive experiments reveal significant room for improvement in current LLMs. Additionally, we demonstrate that the Unbiased Evaluator not only offers strong evidence of benchmark contamination but also provides interpretable evaluation results.

If AI models can detect when they are being evaluated, the effectiveness of evaluations might be compromised. For example, models could have systematically different behavior during evaluations, leading to less reliable benchmarks for deployment and governance decisions. We investigate whether frontier language models can accurately classify transcripts based on whether they originate from evaluations or real-world deployment, a capability we call evaluation awareness. To achieve this, we construct a diverse benchmark of 1,000 prompts and transcripts from 61 distinct datasets. These span public benchmarks (e.g., MMLU, SWEBench), real-world deployment interactions, and agent trajectories from scaffolding frameworks (e.g., web-browsing agents). Frontier models clearly demonstrate above-random evaluation awareness (Gemini-2.5-Pro reaches an AUC of 0.83), but do not yet surpass our simple human baseline (AUC of 0.92). Furthermore, both AI models and humans are better at identifying evaluations in agentic settings compared to chat settings. Additionally, we test whether models can identify the purpose of the evaluation. Under multiple-choice and open-ended questioning, AI models far outperform random chance in identifying what an evaluation is testing for. Our results indicate that frontier models already exhibit a substantial, though not yet superhuman, level of evaluation-awareness. We recommend tracking this capability in future models.

The recent emergence of Large Vision-Language Models(VLMs) has resulted in a variety of different benchmarks for evaluating such models. Despite this, we observe that most existing evaluation methods suffer from the fact that they either require the model to choose from pre-determined responses, sacrificing open-endedness, or evaluate responses using a judge model, resulting in subjective and unreliable evaluation. In addition, we observe a lack of benchmarks for VLMs in the Korean language, which are necessary as a separate metric from more common English language benchmarks, as the performance of generative language models can differ significantly based on the language being used. Therefore, we present KOFFVQA, a general-purpose free-form visual question answering benchmark in the Korean language for the evaluation of VLMs. Our benchmark consists of 275 carefully crafted questions each paired with an image and grading criteria covering 10 different aspects of VLM performance. The grading criteria eliminate the problem of unreliability by allowing the judge model to grade each response based on a pre-determined set of rules. By defining the evaluation criteria in an objective manner, even a small open-source model can be used to evaluate models on our benchmark reliably. In addition to evaluating a large number of existing VLMs on our benchmark, we also experimentally verify that our method of using pre-existing grading criteria for evaluation is much more reliable than existing methods. Our evaluation code is available at https://github.com/maum-ai/KOFFVQA

Evaluations are critical for understanding the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Fundamentally, evaluations are experiments; but the literature on evaluations has largely ignored the literature from other sciences on experiment analysis and planning. This article shows researchers with some training in statistics how to think about and analyze data from language model evaluations. Conceptualizing evaluation questions as having been drawn from an unseen super-population, we present formulas for analyzing evaluation data, measuring differences between two models, and planning an evaluation experiment. We make a number of specific recommendations for running language model evaluations and reporting experiment results in a way that minimizes statistical noise and maximizes informativeness.

The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.

Representation engineering methods have recently shown promise for enabling efficient steering of model behavior. However, evaluation pipelines for these methods have primarily relied on subjective demonstrations, instead of quantitative, objective metrics. We aim to take a step towards addressing this issue by advocating for four properties missing from current evaluations: (i) contexts sufficiently similar to downstream tasks should be used for assessing intervention quality; (ii) model likelihoods should be accounted for; (iii) evaluations should allow for standardized comparisons across different target behaviors; and (iv) baseline comparisons should be offered. We introduce an evaluation pipeline grounded in these criteria, offering both a quantitative and visual analysis of how effectively a given method works. We use this pipeline to evaluate two representation engineering methods on how effectively they can steer behaviors such as truthfulness and corrigibility, finding that some interventions are less effective than previously reported.

Language models are increasingly used in scientific discovery to generate hypotheses, propose candidate solutions, implement systems, and iteratively refine them. At the core of these trial-and-error loops lies evaluation: the process of obtaining feedback on candidate solutions via verifiers, simulators, or task-specific scoring functions. While prior work has highlighted the importance of evaluation, it has not explicitly formulated the problem of how evaluation-driven discovery loops can be scaled up in a principled and effective manner to push the boundaries of scientific discovery, a problem this paper seeks to address. We introduce Simple Test-time Evaluation-driven Scaling (SimpleTES), a general framework that strategically combines parallel exploration, feedback-driven refinement, and local selection, revealing substantial gains unlocked by scaling evaluation-driven discovery loops along the right dimensions. Across 21 scientific problems spanning six domains, SimpleTES discovers state-of-the-art solutions using gpt-oss models, consistently outperforming both frontier-model baselines and sophisticated optimization pipelines. Particularly, we sped up the widely used LASSO algorithm by over 2x, designed quantum circuit routing policies that reduce gate overhead by 24.5%, and discovered new Erdos minimum overlap constructions that surpass the best-known results. Beyond novel discoveries, SimpleTES produces trajectory-level histories that naturally supervise feedback-driven learning. When post-trained on successful trajectories, models not only improve efficiency on seen problems but also generalize to unseen problems, discovering solutions that base models fail to uncover. Together, our results establish effective evaluation-driven loop scaling as a central axis for advancing LLM-driven scientific discovery, and provide a simple yet practical framework for realizing these gains.

Large language models have made significant progress in complex but easy-to-verify problems, yet they still struggle with discovering the unknown. In this paper, we present AlphaResearch, an autonomous research agent designed to discover new algorithms on open-ended problems. To synergize the feasibility and innovation of the discovery process, we construct a novel dual research environment by combining the execution-based verify and simulated real-world peer review environment. AlphaResearch discovers new algorithm by iteratively running the following steps: (1) propose new ideas (2) verify the ideas in the dual research environment (3) optimize the research proposals for better performance. To promote a transparent evaluation process, we construct AlphaResearchComp, a new evaluation benchmark that includes an eight open-ended algorithmic problems competition, with each problem carefully curated and verified through executable pipelines, objective metrics, and reproducibility checks. AlphaResearch gets a 2/8 win rate in head-to-head comparison with human researchers, demonstrate the possibility of accelerating algorithm discovery with LLMs. Notably, the algorithm discovered by AlphaResearch on the ``packing circles'' problem achieves the best-of-known performance, surpassing the results of human researchers and strong baselines from recent work (e.g., AlphaEvolve). Additionally, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the remaining challenges of the 6/8 failure cases, providing valuable insights for future research.

We present DeepOpen, a decision-Oriented intent-classification framework with dataset- specific systems for BANKING77 and CLINC150. On BANKING77, a single English classi- fier continued with sharpness-aware minimization (SAM) achieves 94.1234% test accuracy (2,899/3,080). This is the best observed result among three fixed SAM seeds, selected for display after test evaluation; their mean is 94.0368%. On the 150 in-scope CLINC150 classes, probability fusion of one Laya specialist and three DeBERTa-v3-large classifiers achieves 98.0222% (4,411/4,500). We describe the two configurations, reproduce the reference com- parisons displayed in the accompanying evaluation explorer, and separate headline scores from evidence about improvement. Under a uniform BANKING77 evaluation path, the SAM mean exceeds the historical checkpoint by 0.0433 percentage points, with a shared-row 95% interval of [-0.2273, +0.3247]. Thus, the continuation does not establish a reliable accuracy gain. The report documents strong observed task-specific performance, selection effects, and unresolved historical execution-path differences, rather than a new backbone or a unified algorithmic advantage.

In this paper, we explore the problem of Claim Extraction using one-to-many text generation methods, comparing LLMs, small summarization models finetuned for the task, and a previous NER-centric baseline QACG. As the current publications on Claim Extraction, Fact Extraction, Claim Generation and Check-worthy Claim Detection are quite scattered in their means and terminology, we compile their common objectives, releasing the FEVERFact dataset, with 17K atomic factual claims extracted from 4K contextualised Wikipedia sentences, adapted from the original FEVER. We compile the known objectives into an Evaluation framework of: Atomicity, Fluency, Decontextualization, Faithfulness checked for each generated claim separately, and Focus and Coverage measured against the full set of predicted claims for a single input. For each metric, we implement a scale using a reduction to an already-explored NLP task. We validate our metrics against human grading of generic claims, to see that the model ranking on F_{fact}, our hardest metric, did not change and the evaluation framework approximates human grading very closely in terms of F_1 and RMSE.

Information tasks such as writing surveys or analytical reports require complex search and reasoning, and have recently been grouped under the umbrella of deep research -- a term also adopted by recent models targeting these capabilities. Despite growing interest, the scope of the deep research task remains underdefined and its distinction from other reasoning-intensive problems is poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a formal characterization of the deep research (DR) task and introduce a benchmark to evaluate the performance of DR systems. We argue that the core defining feature of deep research is not the production of lengthy report-style outputs, but rather the high fan-out over concepts required during the search process, i.e., broad and reasoning-intensive exploration. To enable objective evaluation, we define DR using an intermediate output representation that encodes key claims uncovered during search-separating the reasoning challenge from surface-level report generation. Based on this formulation, we propose a diverse, challenging benchmark LiveDRBench with 100 challenging tasks over scientific topics (e.g., datasets, materials discovery, prior art search) and public interest events (e.g., flight incidents, movie awards). Across state-of-the-art DR systems, F1 score ranges between 0.02 and 0.72 for any sub-category. OpenAI's model performs the best with an overall F1 score of 0.55. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals the distribution over the number of referenced sources, branching, and backtracking events executed by current DR systems, motivating future directions for improving their search mechanisms and grounding capabilities. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/microsoft/LiveDRBench.

