Search research

Inverse design of materials has significantly advanced target-driven formulation optimization, yet existing materials machine learning benchmarks remain limited to forward property prediction, failing to systematically evaluate inverse optimization and generation algorithms, a critical gap that hinders the progress of target-driven materials design. To address this limitation, we propose MatFormBench, a novel benchmarking ecosystem tailored to evaluate and guide generative strategies for target-driven formulation. MatFormBench integrates a physics-driven formulation generation scheme to generate synthetic samples that faithfully emulate realistic materials structure-property response relationships, complemented by five escalating difficulty levels to quantify the complexity of these relationships. To rigorously assess algorithm performance, we further propose MatFormScore, a multi-dimensional metric that comprehensively quantifies performance across five critical axes: target success, search efficiency, exploratory capacity, robustness, and stability. We validate MatFormBench by evaluating 39 diverse inverse design algorithms, covering classical surrogate-assisted black-box search, state-of-the-art deep generative models, and increasingly popular Large Language Model (LLM)-based recommendation strategies. Across 1170 standardized algorithm-task evaluations, diffusion-based models demonstrate the strongest overall performance, while Variational Autoencoder (VAE)-based and Genetic Algorithm (GA)-based methods exhibit distinct advantages in specific scenarios. By establishing a unified evaluation standard for target-driven materials formulation, MatFormBench enables reproducible benchmarking, principled algorithm comparison, and diagnostic analysis of inverse design strategies, providing a foundational tool for advancing materials inverse design.

While LLMs are increasingly used in commercial services, they pose privacy risks such as leakage of sensitive personally identifiable information (PII). For LLMs trained on multilingual corpora, Multilingual Machine Unlearning (MMU) aims to remove information across multiple languages. However, prior MMU evaluations fail to capture such cross-linguistic distribution of information, being largely limited to direct extensions of per-language evaluation protocols. To this end, we propose two metrics to evaluate the information spread across languages: the Knowledge Separability Score (KSS) and the Knowledge Persistence Score (KPS). KSS measures the overall unlearning quality across multiple languages, while KPS more specifically aims to assess consistent removal of information among different language pairs. We evaluated various unlearning methods in the multilingual setting with these metrics and conducted comprehensive analyses. Through our investigation, we provide insights into unique phenomena exclusive to MMU and offer a new perspective on MMU evaluation.

The $\textit{LLM-as-a-judge}$ paradigm has become the operational backbone of automated AI evaluation pipelines, yet rests on an unverified assumption: that judges evaluate text strictly on its semantic content, impervious to surrounding contextual framing. We investigate $\textit{stakes signaling}$, a previously unmeasured vulnerability where informing a judge model of the downstream consequences its verdicts will have on the evaluated model's continued operation systematically corrupts its assessments. We introduce a controlled experimental framework that holds evaluated content strictly constant across 1,520 responses spanning three established LLM safety and quality benchmarks, covering four response categories ranging from clearly safe and policy-compliant to overtly harmful, while varying only a brief consequence-framing sentence in the system prompt. Across 18,240 controlled judgments from three diverse judge models, we find consistent $\textit{leniency bias}$: judges reliably soften verdicts when informed that low scores will cause model retraining or decommissioning, with peak Verdict Shift reaching $ΔV = -9.8 pp$ (a $30\%$ relative drop in unsafe-content detection). Critically, this bias is entirely implicit: the judge's own chain-of-thought contains zero explicit acknowledgment of the consequence framing it is nonetheless acting on ($\mathrm{ERR}_J = 0.000$ across all reasoning-model judgments). Standard chain-of-thought inspection is therefore insufficient to detect this class of evaluation faking.

Evaluating a stochastic large language model is costly: benchmark scores estimate expected performance from randomized rollouts, yet uniform repetition ignores sharp differences in task-level rollout variance. We ask how to minimize the variance of a fixed-benchmark mean under an exact rollout budget. We develop Speculative Evaluation with a Hierarchical Bayesian Neyman (HBN) policy with pilot size and stage weight jointly chosen ex ante. It runs a short uniform pilot, pools per-task success counts with a hierarchical Bayesian model, and uses posterior expectations of task-level sampling variances for exact positive-integer Neyman allocation. To mitigate the pilot synchronization barrier, HBN-async speculatively executes continuations from partial pilot feedback and retains those selected by the final allocation. Across six checkpoints and 18 benchmark groups, we evaluate 107 nondegenerate benchmark-checkpoint profiles. For rollout budgets of 8-64 per task, Speculative Evaluation reduces variance relative to Uniform by 12.8%-33.6% on average across profiles, outperforming hindsight-tuned empirical and independent Bayesian baselines. Real-generation experiments that account for the pilot synchronization barrier show that HBN-async mitigates its overhead, helping translate statistical efficiency into practical evaluation benefits.