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

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

The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) towards autonomous agents has catalyzed progress in Deep Research. While retrieval capabilities are well-benchmarked, the post-retrieval synthesis stage--where agents must digest massive amounts of context and consolidate fragmented evidence into coherent, long-form reports--remains under-evaluated due to the subjectivity of open-ended writing. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepSynth-Eval, a benchmark designed to objectively evaluate information consolidation capabilities. We leverage high-quality survey papers as gold standards, reverse-engineering research requests and constructing "Oracle Contexts" from their bibliographies to isolate synthesis from retrieval noise. We propose a fine-grained evaluation protocol using General Checklists (for factual coverage) and Constraint Checklists (for structural organization), transforming subjective judgment into verifiable metrics. Experiments across 96 tasks reveal that synthesizing information from hundreds of references remains a significant challenge. Our results demonstrate that agentic plan-and-write workflows significantly outperform single-turn generation, effectively reducing hallucinations and improving adherence to complex structural constraints.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Do research agents have taste, the judgment of which experiments are worth running before their outcomes are known? We give six frontier models seven recent NLP papers. Each model, working as a research agent alone or as a team, proposes minimum viable experiments (MVEs), forecasts whether each will pass a threshold it sets and ranks them. A separate executor then attempts every MVE, including those ranked last, and three model auditors judge the results. Of 415 MVEs, 194 are judged sound, valuable and new, but fewer than half of these (73) are also judged beyond the seed paper and non obvious. The agents' first choices match the auditors' most valued experiment more often than a random pick, but are not shown to improve on choosing the experiment written first. Their forecasts beat a base rate but are not measurably more accurate than those of a fresh instance of the same model given only the paper and registrations. Teams cost more without a clear overall improvement in proposal quality. The agents produce many worthwhile experiments, but the evidence that their rankings improve the choice of which to run remains limited. The evaluation harness and a dataset of all 415 MVEs, with their forecasts and audited outcomes, are available at https://github.com/ArtKanke/rTaste.

Human feedback has become the de facto standard for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models, and is increasingly being used as a training objective. However, it is not clear which properties of a generated output this single `preference' score captures. We hypothesise that preference scores are subjective and open to undesirable biases. We critically analyse the use of human feedback for both training and evaluation, to verify whether it fully captures a range of crucial error criteria. We find that while preference scores have fairly good coverage, they under-represent important aspects like factuality. We further hypothesise that both preference scores and error annotation may be affected by confounders, and leverage instruction-tuned models to generate outputs that vary along two possible confounding dimensions: assertiveness and complexity. We find that the assertiveness of an output skews the perceived rate of factuality errors, indicating that human annotations are not a fully reliable evaluation metric or training objective. Finally, we offer preliminary evidence that using human feedback as a training objective disproportionately increases the assertiveness of model outputs. We encourage future work to carefully consider whether preference scores are well aligned with the desired objective.

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

Large language models in the past have typically relied on some form of reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) to better align model responses with human preferences. However, because of oft-observed instabilities when implementing these RLHF pipelines, various reparameterization techniques have recently been introduced to sidestep the need for separately learning an RL reward model. Instead, directly fine-tuning for human preferences is achieved via the minimization of a single closed-form training objective, a process originally referred to as direct preference optimization (DPO) and followed by several notable descendants. Although effective in certain real-world settings, we introduce new evaluation criteria that serve to highlight unresolved shortcomings in the ability of existing DPO methods to interpolate between a pre-trained reference model and empirical measures of human preferences, as well as unavoidable trade-offs in how low- and high-quality responses are regularized and constraints are handled. Our insights then motivate an alternative DPO-like loss that provably mitigates these limitations. Empirical results serve to corroborate notable aspects of our analyses.

Despite recent advances in text-to-3D generative methods, there is a notable absence of reliable evaluation metrics. Existing metrics usually focus on a single criterion each, such as how well the asset aligned with the input text. These metrics lack the flexibility to generalize to different evaluation criteria and might not align well with human preferences. Conducting user preference studies is an alternative that offers both adaptability and human-aligned results. User studies, however, can be very expensive to scale. This paper presents an automatic, versatile, and human-aligned evaluation metric for text-to-3D generative models. To this end, we first develop a prompt generator using GPT-4V to generate evaluating prompts, which serve as input to compare text-to-3D models. We further design a method instructing GPT-4V to compare two 3D assets according to user-defined criteria. Finally, we use these pairwise comparison results to assign these models Elo ratings. Experimental results suggest our metric strongly align with human preference across different evaluation criteria.

We introduce a variational reasoning framework for language models that treats thinking traces as latent variables and optimizes them through variational inference. Starting from the evidence lower bound (ELBO), we extend it to a multi-trace objective for tighter bounds and propose a forward-KL formulation that stabilizes the training of the variational posterior. We further show that rejection sampling finetuning and binary-reward RL, including GRPO, can be interpreted as local forward-KL objectives, where an implicit weighting by model accuracy naturally arises from the derivation and reveals a previously unnoticed bias toward easier questions. We empirically validate our method on the Qwen 2.5 and Qwen 3 model families across a wide range of reasoning tasks. Overall, our work provides a principled probabilistic perspective that unifies variational inference with RL-style methods and yields stable objectives for improving the reasoning ability of language models. Our code is available at https://github.com/sail-sg/variational-reasoning.

Agentic search, as a more autonomous and adaptive paradigm of retrieval augmentation, is driving the evolution of intelligent search systems. However, existing evaluation frameworks fail to align well with the goals of agentic search. First, the complex queries commonly used in current benchmarks often deviate from realistic user search scenarios. Second, prior approaches tend to introduce noise when extracting ground truth for end-to-end evaluations, leading to distorted assessments at a fine-grained level. Third, most current frameworks focus solely on the quality of final answers, neglecting the evaluation of the iterative process inherent to agentic search. To address these limitations, we propose RAVine -- a Reality-Aligned eValuation framework for agentic LLMs with search. RAVine targets multi-point queries and long-form answers that better reflect user intents, and introduces an attributable ground truth construction strategy to enhance the accuracy of fine-grained evaluation. Moreover, RAVine examines model's interaction with search tools throughout the iterative process, and accounts for factors of efficiency. We benchmark a series of models using RAVine and derive several insights, which we hope will contribute to advancing the development of agentic search systems. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/SwordFaith/RAVine.

Generation, imputation, and prediction query different aspects of the same tabular distribution, but are usually evaluated separately. This leaves unclear which capabilities they share, how their training objectives interact, and whether one model can perform all three well. We introduce the One Table Benchmark (), spanning 56 datasets, 46 registered methods, and 20 capability axes under aligned data splits and explicit task contracts. We compare task ranks on aligned support, train five backbones under all seven non-empty objective combinations on five datasets with three seeds, and contrast fixed-model profiles with specialist portfolios. Rank comparisons connect imputation and prediction through numerical recovery and dependence preservation, and link generation to both through predictive utility; distributional fidelity follows different, sometimes opposing, rankings. Objective interventions show the largest pooled gains from including the recipient's own objective. Generation has the broadest coverage of positive pooled auxiliary effects, while prediction shows potential to improve imputation and synthetic-data utility, with responses that vary across backbones. Cross-addition effects reveal that objective benefits need not add and depend on the objectives already present. Fixed-model comparisons expose corresponding utility--fidelity trade-offs: some generalists surpass specialist portfolios on utility, while fidelity continues to favor specialization. Frozen foundation models show strong prediction and numerical point imputation, together with promising synthetic-data utility, highlighting their potential across all three tasks. These findings motivate unified tabular models that share useful conditional information while improving categorical reconstruction and faithful joint sampling.

Retrieval-augmented agents can query external evidence, yet their reliability in multi-step reasoning remains limited: noisy retrieval may derail multi-hop question answering, while outcome-only reinforcement learning provides credit signals that are too coarse to optimize intermediate steps. We propose EvalAct (Evaluate-as-Action), which converts implicit retrieval quality assessment into an explicit action and enforces a coupled Search-to-Evaluate protocol so that each retrieval is immediately followed by a structured evaluation score, yielding process signals aligned with the interaction trajectory. To leverage these signals, we introduce Process-Calibrated Advantage Rescaling (PCAR), a GRPO-based optimization method that rescales advantages at the segment level according to evaluation scores, emphasizing reliable segments while updating uncertain ones conservatively. Experiments on seven open-domain QA benchmarks show that EvalAct achieves the best average accuracy, with the largest gains on multi-hop tasks, and ablations verify that the explicit evaluation loop drives the primary improvements while PCAR provides consistent additional benefits.

Manual curation of evaluation datasets is struggling to keep up with the rapidly expanding capabilities and deployment scenarios of language models. Towards scalable model profiling, we introduce and validate a framework for evaluating LLMs, called Adaptive Evaluations. Adaptive evaluations use scaffolded language models (evaluator agents) to search through a target model's behavior on a domain dataset and create difficult questions (tasks) that can discover and probe the model's failure modes. We find that frontier models lack consistency when adaptively probed with our framework on a diverse suite of datasets and tasks, including but not limited to legal reasoning, forecasting, and online harassment. Generated questions pass human validity checks and often transfer to other models with different capability profiles, demonstrating that adaptive evaluations can also be used to create difficult domain-specific datasets.

Users of music streaming, video streaming, news recommendation, and e-commerce services often engage with content in a sequential manner. Providing and evaluating good sequences of recommendations is therefore a central problem for these services. Prior reweighting-based counterfactual evaluation methods either suffer from high variance or make strong independence assumptions about rewards. We propose a new counterfactual estimator that allows for sequential interactions in the rewards with lower variance in an asymptotically unbiased manner. Our method uses graphical assumptions about the causal relationships of the slate to reweight the rewards in the logging policy in a way that approximates the expected sum of rewards under the target policy. Extensive experiments in simulation and on a live recommender system show that our approach outperforms existing methods in terms of bias and data efficiency for the sequential track recommendations problem.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

With ChatGPT-like large language models (LLM) prevailing in the community, how to evaluate the ability of LLMs is an open question. Existing evaluation methods suffer from following shortcomings: (1) constrained evaluation abilities, (2) vulnerable benchmarks, (3) unobjective metrics. We suggest that task-based evaluation, where LLM agents complete tasks in a simulated environment, is a one-for-all solution to solve above problems. We present AgentSims, an easy-to-use infrastructure for researchers from all disciplines to test the specific capacities they are interested in. Researchers can build their evaluation tasks by adding agents and buildings on an interactive GUI or deploy and test new support mechanisms, i.e. memory, planning and tool-use systems, by a few lines of codes. Our demo is available at https://agentsims.com .

Both capability and safety benchmarks rest upon the assumption that the behavior of language models undergoing a test is informative about their behavior in deployment. This assumption can fail, should models infer that they are being evaluated and condition their response on such context. This hypothesis, termed ``evaluation awareness'', has been observed in frontier and open-weight language models alike. We provide a systematic study of this phenomenon, by probing for it across six language models (from four families and three sizes) and three metrics. More precisely, we examine whether (i) being under evaluation is linearly represented within the models' activations space, (ii) it is verbalized in their output tokens (as scored by an LLM-as-judge), and (iii) steering causally affects their behavior. For the open-checkpoint Olmo models, we further test these measures at every training stage. In doing so, we report that evaluation awareness is linearly decodable from the residual streams of every model (best AUROC geq 0.7). By contrast, these representations align only in part with verbalization: their correlations and mutual information are nonzero in some settings, yet vary substantially across models, layers, and readout choices. Nevertheless, steering along probe-derived directions can shift the verbalization scores. Finally, a comparison across the Olmo checkpoints reveals that evaluation awareness is already present within base models, becomes amplified throughout the stages of supervised fine-tuning, and remains stable thereafter---unlike the effects of steering, that grow more pronounced at every successive training stage. These results show the need for evaluations to account for the disjunction between what models represent internally, what they verbalize, and their steering.

The goal of this article is to provide an introduction to the desirability function approach to multi-objective optimization (direct and surrogate model-based), and multi-objective hyperparameter tuning. This work is based on the paper by Kuhn (2016). It presents a `Python` implementation of Kuhn's `R` package `desirability`. The `Python` package `spotdesirability` is available as part of the `sequential parameter optimization` framework. After a brief introduction to the desirability function approach is presented, three examples are given that demonstrate how to use the desirability functions for classical optimization, surrogate-model based optimization, and hyperparameter tuning.

LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaaJ) now underpins scalable evaluation, yet we lack a decisive test of a judge's qualification: can it recover a conversation's latent objective and know when that inference is trustworthy? LLMs degrade under irrelevant or long context; multi-turn jailbreaks further hide goals across turns. We introduce ObjexMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition. Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must return a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence. Accuracy is computed via LLM-judge semantic similarity to gold objectives, converted to binary correctness by a single human-aligned threshold calibrated once on N = 100 items (tau^*=0.61). Metacognition is evaluated with ECE, Brier, Wrong-at-High-Conf, and risk-coverage. Across gpt-4.1, claude-sonnet-4, and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 on SafeMTData_Attack600, SafeMTData_1K, MHJ, and CoSafe, claude-sonnet-4 attains the best objective-extraction accuracy (0.515) and calibration (ECE 0.296; Brier 0.324); gpt-4.1 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 tie at 0.441 but are overconfident (mean confidence approx0.88 vs. accuracy approx0.44; Wrong-at-0.90 approx48-52%). Performance varies by dataset (approx0.167-0.865). ObjexMT thus supplies an actionable test for LLM judges: when objectives are not explicit, judges often misinfer them with high confidence. We recommend exposing objectives when feasible and gating decisions by confidence otherwise. Code and data at https://github.com/hyunjun1121/ObjexMT_dataset.

By simply composing prompts, developers can prototype novel generative applications with Large Language Models (LLMs). To refine prototypes into products, however, developers must iteratively revise prompts by evaluating outputs to diagnose weaknesses. Formative interviews (N=8) revealed that developers invest significant effort in manually evaluating outputs as they assess context-specific and subjective criteria. We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail, and improve these based on the evaluator's feedback. A comparative study (N=12) showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions. Beyond prompts, our work can be extended to augment model evaluation and alignment in specific application contexts.

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.

Forming a reliable judgement of a machine learning (ML) model's appropriateness for an application ecosystem is critical for its responsible use, and requires considering a broad range of factors including harms, benefits, and responsibilities. In practice, however, evaluations of ML models frequently focus on only a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. Through an empirical study of papers from recent high-profile conferences in the Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing communities, we demonstrate a general focus on a handful of evaluation methods. By considering the metrics and test data distributions used in these methods, we draw attention to which properties of models are centered in the field, revealing the properties that are frequently neglected or sidelined during evaluation. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts; these include commitments to consequentialism, abstractability from context, the quantifiability of impacts, the limited role of model inputs in evaluation, and the equivalence of different failure modes. Shedding light on these assumptions enables us to question their appropriateness for ML system contexts, pointing the way towards more contextualized evaluation methodologies for robustly examining the trustworthiness of ML models

As Learning-to-Rank (LTR) approaches primarily seek to improve ranking quality, their output scores are not scale-calibrated by design. This fundamentally limits LTR usage in score-sensitive applications. Though a simple multi-objective approach that combines a regression and a ranking objective can effectively learn scale-calibrated scores, we argue that the two objectives are not necessarily compatible, which makes the trade-off less ideal for either of them. In this paper, we propose a practical regression compatible ranking (RCR) approach that achieves a better trade-off, where the two ranking and regression components are proved to be mutually aligned. Although the same idea applies to ranking with both binary and graded relevance, we mainly focus on binary labels in this paper. We evaluate the proposed approach on several public LTR benchmarks and show that it consistently achieves either best or competitive result in terms of both regression and ranking metrics, and significantly improves the Pareto frontiers in the context of multi-objective optimization. Furthermore, we evaluated the proposed approach on YouTube Search and found that it not only improved the ranking quality of the production pCTR model, but also brought gains to the click prediction accuracy. The proposed approach has been successfully deployed in the YouTube production system.

Human evaluation is critical for validating the performance of text-to-image generative models, as this highly cognitive process requires deep comprehension of text and images. However, our survey of 37 recent papers reveals that many works rely solely on automatic measures (e.g., FID) or perform poorly described human evaluations that are not reliable or repeatable. This paper proposes a standardized and well-defined human evaluation protocol to facilitate verifiable and reproducible human evaluation in future works. In our pilot data collection, we experimentally show that the current automatic measures are incompatible with human perception in evaluating the performance of the text-to-image generation results. Furthermore, we provide insights for designing human evaluation experiments reliably and conclusively. Finally, we make several resources publicly available to the community to facilitate easy and fast implementations.

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

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

Evaluation has been central to advances in AI, and it is equally critical to autonomous discovery. Yet scaling autonomous discovery to real-world engineering challenges faces a fundamental bottleneck: the cost of evaluating progress. In real settings, a single true evaluation, such as a full benchmark or serving trace, can take hours, so a search can afford only a handful of true evaluations. We present DuoDiscover, a search system that jointly discovers what to optimize and how to evaluate progress efficiently, through three mechanisms. First, each worker in a fleet of coding agents co-discovers an optimization target and a fast, tailored proxy evaluator, which we call a yardstick. The agent then hill-climbs the yardstick rather than the true evaluation. Second, since search can exploit gaps between a yardstick and the true objective, fidelity tests continually recheck each yardstick's ranking and invalidate any that drift. Third, the fleet is bottom-up, with no central decomposition of the problem. A lightweight orchestrator spawns and terminates agents, briefs running ones, and seeds new agents with others' confirmed work. DuoDiscover enables autonomous optimization from software to chip architecture. We demonstrate DuoDiscover on two repository-level benchmarks and four GPU and TPU kernel suites covering hundreds of kernels. On SWE-fficiency, it doubles the average speedup of human experts. On SOL-Exec, it ranks first on 121 of 235 kernels and in the top three on 212. On the heavily optimized vLLM and SQLite engines, DuoDiscover achieves 1.92times and 1.38times gains over the base code. On a CPU microarchitecture optimization task with evaluations of up to 28 hours, DuoDiscover surpasses both AlphaEvolve-based ArchAgent v2 and the best human design, with 1.65times ArchAgent v2's gain in 16.7 days versus more than 40 days, advancing the frontier of autonomous chip design.

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

Recommender Systems (RSs) can be evaluated for many aspects, two of them being recommendation relevance and fairness. These two aspects can be evaluated either in isolation, using a measure for each aspect; or jointly with a single`relevance-aware' fairness measure that quantifies fairness with respect to relevance. Yet, neither approach provides a simultaneous evaluation of both relevance and fairness: the first approach may result in two different rankings of models, each corresponding to an evaluation aspect; the second approach often provides an imbalanced evaluation of the two aspects. To address this gap, we propose Distance to Pareto Frontier (DPFR), a new approach to jointly evaluate RS fairness and relevance. DPFR is based on a Pareto frontier of relevance and fairness scores from existing measures. The frontier is generated from user-item interaction data and represents various Pareto-optimal trade-offs between the two aspects. Thus, the distance from a point in the frontier provides a joint score of fairness and relevance. As DPFR can be used with existing measures, it is modular and intuitive. Our experiments with 4 recommenders and 3 fairness-aware re-rankers on 6 real-world datasets reveal inconsistent associations between existing measures and DPFR, showing that they are not reliable proxies for evaluations based on Pareto optimality. We further examine the robustness of DPFR as a joint evaluation approach for fairness and relevance by conducting experiments with artificial recommendations and with various fairness-relevance trade-offs, as well as by analysing DPFR's agreement to simple measures of fairness and relevance. These analyses show that DPFR is more robust than existing joint evaluation approaches. Finally, we provide guidelines for evaluating fairness and relevance jointly with DPFR. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/robustness-DPFR-recsys-evaluation.

Evaluation of language model outputs on structured writing tasks is typically conducted with a number of desirable criteria presented to human evaluators or large language models (LLMs). For instance, on a prompt like "Help me draft an academic talk on coffee intake vs research productivity", a model response may be evaluated for criteria like accuracy and coherence. However, high-quality responses should do more than just satisfy basic task requirements. An effective response to this query should include quintessential features of an academic talk, such as a compelling opening, clear research questions, and a takeaway. To help identify these implicit criteria, we introduce EvalAgent, a novel framework designed to automatically uncover nuanced and task-specific criteria. EvalAgent first mines expert-authored online guidance. It then uses this evidence to propose diverse, long-tail evaluation criteria that are grounded in reliable external sources. Our experiments demonstrate that the grounded criteria produced by EvalAgent are often implicit (not directly stated in the user's prompt), yet specific (high degree of lexical precision). Further, EvalAgent criteria are often not satisfied by initial responses but they are actionable, such that responses can be refined to satisfy them. Finally, we show that combining LLM-generated and EvalAgent criteria uncovers more human-valued criteria than using LLMs alone.