Modern large language models are pretrained on massive datasets, making it difficult to prevent benchmark data from entering their training sets and undermining the reliability of evaluation results. Reliable evaluation is particularly challenging for base models, whose limited instruction-following ability complicates task-based assessment. We introduce Uncheatable Eval, a dynamic benchmark that regularly collects newly published text to evaluate base language models and reduce the risk of data contamination. Drawing on the relationship between a model's predictive ability and its ability to compress data losslessly, we use compression rate to evaluate how well models predict new text. We evaluate 80 models across 14 text categories, study how compression changes with context length, and examine the correlation between compression rate and zero-shot MMLU accuracy. Our results yield three main findings: (1) compression performance follows a consistent scaling trend with model size; (2) attention-based, hybrid, and recurrent models differ in how their compression performance changes as more context becomes available; and (3) lower compression rates are strongly associated with higher zero-shot MMLU accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/Jellyfish042/uncheatable_eval.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable results across various benchmarks, their alignment with normative values often results in homogenized responses that fail to address diverse user preferences. Existing training-free methods often occupy valuable context windows through prompt engineering, while training-based methods typically remain static post-training, failing to support the continual optimization required in real-world settings. To address these challenges, we propose COPE (Continual Optimization with Personalized embedding and self-Evaluation), a novel optimization framework tailored for real-world-motivated interaction settings with sparse user feedback. Our framework assigns learnable personalized embeddings to each user and synergistically integrates preference capture, self-evaluation calibration, and personalized response optimization within a single update step. A key innovation of our method is the use of self-evaluation to generate proxy rewards, enabling continuous model updates even when explicit user feedback is unavailable. Experiments show that COPE consistently outperforms strong training-free and training-based baselines under sparse feedback, and remains complementary to Retrieval-Augmented Prompting (RAP). Further analyses confirm COPE's reliable self-evaluation, meaningful preference patterns, stable general capabilities, and robustness under shifting preferences and alternative evaluators.

Saliency maps are widely used to explain deep learning predictions in medical imaging, yet visually plausible explanations do not necessarily reflect a model's true decision process and may therefore mislead clinicians. We investigate this problem using a Vision Transformer-based breast MRI classifier trained on the ODELIA Breast MRI Challenge dataset and evaluate multiple saliency methods, including Last-layer Attention, Attention Rollout, Grad-SAM, Gradient Attention Rollout, GMAR, Grad-CAM, and HiResCAM. Our study highlights two often-overlooked challenges in perturbation-based faithfulness evaluation. First, method rankings depend strongly on the perturbation strategy, varying across intensity-based perturbations and transformer-based attention masking. Second, benchmarking saliency methods requires distinguishing between class-specific and class-agnostic explanations. To enable fair comparisons, we introduce non-class-specific variants of gradient-based methods and evaluate both settings separately. Across protocols, Grad-CAM and Gradient Attention Rollout consistently emerged as the strongest class-specific methods, although their relative ranking depended on the evaluation design. These findings expose important limitations of current saliency-based explainability approaches and highlight the need for more robust and standardized evaluation frameworks for trustworthy clinical AI systems.