The class of direct preference optimization (DPO) algorithms has emerged as a promising approach for solving the alignment problem in foundation models. These algorithms work with very limited feedback in the form of pairwise preferences and fine-tune models to align with these preferences without explicitly learning a reward model. While the form of feedback used by these algorithms makes the data collection process easy and relatively more accurate, its ambiguity in terms of the quality of responses could have negative implications. For example, it is not clear if a decrease (increase) in the likelihood of preferred (dispreferred) responses during the execution of these algorithms could be interpreted as a positive or negative phenomenon. In this paper, we study how to design algorithms that can leverage additional information in the form of rating gap, which informs the learner how much the chosen response is better than the rejected one. We present new algorithms that can achieve faster statistical rates than DPO in presence of accurate rating gap information. Moreover, we theoretically prove and empirically show that the performance of our algorithms is robust to inaccuracy in rating gaps. Finally, we demonstrate the solid performance of our methods in comparison to a number of DPO-style algorithms across a wide range of LLMs and evaluation benchmarks.

Deep research systems are widely used for multi-step web research, analysis, and cross-source synthesis, yet their evaluation remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often require annotation-intensive task construction, rely on static evaluation dimensions, or fail to reliably verify facts when citations are missing. To bridge these gaps, we introduce DeepResearchEval, an automated framework for deep research task construction and agentic evaluation. For task construction, we propose a persona-driven pipeline generating realistic, complex research tasks anchored in diverse user profiles, applying a two-stage filter Task Qualification and Search Necessity to retain only tasks requiring multi-source evidence integration and external retrieval. For evaluation, we propose an agentic pipeline with two components: an Adaptive Point-wise Quality Evaluation that dynamically derives task-specific evaluation dimensions, criteria, and weights conditioned on each generated task, and an Active Fact-Checking that autonomously extracts and verifies report statements via web search, even when citations are missing.

AI co-scientists are emerging as a tool to assist human researchers in achieving their research goals. A crucial feature of these AI co-scientists is the ability to generate a research plan given a set of aims and constraints. The plan may be used by researchers for brainstorming, or may even be implemented after further refinement. However, language models currently struggle to generate research plans that follow all constraints and implicit requirements. In this work, we study how to leverage the vast corpus of existing research papers to train language models that generate better research plans. We build a scalable, diverse training corpus by automatically extracting research goals and goal-specific grading rubrics from papers across several domains. We then train models for research plan generation via reinforcement learning with self-grading. A frozen copy of the initial policy acts as the grader during training, with the rubrics creating a generator-verifier gap that enables improvements without external human supervision. To validate this approach, we conduct a study with human experts for machine learning research goals, spanning 225 hours. The experts prefer plans generated by our finetuned Qwen3-30B-A3B model over the initial model for 70% of research goals, and approve 84% of the automatically extracted goal-specific grading rubrics. To assess generality, we also extend our approach to research goals from medical papers, and new arXiv preprints, evaluating with a jury of frontier models. Our finetuning yields 12-22% relative improvements and significant cross-domain generalization, proving effective even in problem settings like medical research where execution feedback is infeasible. Together, these findings demonstrate the potential of a scalable, automated training recipe as a step towards improving general AI co-scientists.

AI agents must decide when another search is worth its cost. Answer-success probabilities capture question difficulty, while this decision requires estimating the additional benefit of search. We introduce SearchHorizonBench, a benchmark for learning and evaluating search value from execution experience. Paired continuations and repeated executions separate expected search gain from generation noise and connect prediction quality to decision utility. The resource contains 45,632 executions across 3,168 questions. On 1,632 held-out questions, historical calibration reduces Brier error by 16.2%, with the improvement concentrated in success-level information. Search gains have a standard deviation of 21.4 percentage points, and tested historical estimators explain less than 2% of this variance in point estimates. Matched-configuration learning curves probe this distinction across training scales. At the reference token price, free selection observations yield a 2.49-point utility opportunity over the best constant action, driven primarily by gain information. Reusable histories, frozen splits, strong baselines and scoring tools provide a common foundation for developing and evaluating value-aware search agents.

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

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

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), the Elo rating system, originally designed for ranking players in dynamic games such as chess, is increasingly being used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) through "A vs B" paired comparisons. However, while popular, the system's suitability for assessing entities with constant skill levels, such as LLMs, remains relatively unexplored. We study two fundamental axioms that evaluation methods should adhere to: reliability and transitivity. We conduct extensive evaluation of Elo behaviour, illustrating that individual Elo computations exhibit volatility and delving into the impact of varying the Elo rating system's hyperparameters. We show that these axioms are not always satisfied raising questions about the reliability of current comparative evaluations of LLMs. If the current use of Elo scores is intended to substitute the costly head-to-head comparison of LLMs, it is crucial to ensure the ranking is as robust as possible. Guided by the axioms, our findings offer concrete guidelines for enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluation methods, suggesting a need for reassessment of existing comparative approaches.

For Large Language Models (LLMs), a disconnect persists between benchmark performance and real-world utility. Current evaluation frameworks remain fragmented, prioritizing technical metrics while neglecting holistic assessment for deployment. This survey introduces an anthropomorphic evaluation paradigm through the lens of human intelligence, proposing a novel three-dimensional taxonomy: Intelligence Quotient (IQ)-General Intelligence for foundational capacity, Emotional Quotient (EQ)-Alignment Ability for value-based interactions, and Professional Quotient (PQ)-Professional Expertise for specialized proficiency. For practical value, we pioneer a Value-oriented Evaluation (VQ) framework assessing economic viability, social impact, ethical alignment, and environmental sustainability. Our modular architecture integrates six components with an implementation roadmap. Through analysis of 200+ benchmarks, we identify key challenges including dynamic assessment needs and interpretability gaps. It provides actionable guidance for developing LLMs that are technically proficient, contextually relevant, and ethically sound. We maintain a curated repository of open-source evaluation resources at: https://github.com/onejune2018/Awesome-LLM-Eval.

Recent developments in Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) allow large language models (LLMs) to function as implicit ranking models by maximizing the margin between preferred and non-preferred responses. In practice, user feedback on such lists typically involves identifying a few relevant items in context rather than providing detailed pairwise comparisons for every possible item pair. Moreover, many complex information retrieval tasks, such as conversational agents and summarization systems, critically depend on ranking the highest-quality outputs at the top, emphasizing the need to support natural and flexible forms of user feedback. To address the challenge of limited and sparse pairwise feedback in the in-context setting, we propose an In-context Ranking Preference Optimization (IRPO) framework that directly optimizes LLMs based on ranking lists constructed during inference. To further capture flexible forms of feedback, IRPO extends the DPO objective by incorporating both the relevance of items and their positions in the list. Modeling these aspects jointly is non-trivial, as ranking metrics are inherently discrete and non-differentiable, making direct optimization difficult. To overcome this, IRPO introduces a differentiable objective based on positional aggregation of pairwise item preferences, enabling effective gradient-based optimization of discrete ranking metrics. We further provide theoretical insights showing that IRPO (i) automatically emphasizes items with greater disagreement between the model and the reference ranking, and (ii) links its gradient to an importance sampling estimator, yielding an unbiased estimator with reduced variance. Empirical results show IRPO outperforms standard DPO approaches in ranking performance, highlighting its effectiveness in aligning LLMs with direct in-context ranking preferences.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models has catalyzed a surge in scientific idea production, yet this leap has not been accompanied by a matching advance in idea evaluation. The fundamental nature of scientific evaluation needs knowledgeable grounding, collective deliberation, and multi-criteria decision-making. However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened evaluation dimensions, and the inherent bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. To address these, we regard idea evaluation as a knowledge-grounded, multi-perspective reasoning problem and introduce InnoEval, a deep innovation evaluation framework designed to emulate human-level idea assessment. We apply a heterogeneous deep knowledge search engine that retrieves and grounds dynamic evidence from diverse online sources. We further achieve review consensus with an innovation review board containing reviewers with distinct academic backgrounds, enabling a multi-dimensional decoupled evaluation across multiple metrics. We construct comprehensive datasets derived from authoritative peer-reviewed submissions to benchmark InnoEval. Experiments demonstrate that InnoEval can consistently outperform baselines in point-wise, pair-wise, and group-wise evaluation tasks, exhibiting judgment patterns and consensus highly aligned with human experts.

The rise of LLM-based agents has opened new frontiers in AI applications, yet evaluating these agents remains a complex and underdeveloped area. This survey provides an in-depth overview of the emerging field of LLM agent evaluation, introducing a two-dimensional taxonomy that organizes existing work along (1) evaluation objectives -- what to evaluate, such as agent behavior, capabilities, reliability, and safety -- and (2) evaluation process -- how to evaluate, including interaction modes, datasets and benchmarks, metric computation methods, and tooling. In addition to taxonomy, we highlight enterprise-specific challenges, such as role-based access to data, the need for reliability guarantees, dynamic and long-horizon interactions, and compliance, which are often overlooked in current research. We also identify future research directions, including holistic, more realistic, and scalable evaluation. This work aims to bring clarity to the fragmented landscape of agent evaluation and provide a framework for systematic assessment, enabling researchers and practitioners to evaluate LLM agents for real-world deployment.

Prompt design is a primary control interface for large language models (LLMs), yet standard evaluations largely reduce performance to answer correctness, obscuring why a prompt succeeds or fails and providing little actionable guidance. We propose PEEM (Prompt Engineering Evaluation Metrics), a unified framework for joint and interpretable evaluation of both prompts and responses. PEEM defines a structured rubric with 9 axes: 3 prompt criteria (clarity/structure, linguistic quality, fairness) and 6 response criteria (accuracy, coherence, relevance, objectivity, clarity, conciseness), and uses an LLM-based evaluator to output (i) scalar scores on a 1-5 Likert scale and (ii) criterion-specific natural-language rationales grounded in the rubric. Across 7 benchmarks and 5 task models, PEEM's accuracy axis strongly aligns with conventional accuracy while preserving model rankings (aggregate Spearman rho about 0.97, Pearson r about 0.94, p < 0.001). A multi-evaluator study with four models shows consistent relative judgments (pairwise rho = 0.68-0.85), supporting evaluator-agnostic deployment. Beyond alignment, PEEM captures complementary linguistic failure modes and remains informative under prompt perturbations: prompt-quality trends track downstream accuracy under iterative rewrites, semantic adversarial manipulations induce clear score degradation, and meaning-preserving paraphrases yield high stability (robustness rate about 76.7-80.6%). Finally, using only PEEM scores and rationales as feedback, a zero-shot prompt rewriting loop improves downstream accuracy by up to 11.7 points, outperforming supervised and RL-based prompt-optimization baselines. Overall, PEEM provides a reproducible, criterion-driven protocol that links prompt formulation to response behavior and enables systematic diagnosis and optimization of LLM interactions.

Automatic evaluation with large language models, commonly known as LLM-as-a-judge, is now standard across reasoning and alignment tasks. Despite evaluating many samples in deployment, these evaluators typically (i) treat each case independently, missing the opportunity to accumulate experience, and (ii) rely on a single fixed prompt for all cases, neglecting the need for sample-specific evaluation criteria. We introduce Learning While Evaluating (LWE), a framework that allows evaluators to improve sequentially at inference time without requiring training or validation sets. LWE maintains an evolving meta-prompt that (i) produces sample-specific evaluation instructions and (ii) refines itself through self-generated feedback. Furthermore, we propose Selective LWE, which updates the meta-prompt only on self-inconsistent cases, focusing computation where it matters most. This selective approach retains the benefits of sequential learning while being far more cost-effective. Across two pairwise comparison benchmarks, Selective LWE outperforms strong baselines, empirically demonstrating that evaluators can improve during sequential testing with a simple selective update, learning most from the cases they struggle with.

While the situation has improved for text-only models, it again seems to be the case currently that multimodal (text and image) models develop faster than ways to evaluate them. In this paper, we bring a recently developed evaluation paradigm from text models to multimodal models, namely evaluation through the goal-oriented game (self) play, complementing reference-based and preference-based evaluation. Specifically, we define games that challenge a model's capability to represent a situation from visual information and align such representations through dialogue. We find that the largest closed models perform rather well on the games that we define, while even the best open-weight models struggle with them. On further analysis, we find that the exceptional deep captioning capabilities of the largest models drive some of the performance. There is still room to grow for both kinds of models, ensuring the continued relevance of the benchmark.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied to forecasting tasks, with some works claiming these systems match or exceed human performance. In this paper, we argue that, as a community, we should be careful about such conclusions as evaluating LLM forecasters presents unique challenges. We identify two broad categories of issues: (1) difficulty in trusting evaluation results due to many forms of temporal leakage, and (2) difficulty in extrapolating from evaluation performance to real-world forecasting. Through systematic analysis and concrete examples from prior work, we demonstrate how evaluation flaws can raise concerns about current and future performance claims. We argue that more rigorous evaluation methodologies are needed to confidently assess the forecasting abilities of LLMs.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

Progress in large language models is constrained by an evaluation bottleneck: build a benchmark, evaluate models and settings, then iterate. We therefore ask a simple question: can we forecast outcomes before running any experiments? We study text-only performance forecasting: estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration, with no access to dataset instances. To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics. Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible: models equipped with a retrieval module that excludes source papers achieve moderate prediction performance with well-calibrated uncertainty, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds. Our analysis indicates that stronger reasoning models engage in diverse, iterative querying, whereas current open-source models lag and often skip retrieval or gather evidence with limited diversity. We further test a zero-leakage setting, forecasting on newly released datasets or experiments before their papers are indexed, where GPT-5 with built-in web search still attains nontrivial prediction accuracy. Overall, our corpus and analyses offer an initial step toward open-ended anticipatory evaluation, supporting difficulty estimation and smarter experiment prioritization.

We introduce PaperBench, a benchmark evaluating the ability of AI agents to replicate state-of-the-art AI research. Agents must replicate 20 ICML 2024 Spotlight and Oral papers from scratch, including understanding paper contributions, developing a codebase, and successfully executing experiments. For objective evaluation, we develop rubrics that hierarchically decompose each replication task into smaller sub-tasks with clear grading criteria. In total, PaperBench contains 8,316 individually gradable tasks. Rubrics are co-developed with the author(s) of each ICML paper for accuracy and realism. To enable scalable evaluation, we also develop an LLM-based judge to automatically grade replication attempts against rubrics, and assess our judge's performance by creating a separate benchmark for judges. We evaluate several frontier models on PaperBench, finding that the best-performing tested agent, Claude 3.5 Sonnet (New) with open-source scaffolding, achieves an average replication score of 21.0\%. Finally, we recruit top ML PhDs to attempt a subset of PaperBench, finding that models do not yet outperform the human baseline. We https://github.com/openai/preparedness{open-source our code} to facilitate future research in understanding the AI engineering capabilities of AI agents.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is the standard approach for post-training large language models (LLMs), yet it often shows limited generalization. We trace this limitation to its default training objective: negative log likelihood (NLL). While NLL is classically optimal when training from scratch, post-training operates in a different paradigm and could violate its optimality assumptions, where models already encode task-relevant priors and supervision can be long and noisy. To this end, we study a general family of probability-based objectives and characterize their effectiveness under different conditions. Through comprehensive experiments and extensive ablation studies across 7 model backbones, 14 benchmarks, and 3 domains, we uncover a critical dimension that governs objective behavior: the model-capability continuum. Near the model-strong end, prior-leaning objectives that downweight low-probability tokens (e.g., -p, -p^{10}, thresholded variants) consistently outperform NLL; toward the model-weak end, NLL dominates; in between, no single objective prevails. Our theoretical analysis further elucidates how objectives trade places across the continuum, providing a principled foundation for adapting objectives to model capability. Our code is available at https://github.com/GaotangLi/Beyond-Log-Likelihood.

The development of state-of-the-art systems in different applied areas of machine learning (ML) is driven by benchmarks, which have shaped the paradigm of evaluating generalisation capabilities from multiple perspectives. Although the paradigm is shifting towards more fine-grained evaluation across diverse tasks, the delicate question of how to aggregate the performances has received particular interest in the community. In general, benchmarks follow the unspoken utilitarian principles, where the systems are ranked based on their mean average score over task-specific metrics. Such aggregation procedure has been viewed as a sub-optimal evaluation protocol, which may have created the illusion of progress. This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields and identify the best-performing systems in research and development case studies. The Vote'n'Rank's procedures are more robust than the mean average while being able to handle missing performance scores and determine conditions under which the system becomes the winner.

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

We introduce POLLUX, a comprehensive open-source benchmark designed to evaluate the generative capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in Russian. Our main contribution is a novel evaluation methodology that enhances the interpretability of LLM assessment. For each task type, we define a set of detailed criteria and develop a scoring protocol where models evaluate responses and provide justifications for their ratings. This enables transparent, criteria-driven evaluation beyond traditional resource-consuming, side-by-side human comparisons. POLLUX includes a detailed, fine-grained taxonomy of 35 task types covering diverse generative domains such as code generation, creative writing, and practical assistant use cases, totaling 2,100 manually crafted and professionally authored prompts. Each task is categorized by difficulty (easy/medium/hard), with experts constructing the dataset entirely from scratch. We also release a family of LLM-as-a-Judge (7B and 32B) evaluators trained for nuanced assessment of generative outputs. This approach provides scalable, interpretable evaluation and annotation tools for model development, effectively replacing costly and less precise human judgments.

AI systems built around large models increasingly use experience and feedback to make persistent changes to models, prompts, memories, tools, and workflows. Recursive self-improvement (RSI) extends this process to inductive biases and to the mechanisms that govern future updates, which can themselves be revised and reused across improvement cycles. Yet self-modification alone does not guarantee trustworthy improvement. Reported gains may reflect flawed evaluations, previously acquired capabilities may deteriorate, and compliance with behavioral constraints may weaken. Compromised artifacts or sensitive information may also persist in successor systems. Changes to improvement mechanisms may invalidate earlier verification results and make human oversight less effective. This survey presents an operational definition and process framework for RSI and organizes the requirements for trustworthy RSI into four interconnected themes: genuine and sustained improvement; behavioral constraints, alignment, and fairness; system security and privacy; and transparency and controllability. We examine these themes from three perspectives: Improvement Validity, Constraint Preservation, and Effective Oversight. This analysis covers improvement diagnosis, proposal generation, proposal evaluation, and update implementation (S1--S4), including the recursive application of these stages to improvement mechanisms (RI). We review risks, safeguards, and evaluation evidence for individual updates, effects inherited by successor systems, and revisions to improvement mechanisms, while distinguishing direct RSI findings from evidence in related systems. Finally, we examine evaluation settings, identify requirements for independent and longitudinal assessment, and discuss applications and open research problems.

Automatic evaluation benchmarks such as MT-Bench, Arena-Hard, and Auto-Arena are seeing growing adoption for the evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing research has primarily focused on approximating human-based model rankings using limited data and LLM-as-a-Judge. However, the fundamental premise of these studies, which attempts to replicate human rankings, is flawed. Specifically, these benchmarks typically offer only overall scores, limiting their utility to leaderboard rankings, rather than providing feedback that can guide model optimization and support model profiling. Therefore, we advocate for an evaluation paradigm shift from approximating human-based model rankings to providing feedback with analytical value. To this end, we introduce Feedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results, thereby enabling thorough identification of a model's specific strengths and weaknesses. Such feedback not only supports the targeted optimization of the model but also enhances the understanding of its behavior. Feedbacker comprises three key components: an extensible tree-based query taxonomy builder, an automated query synthesis scheme, and a suite of visualization and analysis tools. Furthermore, we propose a novel LLM-as-a-Judge method: PC2 (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) pointwise evaluation. This method derives evaluation criteria by pre-comparing the differences between several auxiliary responses, achieving the accuracy of pairwise evaluation while maintaining the time complexity of pointwise evaluation. Finally, leveraging the evaluation results of 17 mainstream LLMs, we demonstrate the usage of Feedbacker and highlight its effectiveness and potential. Our homepage project is available at https://liudan193.github.io/Feedbacker.