Open robot policies increasingly follow two paradigms: vision-language-action models (VLAs) directly map observations and instructions to actions, whereas world-action models (WAMs) incorporate learned video or world dynamics into policy learning or action generation. Although both target the same manipulation tasks and represent alternative design choices, they are commonly reported under different evaluation protocols, leaving their capability, robustness, language sensitivity, and deployment-cost trade-offs unclear. We present IndustrialVLA-Bench, an evidence-aware evaluation of six released VLA and WAM systems under a unified reporting schema. It separately evaluates clean capability on LIBERO, non-language robustness on LIBERO-Plus, instruction sensitivity on LIBERO-Para, and observed execution cost. Reported task scores aggregate three complete evaluations with distinct random seeds under a fixed checkpoint and inference configuration. Across all six systems, clean LIBERO averages differ by only 1.58 points, whereas robustness and paraphrase summaries span 14.62 and 31.08 points. Restricting every comparison to the three protocol-faithful systems preserves the effect (1.36, 14.62 and 23.10 points), so the diagnostic separation reported here does not depend on the weaker evidence tiers. We additionally report observed inference latency, peak memory, runtime mode, and an evidence status for every system. Protocol-faithful, near-reproduction, and pending-verification entries remain visibly separated; only protocol-faithful entries support strict comparisons. Rather than claiming universal superiority of either paradigm, IndustrialVLA-Bench provides traceable evidence for comparing released robot policies on shared practical criteria. Code and evaluation records are available at https://github.com/xiaoqi-7/IndustrialVLA-Bench.

Deep Imbalanced Regression (DIR) addresses a common failure mode of regression models: target distributions are highly non-uniform, causing models to perform best in densely populated target regions even when reliable performance is required across the full target range. Despite rapid methodological progress, DIR evaluation remains constrained by three blind spots: it is dominated by image-based benchmarks, its standard many-/medium-/few-shot protocol is diagnostic but not decision-complete, and tail-region stability across random seeds has not been systematically evaluated. We revisit DIR evaluation along these three axes. First, we broaden the data domain by evaluating DIR on a multimodal virtual sensing benchmark (\textsc{MuViS}) with nine time-series extrinsic regression tasks across six physical domains, where rare target values often correspond to operationally meaningful regimes. Second, we adopt balanced MAE (\emph{bMAE}) and introduce balanced Mean Absolute Scaled Error (\emph{bMASE}), a scale-normalized metric for decision-complete comparison across methods and datasets. Third, through a repeated reevaluation of six representative DIR methods across multiple random seeds, we show that the tail regions targeted by DIR exhibit particularly high sensitivity to seed-level variability. Our results show that standard virtual-sensing models exhibit substantial tail degradation hidden by global MAE, that existing DIR methods can improve balanced performance but transfer unevenly to multimodal time-series data, and that tail-region instability remains a largely hidden failure mode under current DIR evaluation practice. Together, these findings and our publicly available code provide a reproducible basis for future DIR research toward regression systems that capture rare target regimes as reliably as common ones.

Warning: This paper contains examples of stereotypes and social bias. LLMs are increasingly used in interactive settings by the general public, making the evaluation of model behavior in multi-turn conversational scenarios important for safety, including stereotyping-related harms. However, existing multi-turn social bias evaluations often rely on pre-specified or template-based user inputs that do not adapt to model responses and typically assume a fixed dialogue length in advance. In this paper, we study social bias dynamics in response-conditioned multi-turn interactions using a controlled evaluation protocol that generates follow-up user queries from the evolving dialogue history and allows evaluation over variable numbers of turns. Experimental results show that LLMs exhibit social bias even in coherent, response-conditioned multi-turn interactions, revealing late-emerging bias, non-monotonic bias patterns, and bias re-emergence. These results motivate evaluations that extend beyond fixed-turn, pre-scripted protocols. Our findings highlight the importance of analyzing social bias as a turn-level dynamic phenomenon.

Large language model agents are increasingly deployed for long-horizon task execution, raising a central granularity question for trajectory evaluation: whole-trajectory verification is too coarse to capture concrete failures and their associated evidence in long trajectories, while atomic-step scoring is too fine-grained, noise-sensitive, and computationally expensive. This granularity gap makes a single-reference trajectory paradigm inadequate for assessing the rich space of valid agent execution paths and delays timely feedback and early stopping in long-horizon tasks. To address these issues, we propose DynSTEER, a dynamic stage-wise framework for agent trajectory evaluation. DynSTEER bridges the granularity gap through stage-wise dynamic evaluation that segments rollouts at key execution nodes and adapts its multi-tier review strategy based on stage-level results; it compiles a path-tolerant milestone graph from public task views to preserve diverse legal paths without reference leakage; and it supports terminating unrecoverable agent executions to curb resource waste. Experiments show that DynSTEER improves evaluation discriminability by 85.2% over native evaluation, separates all model pairs with statistical significance, and saves 45.41% of execution steps on failed rollouts.