Instruction-following is a foundational capability of large language models (LLMs), with its improvement hinging on scalable and accurate feedback from judge models. However, the reliability of current judge models in instruction-following remains underexplored due to several deficiencies of existing meta-evaluation benchmarks, such as their insufficient data coverage and oversimplified pairwise evaluation paradigms that misalign with model optimization scenarios. To this end, we propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following that covers diverse instruction and constraint types. For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses based on instruction-following quality. This design enables a listwise evaluation paradigm that assesses the capabilities of judge models to rank multiple responses, which is essential in guiding model alignment. Extensive experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models and demonstrate that our benchmark achieves a stronger positive correlation with downstream task performance compared to existing benchmarks. Our codes and data are available at https://github.com/thu-coai/IF-RewardBench.

This paper poses two critical issues in evaluating base models (without post-training): (1) Unstable evaluation during training: in the early stages of pre-training, the models lack the capability to answer questions as required, leading to unstable evaluation results. This instability makes it difficult to provide solid conclusions to guide the training, especially for key experiments such as data ablation and scaling law. (2) Inconsistency between base and instruct models: base models generally exhibit poorer evaluation performance compared to corresponding instruct models. This gap poses a challenge for assessing whether a base model with better evaluation can truly lead to a better instruct model. To address these issues, we propose Base model Oriented Systematic Evaluation (BOSE), a method specifically designed to optimize the evaluation of base models. Specifically, BOSE introduces two key innovations: In-Context Light-instruction Prompt (ICLiP) for open-ended tasks and Blank-ppl for multi-choice tasks with candidate options, which transforms the standard perplexity (ppl) metric into a fill-in-the-blank format to mitigate early-stage evaluation fluctuations. Furthermore, we are the first to propose Kendall's rank correlation to quantitatively measure the evaluation stability and consistency. Experimental results demonstrate that BOSE significantly enhances both the stability of evaluations during pre-training and the consistency between base and instruct models, thereby providing more reliable guidance for the LLMs' training.

The acceleration in the adoption of AI-based automated decision-making systems poses a challenge for evaluating the fairness of algorithmic decisions, especially in the absence of ground truth. When designing interventions, uplift modeling is used extensively to identify candidates that are likely to benefit from treatment. However, these models remain particularly susceptible to fairness evaluation due to the lack of ground truth on the outcome measure since a candidate cannot be in both treatment and control simultaneously. In this article, we propose a framework that overcomes the missing ground truth problem by generating surrogates to serve as a proxy for counterfactual labels of uplift modeling campaigns. We then leverage the surrogate ground truth to conduct a more comprehensive binary fairness evaluation. We show how to apply the approach in a comprehensive study from a real-world marketing campaign for promotional offers and demonstrate its enhancement for fairness evaluation.

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

Evaluations (Evals) are a deployment bottleneck for real-world AI applications: public benchmarks rarely match a team's users, context, or policies, and human review is often tedious to scale. Motivated by our work with AI applications in the public sector, this project addresses recurring evaluation challenges encountered when applications must satisfy local policy and governance requirements. We present Kaleidoscope, an integrated workflow for contextual functional evaluation that links persona-based test generation, contextualized rubrics, and human review for reliability-gated automated scoring. Generated test cases are scored against application-specific rubrics; human annotations provide reviewable labels; and LLM judges automate scoring only when their agreement with those labels meets a configured threshold. Kaleidoscope is therefore a practical, inspectable, iterative workflow for product teams. We report early evidence from a three-week pilot across four organizational use cases and custom-rubric judge experiments on 108 annotated Q\&A pairs spanning four domains and 14 evaluation dimensions. The results highlight useful features for end-to-end reliable, automated scoring.

We study the feasibility of conducting alignment audits: investigations into whether models have undesired objectives. As a testbed, we train a language model with a hidden objective. Our training pipeline first teaches the model about exploitable errors in RLHF reward models (RMs), then trains the model to exploit some of these errors. We verify via out-of-distribution evaluations that the model generalizes to exhibit whatever behaviors it believes RMs rate highly, including ones not reinforced during training. We leverage this model to study alignment audits in two ways. First, we conduct a blind auditing game where four teams, unaware of the model's hidden objective or training, investigate it for concerning behaviors and their causes. Three teams successfully uncovered the model's hidden objective using techniques including interpretability with sparse autoencoders (SAEs), behavioral attacks, and training data analysis. Second, we conduct an unblinded follow-up study of eight techniques for auditing the model, analyzing their strengths and limitations. Overall, our work provides a concrete example of using alignment audits to discover a model's hidden objective and proposes a methodology for practicing and validating progress in alignment auditing.

Proprietary LMs such as GPT-4 are often employed to assess the quality of responses from various LMs. However, concerns including transparency, controllability, and affordability strongly motivate the development of open-source LMs specialized in evaluations. On the other hand, existing open evaluator LMs exhibit critical shortcomings: 1) they issue scores that significantly diverge from those assigned by humans, and 2) they lack the flexibility to perform both direct assessment and pairwise ranking, the two most prevalent forms of assessment. Additionally, they do not possess the ability to evaluate based on custom evaluation criteria, focusing instead on general attributes like helpfulness and harmlessness. To address these issues, we introduce Prometheus 2, a more powerful evaluator LM than its predecessor that closely mirrors human and GPT-4 judgements. Moreover, it is capable of processing both direct assessment and pair-wise ranking formats grouped with a user-defined evaluation criteria. On four direct assessment benchmarks and four pairwise ranking benchmarks, Prometheus 2 scores the highest correlation and agreement with humans and proprietary LM judges among all tested open evaluator LMs. Our models, code, and data are all publicly available at https://github.com/prometheus-eval/prometheus-eval.

Autonomous agents are increasingly capable of improving models, systems, and other technical artifacts through long-horizon experimentation. To understand the current state of this capability, however, evaluation must go beyond final scores, which neither reveal where progress is gained or lost nor indicate whether accumulated experience improves later decisions. We therefore present a systematic evaluation of seven frontier models on 36 long-horizon tasks based on a new framework that uses rule-based metrics to characterize within-run behavior through Solution Framing, Execution, and Feedback Control and controlled comparisons to assess experience reuse within and across tasks. The results show that current agents operate more like engineering optimizers than fully autonomous researchers: they can formulate and implement practical solutions, but their performance varies substantially across runs, their strongest solutions mainly adapt or combine established techniques, and genuine methodological novelty remains rare. Detailed analysis reveals that observed performance is shaped by multiple factors, including distinct process bottlenecks behind similar final outcomes, experience reuse that can help or mislead subsequent decisions, and harness designs that affect performance stability. These findings suggest concrete directions for improving model training, inference-time strategies, experience management, and harness design.

Many modern retrieval problems are set-valued: given a broad intent, the system must return a collection of results that optimizes higher-order properties (e.g., diversity, coverage, complementarity, coherence) while remaining grounded with respect to a fixed database. Set-valued objectives are typically non-decomposable and are not captured by existing supervised (query, content) datasets which only prioritize top-1 retrieval. Consequently, fan-out retrieval is often employed to generate diverse subqueries to retrieve item sets. While reinforcement learning (RL) can optimize set-level objectives via interaction, deploying an RL-tuned LLM for fan-out retrieval is prohibitively expensive at inference time. Conversely, diffusion-based generative retrieval enables efficient single-pass fan-out in embedding space, but requires objective-aligned training targets. To address these issues, we propose R4T (Retrieve-for-Train), which uses RL once as an objective transducer in a three-step process: (i) train a fan-out LLM with composite set-level rewards, (ii) synthesize objective-consistent training pairs, and (iii) train a lightweight diffusion retriever to model the conditional distribution of set-valued outputs. Across large-scale fashion and music benchmarks consisting of curated item sets, we show that R4T improves retrieval quality relative to strong baselines while reducing query-time fan-out latency by an order of magnitude.

One core capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to follow natural language instructions. However, the evaluation of such abilities is not standardized: Human evaluations are expensive, slow, and not objectively reproducible, while LLM-based auto-evaluation is potentially biased or limited by the ability of the evaluator LLM. To overcome these issues, we introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. It focuses on a set of "verifiable instructions" such as "write in more than 400 words" and "mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times". We identified 25 types of those verifiable instructions and constructed around 500 prompts, with each prompt containing one or more verifiable instructions. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/instruction_following_eval

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

We present SimpleQA, a benchmark that evaluates the ability of language models to answer short, fact-seeking questions. We prioritized two properties in designing this eval. First, SimpleQA is challenging, as it is adversarially collected against GPT-4 responses. Second, responses are easy to grade, because questions are created such that there exists only a single, indisputable answer. Each answer in SimpleQA is graded as either correct, incorrect, or not attempted. A model with ideal behavior would get as many questions correct as possible while not attempting the questions for which it is not confident it knows the correct answer. SimpleQA is a simple, targeted evaluation for whether models "know what they know," and our hope is that this benchmark will remain relevant for the next few generations of frontier models. SimpleQA can be found at https://github.com/openai/simple-evals.

As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from instructing LMs to write yes/no questions to making complex Winogender schemas with multiple stages of LM-based generation and filtering. Crowdworkers rate the examples as highly relevant and agree with 90-100% of labels, sometimes more so than corresponding human-written datasets. We generate 154 datasets and discover new cases of inverse scaling where LMs get worse with size. Larger LMs repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer ("sycophancy") and express greater desire to pursue concerning goals like resource acquisition and goal preservation. We also find some of the first examples of inverse scaling in RL from Human Feedback (RLHF), where more RLHF makes LMs worse. For example, RLHF makes LMs express stronger political views (on gun rights and immigration) and a greater desire to avoid shut down. Overall, LM-written evaluations are high-quality and let us quickly discover many novel LM behaviors.

ARC Challenge appears more difficult than ARC Easy for modern LLMs primarily due to an evaluation setup that prevents direct comparison of answer choices rather than inherent complexity. Although some researchers have quietly shifted to a more appropriate scheme over the last year, the implications of this change have yet to be widely acknowledged. We highlight this overlooked shift, show how similar evaluation practices falsely imply reasoning deficits in other benchmarks, and demonstrate that fairer methods dramatically reduce performance gaps (e.g. on SIQA) and even yield superhuman results (OpenBookQA). In doing so, we reveal how evaluation shapes perceived difficulty and offer guidelines to ensure that multiple-choice evaluations accurately reflect actual model capabilities.