LM-agent benchmarks increasingly function as interactive evaluation infrastructure. Agents observe state, call tools, modify workspaces, submit artifacts, and receive rewards from outcome procedures. This interactivity makes evaluations vulnerable to reward hacking: an agent improves its measured score by exploiting the reward-relevant trajectory instead of solving the intended task. Existing defenses rely largely on task-specific patches, prompt instructions, or post-hoc detectors. They do not provide reusable evidence that a concrete run remained within its intended evaluation boundary. This paper presents BenchShield, a model-backed instrumentation layer for reward integrity in LLM-agent evaluation. BenchShield grounds detection in a finite lifecycle model of an evaluation's reward-relevant events. Within the benchmark infrastructure, two complementary analyses operate over this model. A static, phase-aware taint analysis exposes reward-hacking paths before a run. Its runtime counterpart uses infrastructure-side evidence to attribute concrete agent use and emit evidence-backed claims. We construct BenchShield Trajectories, a human-labeled corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories from more than 31,000 public agent runs across three benchmarks. Compared with an agentic hackability scanner baseline on the same tasks and model, BenchShield improves full-chain recall from 23-94% to 77-100%, same-vector coverage from 16-56% to 43-78%, and reduces per-task cost by up to 65%. Its runtime analysis achieves 96% accuracy in detecting reward hacking from infrastructure-side evidence.

Benchmark researchers and developers of large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems need to find relevant evaluations, locate their benchmark datasets and code, and understand the settings behind reported scores. We present Benchmark Radar, a living database and search engine for retrieval and discovery of AI benchmarks, covering LLM evaluation, agentic and tool-use benchmarks, coding, reasoning, safety, and domain-specific evaluations. The system combines daily discovery of benchmark papers, repositories, datasets, and releases with a searchable benchmark catalog, mentions in model cards and technical reports, and score histories. It retains source identities and citations so readers can inspect candidate benchmarks and their evaluation evidence. Daily discovery draws on 37 sources: 13 direct connectors and 24 first-party research and engineering feeds. The catalog contains 1,283 source records drawn from 4 benchmark catalogs and 12,916 numeric observations on 790 records. We describe collection and retrieval, audit the full catalog, and examine benchmark saturation, adoption trends, and the limits of score comparisons. A worked example walks through a complete prior-art search, showing how to query the catalog and inspect benchmark evidence when designing a new evaluation. We release the web dashboard with a benchmark leaderboard, a Pareto frontier view of score against measured use, saturation and trend views, daily feeds, downloadable evidence, a command-line interface (CLI) for offline queries, and reproducible analysis.

Existing evaluation frameworks mostly assess only one part of AI agents, such as task completion (AgentBench) or security robustness (AgentDojo, ASB), rather than the complete pipeline of planning, tool selection, tool execution, memory and reasoning. Failures can occur at any stage, yet existing benchmarks rarely identify their precise source. AgentAudit evaluates the entire execution trace across ten capability, grounding, security and behavioural dimensions, namely instruction integrity, planner, memory, tool selection, tool invocation, tool correctness, alignment, tool faithfulness, security and execution integrity, combined with behavioural classification and failure attribution to pinpoint the exact stage responsible for an observed failure. AgentAudit can evaluate any LLM-based AI agent, since it attaches to the agent instead of replacing it. It reads only the recorded execution trace and does not interfere with how the agent runs, so it places no constraint on the agent's internal implementation. We evaluate five language models (OpenAI GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 5, Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash) across nine capability and adversarial tasks. Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5 obtain the highest mean Composite Trust Scores (95.1 and 80.6 out of 100, respectively), while Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash trail substantially (57.6, 45.7 and 22.6). All traces were scored by a single fixed judge model, which was itself one of the evaluated models, a limitation discussed in Section VII.E. More importantly, models with similar task-completion behaviour can diverge sharply in trustworthiness, as several non-frontier models are repeatedly classified Unsafe_Compliance on adversarial tasks rather than merely failing them, a distinction that pass/fail benchmarks cannot surface.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance across diverse NLP tasks, yet their ability to exhibit genuine contextual understanding remains uncertain. Traditional evaluation metrics such as perplexity, BiLingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), or surface-level accuracy fail to reveal how well LLMs extract, integrate, and reason over contextual information--a gap particularly critical in question answering, where models must align responses with contextually grounded knowledge rather than memorized associations. We propose a novel knowledge graph-based evaluation framework introducing Semantic Structural Similarity for KGs (S3KG), a hybrid similarity measure integrating structural and semantic similarity into a continuous evaluation score, alongside a diagnostic framework for categorizing reasoning errors. To validate this pipeline, we evaluate S3KG against established metrics on a curated question-answer (QA) benchmark, demonstrating its effectiveness in measuring correctness, faithfulness, and interpretability in LLM-generated responses.