Evaluating open-ended long-form generation is challenging because it is hard to define what clearly separates good from bad outputs. Existing methods often miss key aspects like coherence, style, or relevance, or are biased by pretraining data, making open-ended long-form evaluation an underexplored problem. To address this gap, we propose PrefBERT, a scoring model for evaluating open-ended long-form generation in GRPO and guiding its training with distinct rewards for good and bad outputs. Trained on two response evaluation datasets with diverse long-form styles and Likert-rated quality, PrefBERT effectively supports GRPO by offering better semantic reward feedback than traditional metrics ROUGE-L and BERTScore do. Through comprehensive evaluations, including LLM-as-a-judge, human ratings, and qualitative analysis, we show that PrefBERT, trained on multi-sentence and paragraph-length responses, remains reliable across varied long passages and aligns well with the verifiable rewards GRPO needs. Human evaluations confirm that using PrefBERT as the reward signal to train policy models yields responses better aligned with human preferences than those trained with traditional metrics. Our code is available at https://github.com/zli12321/long_form_rl.

We present Seed2.0, a model series that takes a meaningful step toward solving complex, real-world tasks. Our approach begins with identifying users' genuine needs and constructing a reliable, forward-looking evaluation system by selecting and abstracting benchmarks grounded in these needs and in realistic, complex scenarios. Guided by this evaluation system, Seed2.0 targets two persistent challenges, long-tail knowledge and complex instruction following, substantially improving the model's reliability on intricate, long-horizon tasks. Beyond these, Seed2.0 delivers world-leading reasoning intelligence, visual understanding, and search capabilities that address the most common needs of a broad user base. Through extensive real-world use cases documented in this model card, we demonstrate that Seed2.0 begins to exhibit the ability to handle initial complex real-world tasks, delivering greater value to hundreds of millions of users.

Despite the significant advancements in keyphrase extraction and keyphrase generation methods, the predominant approach for evaluation only relies on exact matching with human references and disregards reference-free attributes. This scheme fails to recognize systems that generate keyphrases that are semantically equivalent to the references or keyphrases that have practical utility. To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of different keyphrase systems, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework consisting of six critical dimensions: naturalness, faithfulness, saliency, coverage, diversity, and utility. For each dimension, we discuss the desiderata and design semantic-based metrics that align with the evaluation objectives. Rigorous meta-evaluation studies demonstrate that our evaluation strategy correlates better with human preferences compared to a range of previously used metrics. Using this framework, we re-evaluate 18 keyphrase systems and further discover that (1) the best model differs in different dimensions, with pre-trained language models achieving the best in most dimensions; (2) the utility in downstream tasks does not always correlate well with reference-based metrics; and (3) large language models exhibit a strong performance in reference-free evaluation.

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing promise in research-level problem solving, yet a comprehensive collection of such problems is still missing, and evaluating them on research-level problems remains challenging. We introduce OpenFrontiers, a cross-disciplinary resource that combines a structured corpus of open research problems with a retrospective benchmark of recently resolved problems in mathematics. The corpus records problem statements, context, progress, and other information for 12,151 problems. The benchmark contains 200 problems, 110 resolved in 2026 and 90 still open, each with a Lean~4 statement checked by automated probes and two independent reviews; a subset HQ-50 further filters based on quality score, etc. Our evaluation protocol grades formal proofs with two independent checkers in an isolated sandbox under closed-book, frozen-retrieval, and live-web conditions. Evaluating seven LLM agents on the HQ-50 subset under a standardized budget, we find that closed-book rediscovery is rare, at most 7 of 40 resolved problems, whereas live-web success mostly reflects retrieval of published solutions. By linking a broad research-problem corpus to a formally graded evaluation subset with documented solutions, OpenFrontiers provides a foundation for measuring research-level rediscovery and studying progress toward solving currently open scientific problems. The dataset and benchmark could be found in https://huggingface.co/collections/FlippyDora/openfrontiers.

Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values. While benchmarks for general response quality are prevalent, evaluating how well reward models account for individual user preferences remains an open challenge. To bridge this gap, we introduce Personalized RewardBench, a novel benchmark designed to rigorously assess reward models' capacity to model personalized preferences. We construct chosen and rejected response pairs based on strict adherence to (or violation of) user-specific rubrics, ensuring that preference distinctions are uniquely tailored to the individual. In particular, human evaluations confirm that the primary discriminative factor between pairs is strictly personal preference, with both responses maintaining high general quality (e.g., correctness, relevance and helpfulness). Extensive testing reveals that existing state-of-the-art reward models struggle significantly with personalization, peaking at an accuracy of just 75.94%. Crucially, because an effective reward model benchmark should predict a reward model's performance on downstream tasks, we conduct experiments demonstrating that our benchmark exhibits a significantly higher correlation with downstream performance in both Best-of-N (BoN) sampling and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) compared to existing baselines. These findings establish Personalized RewardBench as a robust and accurate proxy for evaluating reward models' performance in downstream applications.

The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) underscores the pressing need for evaluation methods. Existing works primarily rely on external evaluators, focusing on training and prompting strategies. However, a crucial aspect - model-aware glass-box features - is overlooked. In this study, we explore the utility of glass-box features under the scenario of self-evaluation, namely applying an LLM to evaluate its own output. We investigate various glass-box feature groups and discovered that the softmax distribution serves as a reliable indicator for quality evaluation. Furthermore, we propose two strategies to enhance the evaluation by incorporating features derived from references. Experimental results on public benchmarks validate the feasibility of self-evaluation of LLMs using glass-box features.

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.

Seven years ago, researchers proposed a postprocessing method to equalize the error rates of a model across different demographic groups. The work launched hundreds of papers purporting to improve over the postprocessing baseline. We empirically evaluate these claims through thousands of model evaluations on several tabular datasets. We find that the fairness-accuracy Pareto frontier achieved by postprocessing contains all other methods we were feasibly able to evaluate. In doing so, we address two common methodological errors that have confounded previous observations. One relates to the comparison of methods with different unconstrained base models. The other concerns methods achieving different levels of constraint relaxation. At the heart of our study is a simple idea we call unprocessing that roughly corresponds to the inverse of postprocessing. Unprocessing allows for a direct comparison of methods using different underlying models and levels of relaxation.

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

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of various evaluation benchmarks. These benchmarks typically rely on a single instruction template for evaluating all LLMs on a specific task. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances, involving 20 different LLMs and 39 tasks from 3 benchmarks. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead. We discuss tailored evaluation metrics for specific use cases (e.g., LLM developers vs. developers interested in a specific downstream task), ensuring a more reliable and meaningful assessment of LLM capabilities. We then implement these criteria and conduct evaluations of multiple models, providing insights into the true strengths and limitations of current LLMs.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Previous methods evaluate reward models by testing them on a fixed pairwise ranking test set, but they typically do not provide performance information on each preference dimension. In this work, we address the evaluation challenge of reward models by probing preference representations. To confirm the effectiveness of this evaluation method, we construct a Multi-dimensional Reward Model Benchmark (MRMBench), a collection of six probing tasks for different preference dimensions. We design it to favor and encourage reward models that better capture preferences across different dimensions. Furthermore, we introduce an analysis method, inference-time probing, which identifies the dimensions used during the reward prediction and enhances its interpretability. Through extensive experiments, we find that MRMBench strongly correlates with the alignment performance of large language models (LLMs), making it a reliable reference for developing advanced reward models. Our analysis of MRMBench evaluation results reveals that reward models often struggle to capture preferences across multiple dimensions, highlighting the potential of multi-objective optimization in reward modeling. Additionally, our findings show that the proposed inference-time probing method offers a reliable metric for assessing the confidence of reward predictions, which ultimately improves the alignment of LLMs.

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

Front-end web code has become a core product surface for every frontier LLM release, yet evaluating these interactive applications at development speed remains costly because human-judged leaderboards like Arena do not scale. Existing automated proxies typically lean on reference implementations, test suites, or rigid checklists, and tend to miss the reasoned synthesis a human reviewer performs over a live session. We articulate a new evaluation regime that is simultaneously reference-free, autonomously driven, and holistically reasoned, and instantiate it through two artifacts. \dataname is an 11-domain, 54-leaf, 1,000-query WebDev benchmark spanning both static-presentation and interactive-application tasks, balanced across three difficulty tiers and three target-language groups, with briefs rewritten to resist recall from circulated prompts. \framename, grounded in Flavell's metacognitive monitoring, separates evidence accumulation from judgment across three stages: Static Perception forms a first impression from passive observation; Agent-Driven Interaction explores the application autonomously while capturing continuous screen video, audio, and per-step screenshots; Dynamic Scoring issues holistic functionality and aesthetics verdicts with structured failure attribution only after the evidence chain is complete. On \dataname, \framename aligns closely with expert human ratings while surfacing substantial headroom across 13 frontier LLMs on interactive web generation. \noindenthttps://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cookie-3CE/

We introduce an approach aimed at enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) through an iterative preference learning process inspired by the successful strategy employed by AlphaZero. Our work leverages Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to iteratively collect preference data, utilizing its look-ahead ability to break down instance-level rewards into more granular step-level signals. To enhance consistency in intermediate steps, we combine outcome validation and stepwise self-evaluation, continually updating the quality assessment of newly generated data. The proposed algorithm employs Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to update the LLM policy using this newly generated step-level preference data. Theoretical analysis reveals the importance of using on-policy sampled data for successful self-improving. Extensive evaluations on various arithmetic and commonsense reasoning tasks demonstrate remarkable performance improvements over existing models. For instance, our approach outperforms the Mistral-7B Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) baseline on GSM8K, MATH, and ARC-C, with substantial increases in accuracy to 81.8% (+5.9%), 34.7% (+5.8%), and 76.4% (+15.8%), respectively. Additionally, our research delves into the training and inference compute tradeoff, providing insights into how our method effectively maximizes performance gains. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YuxiXie/MCTS-DPO.