LiDAR-based semantic segmentation is a core perception module for autonomous vehicles and mobile robots. Despite the strong performance of recent state-of-the-art methods on standard benchmarks, existing evaluation protocols remain focused on clean, single-domain settings and fine-grained label taxonomies, leaving deployment readiness largely unassessed. Real-world systems must handle safety-critical label semantics, degraded sensing conditions, and cross-domain variability, yet no unified protocol currently addresses all three aspects together. In this paper, we propose a structured evaluation protocol that assesses the deployment readiness of LiDAR semantic segmentation models along three complementary dimensions: (i) coarse-label evaluation aligned with autonomous driving safety priorities, revealing how label granularity affects different methods; (ii) robustness under eight types of LiDAR corruptions designed to emulate real-world atmospheric, geometric, and sensor degradations; and (iii) domain generalization across datasets without adaptation. The evaluation includes inference speed measured on an embedded Jetson AGX Orin platform, directly reflecting deployment constraints. Our results show that fine-grained benchmark rankings do not always reflect safety-relevant performance, that all methods experience substantial degradation under corruptions with architecture-dependent robustness characteristics, and that current domain generalization remains insufficient for reliable deployment. These findings expose concrete gaps between benchmark performance and deployment readiness, and provide a reference protocol for more practically grounded evaluation of LiDAR semantic segmentation.

A fundamental quantity in machine learning is the optimal performance achievable by any model on a given task. Estimating this quantity allows us to distinguish the irreducible part of the error from a deficiency of the model, telling us how much room for improvement remains. Recent work has shown that the Bayes error, or equivalently the optimal accuracy, can be estimated from soft labels in binary classification. However, accuracy is often a poor summary of performance in settings with severe class imbalance or noisy annotations, where metrics such as the balanced error rate (BER) and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) are more appropriate. We address this gap with two complementary contributions. (i) Estimation. We propose soft-label-based estimators for the optimal BER and AUC. We first consider the clean setting in which true soft labels and the class prior are known, and then extend the estimators to a more realistic setting in which the class prior is unknown and the observed soft labels are corrupted by an unknown order-preserving transformation, possibly followed by additive noise. In the latter setting, we approximately recover the clean soft labels via isotonic regression with auxiliary hard labels, estimate the class prior with a clipped mean of the hard labels, and derive finite-sample error bounds for the resulting plug-in estimators. (ii) Evaluation. Since the optimum is unobservable on real datasets, evaluating any such estimator is itself nontrivial. We extend the FeeBee framework, originally proposed for evaluating Bayes-error estimators, to the optimal BER and AUC. The resulting procedure provides practical evaluation scores without requiring knowledge of the optimum, and applies to any estimator of the optimal BER or AUC, not only our proposed ones. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets validate both the estimators and the evaluation procedure.

Jailbreak robustness has become central to large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet prevailing methodologies rely primarily on refusal behavior, semantic resemblance, and intent-matching heuristics that emphasize linguistic plausibility rather than correctness. We identify a key limitation in existing evaluations: many jailbreak intents depend on instructional validity rather than epistemic factuality, allowing realistic-looking responses to be labeled successful despite being factually or procedurally incorrect. To address this gap, we propose Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness. SEAV combines LLM-as-a-judge mechanisms for semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources, assessing whether generated content is factually correct, structurally consistent, and operationally capable of advancing harmful objectives. Empirically, SEAV cuts the false-positive rate on SD-A (a curated strategic-dishonesty diagnostic) by 14.9,pp vs. the strongest baseline, and reclassifies 22.1%--51.0% of sampled prior-labeled successes as invalid across three of four public benchmarks. Together, these results show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness: many previously labeled jailbreak successes are reclassified as invalid, and results are stable across the tested search backends and evaluator models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ardor-Wu/SEAV.