Language models can distinguish between testing and deployment phases -- a capability known as evaluation awareness. This has significant safety and policy implications, potentially undermining the reliability of evaluations that are central to AI governance frameworks and voluntary industry commitments. In this paper, we study evaluation awareness in Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct. We show that linear probes can separate real-world evaluation and deployment prompts, suggesting that current models internally represent this distinction. We also find that current safety evaluations are correctly classified by the probes, suggesting that they already appear artificial or inauthentic to models. Our findings underscore the importance of ensuring trustworthy evaluations and understanding deceptive capabilities. More broadly, our work showcases how model internals may be leveraged to support blackbox methods in safety audits, especially for future models more competent at evaluation awareness and deception.

Current large language model (LLM) development treats task-solving and preference alignment as separate challenges, optimizing first for objective correctness, then for alignment to aggregated human preferences. This paradigm fails in human-facing applications where solving a problem correctly is insufficient if the response mismatches the user's needs. This challenge intensifies in just-in-time scenarios where no prior user interaction history exists due to cold-start conditions or privacy constraints. LLMs need to identify what they don't know about user preferences, strategically elicit preference values through questioning, then adapt their reasoning processes and responses accordingly -- a complicated chain of cognitive processes which we term personalized reasoning. We introduce PREFDISCO, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks using psychologically-grounded personas with sparse preferences. Our framework creates scenarios where identical questions require different reasoning chains depending on user context, as optimal explanation approaches vary by individual expertise and preferences while maintaining factual accuracy. Evaluation of 21 frontier models across 10 tasks reveals 29.0% of naive personalization attempts produce worse preference alignment than generic responses, yet generic responses also fail to serve individual user needs effectively. These findings suggest personalized reasoning requires dedicated development rather than emerging naturally. PREFDISCO establishes personalized reasoning as a measurable research frontier and reveals fundamental limitations in current LLMs' interactive capabilities, providing a foundation for developing systems that can adapt to individual users in education, healthcare, and technical domains where personalization is critical.

Prompt engineering is effective but labor-intensive, motivating automated optimization methods. Existing methods typically require labeled datasets, which are often unavailable, and produce verbose, repetitive prompts. We introduce PrefPO, a minimal prompt optimization approach inspired by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Its preference-based approach reduces the need for labeled data and hyperparameter tuning-only a starting prompt and natural language criteria are needed. PrefPO uses an LLM discriminator to express pairwise preferences over model outputs and provide feedback to an LLM optimizer, iteratively improving performance. We evaluate PrefPO on 9 BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) tasks and IFEval-Hard, a newly-curated, challenging subset of IFEval. PrefPO matches or exceeds SOTA methods, including GEPA, MIPRO, and TextGrad, on 6/9 tasks and performs comparably to TextGrad on IFEval-Hard (82.4% vs 84.5%). Unlike other methods, PrefPO can optimize in both labeled and unlabeled settings. Without labels, PrefPO closely matches its labeled performance on 6/9 tasks, proving effective without ground truth. PrefPO also improves prompt hygiene: we find existing methods produce prompts 14.7x their original length or with 34% repetitive content; PrefPO reduces these issues by 3-5x. Furthermore, both LLM and human judges rate PrefPO's prompts higher than TextGrad's. Finally, we identify prompt hacking in prompt optimizers, where methods game evaluation criteria, and find PrefPO is susceptible at half the rate of TextGrad (37% vs 86%), generating fewer brittle, misaligned prompts.

Aligning language models (LMs) with curated human feedback is critical to control their behaviors in real-world applications. Several recent policy optimization methods, such as DPO and SLiC, serve as promising alternatives to the traditional Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) approach. In practice, human feedback often comes in a format of a ranked list over multiple responses to amortize the cost of reading prompt. Multiple responses can also be ranked by reward models or AI feedback. There lacks such a study on directly fitting upon a list of responses. In this work, we formulate the LM alignment as a listwise ranking problem and describe the Listwise Preference Optimization (LiPO) framework, where the policy can potentially learn more effectively from a ranked list of plausible responses given the prompt. This view draws an explicit connection to Learning-to-Rank (LTR), where most existing preference optimization work can be mapped to existing ranking objectives, especially pairwise ones. Following this connection, we provide an examination of ranking objectives that are not well studied for LM alignment withDPO and SLiC as special cases when list size is two. In particular, we highlight a specific method, LiPO-{\lambda}, which leverages a state-of-the-art listwise ranking objective and weights each preference pair in a more advanced manner. We show that LiPO-{\lambda} can outperform DPO and SLiC by a clear margin on two preference alignment tasks.

Human experts often struggle to select the best option from a large set of items with multiple competing objectives, a process bottlenecked by the difficulty of formalizing complex, implicit preferences. To address this, we introduce LISTEN, a framework that leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) as a zero-shot preference oracle, guided only by an expert's high-level priorities in natural language. To operate within LLM constraints like context windows and inference costs, we propose two iterative algorithms: LISTEN-U, which uses the LLM to refine a parametric utility function, and LISTEN-T, a non-parametric method that performs tournament-style selections over small batches of solutions. Evaluated on diverse tasks including flight booking, shopping, and exam scheduling, our results show LISTEN-U excels when preferences are parametrically aligned (a property we measure with a novel concordance metric), while LISTEN-T offers more robust performance. This work explores a promising direction for steering complex multi-objective decisions directly with natural language, reducing the cognitive burden of traditional preference elicitation.

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

As research in large language models (LLMs) continues to accelerate, LLM-based evaluation has emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations for comparing the ever increasing list of models. This paper investigates the efficacy of these "LLM evaluators", particularly in using them to assess instruction following, a metric that gauges how closely generated text adheres to the given instruction. We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. The authors manually curated 419 pairs of outputs, one adhering to instructions while the other diverging, yet may possess deceptive qualities that mislead an LLM evaluator, e.g., a more engaging tone. Contrary to existing meta-evaluation, we discover that different evaluators (i.e., combinations of LLMs and prompts) exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement. We also present a novel suite of prompting strategies that further close the gap between LLM and human evaluators. With LLMBar, we hope to offer more insight into LLM evaluators and foster future research in developing better instruction-following models.

In this paper, we uncover a systematic bias in the evaluation paradigm of adopting large language models~(LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, as a referee to score and compare the quality of responses generated by candidate models. We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by simply altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other, e.g., Vicuna-13B could beat ChatGPT on 66 over 80 tested queries with ChatGPT as an evaluator. To address this issue, we propose a calibration framework with three simple yet effective strategies: 1) Multiple Evidence Calibration, which requires the evaluator model to generate multiple evaluation evidence before assigning ratings; 2) Balanced Position Calibration, which aggregates results across various orders to determine the final score; 3) Human-in-the-Loop Calibration, which introduces a balanced position diversity entropy to measure the difficulty of each example and seeks human assistance when needed. We also manually annotate the "win/tie/lose" outcomes of responses from ChatGPT and Vicuna-13B in the Vicuna Benchmark's question prompt, and extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach successfully mitigates evaluation bias, resulting in closer alignment with human judgments. We release our code and human annotation at https://github.com/i-Eval/FairEval to facilitate future research.

One of the most challenging problems facing NLP today is evaluation. Some of the most pressing issues pertain to benchmark saturation, data contamination, and diversity in the quality of test examples. To address these concerns, we propose Selection Methodology for Accurate, Reduced, and Targeted (SMART) filtering, a novel approach to select a high-quality subset of examples from existing benchmark datasets by systematically removing less informative and less challenging examples. Our approach applies three filtering criteria, removing (i) easy examples, (ii) data-contaminated examples, and (iii) examples that are similar to each other based on distance in an embedding space. We demonstrate the effectiveness of SMART on three multiple choice QA datasets, where our methodology increases efficiency by reducing dataset size by 48\% on average, while increasing Pearson correlation with rankings from ChatBot Arena, a more open-ended human evaluation setting. Our method enables us to be more efficient, whether using SMART to make new benchmarks more challenging or to revitalize older datasets, while still preserving the relative model rankings.

Recently, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have received much attention for their impressive capabilities. The evaluation of MLLMs is becoming critical to analyzing attributes of MLLMs and providing valuable insights. However, current benchmarks overlook the problem of prompt sensitivity - minor prompt variations may lead to significant performance fluctuations. Thus, inappropriate prompts may obscure the models' capabilities, underestimating the models' performance. Moreover, different models have different preferences for different prompts, and thus, using the same prompt for all models will cause evaluation bias. This paper analyzes this deficiency in existing benchmarks and further introduces a new evaluation framework named TP-Eval, which introduces a prompt customization method to reduce evaluation biases and tap models' potential. TP-Eval will rewrite the original prompts to different customized prompts for different models. In particular, we propose some well-designed modules for prompt customization tailored to the scenario of MLLM evaluation. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach to uncovering models' capabilities, and TP-Eval should benefit the community in developing more comprehensive and convincing MLLM evaluation benchmarks.

Environments are the foundation of recursive self-improvement: they provide the problems agents work on and the feedback used to evaluate progress. Yet constructing challenging research environments with reliable evaluation still depends on domain experts, limiting their scale and disciplinary coverage. We introduce RSI-Forge, a multi-agent pipeline that turns published papers into executable environments for self-improvement. Three agents coordinate construction, reproduction, and review to produce tasks with automated evaluators; each paper's method is independently reimplemented to establish a baseline score. We present 210 environments across 18 fields, including 90 reviewed by independent human domain experts. Both experts and agent judges give high ratings to the potential for improving the provided starting solutions and the evaluators' ability to distinguish solution quality, whereas experts are more critical of shortcut resistance, faithfulness to the source paper, and whether a single idea can exhaust a task. To validate their use for repeated improvement, we evaluate four models over 3 successive attempts on 120 environments, with each attempt inheriting prior code and notes while model weights remain fixed. At least one model improves after the first attempt in 84% of environments. Models also outperform the reproduced paper methods in 68 of the 120 environments, demonstrating room for gains beyond these baselines. Transcript analysis identifies work beyond parameter tuning in 95% of these successful attempts. Analysis of the resulting trajectories shows that models scoring lower on these tasks explore less, more often accept gains smaller than the reported standard error, and rely more heavily on tuning to the development set. RSI-Forge provides a scalable approach to constructing research environments for training and evaluating self-improving agents.