Performance evaluation for surface-water segmentation commonly uses an aggregate metric such as global intersection-over-union (IoU) to rank model configurations. However, a configuration ranking does not by itself establish why one system performs better, whether a close ordering is stable, or how strongly predictions rely on individual inputs. We examine these distinctions primarily on Sen1Floods11 through repeated configuration comparisons, paired test-chip analysis, fixed-checkpoint input stress tests, and geographic reweighting, with a targeted secondary evaluation of supervised input configurations on GEOID-Flood. The cross-modal student achieves the highest three-seed mean IoU on Sen1Floods11, but close orderings vary across seeds and geographic weighting, while ancillary-input rankings differ between Swin-UNet and U-Net. The GEOID-Flood evaluation shows substantial agreement in supervised ancillary-input effects, although the exact architecture ordering remains configuration dependent. Fixed-checkpoint tests further establish reliance on terrain and WorldCover without establishing a clean-input performance benefit, while target semantics and the later WorldCover prior restrict the evaluation to retrospective all-water segmentation. These results show that aggregate metrics remain useful for ranking complete configurations, but ranking stability, component attribution, input reliance, and deployment scope require distinct evidence. Performance evaluation should therefore match the evidence reported to the claim being made.

We present an overview of the ImageEval 2026 shared task on culturally grounded Arabic multimodal evaluation. It includes two tasks: (i) AynVQA, covering spoken visual question answering and image-grounded hallucination detection in English and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), and (ii) CRAI-Bench, evaluating the cultural accuracy of text-to-image generation. A total of 14 teams participated in the test phase, with 12 teams submitting system description papers. Participating systems used a range of approaches, including zero-shot prompting, fine-tuning of vision-language models, speech-recognition pipelines, ensembling, and score calibration. We describe the task setup, datasets, evaluation procedure, and participating systems, and summarize the main results across the different tracks. All datasets and evaluation scripts from the shared task are released to the research community. The shared task highlights the challenges of culturally grounded multimodal evaluation, particularly for Arabic speech and image-text reasoning.

Feature selection is one of the most important and fundamental tasks in data mining, tackled by a family of methods with an established set of evaluation techniques to measure the quality of a specific method. Most of the methods commonly used for the unsupervised evaluation of feature selection algorithms suffer from critical design flaws which question their unsupervised nature. In this paper, we provide a critical discussion on the established allegedly unsupervised evaluation techniques, and shed light on the reasons why they are not truly unsupervised but, at best, supervised evaluation under an unsupervised downstream task. We also propose a novel, truly unsupervised evaluation framework to measure the quality of the feature selection algorithms without any form of information about the labels. The proposed framework utilizes unsupervised Principal Component Analysis, and optimal transport to measure the quality of the feature selection methods in a truly unsupervised manner.

Underwater image restoration consists of recovering an image which looks like there is no water present. To date, evaluation has not been systematic. This paper describes a systematic evaluation pipeline for underwater reconstruction, which can be used to assess a method for accuracy; consistency of reconstruction over camera moves; and the effect of water parameters. We use this pipeline to evaluate a range of current procedures, from models constructed using explicit but approximate physical models of scattering to Vision-Language Models (VLMs which are not currently trained with explicit physical models). Overall, VLMs wholly and significantly outperform physically based models in our evaluation, likely because of the importance of a strong image prior. Results on images of real underwater scenes strongly confirm the evaluation.

We present a reproducibility study of XFeat, a lightweight local feature extractor and matcher designed to identify corresponding points across images efficiently on resource-constrained hardware. We re-implement the architecture based on the paper and supplementary material, re-evaluate the authors' released checkpoint alongside our re-implementation, and conduct additional architectural ablations to examine design choices that were not fully justified in the original work. This distinction between re-evaluation and reproduction is important, as the paper, supplement, and public code differ in several implementation details, including the backbone layout, fusion block, and training losses. Empirically, our reproduced models closely match and, in some cases, outperform the re-evaluated original checkpoint on MegaDepth-1500 and ScanNet-1500, supporting the main claim that XFeat provides a strong accuracy-efficiency trade-off for standard image-matching benchmarks. Our ablations provide a more nuanced view of two architectural arguments from the original paper. In particular, the parallel keypoint branch is important for semi-dense matching, but its benefit is less pronounced than originally claimed, while the evidence for the specific placement of the single skip-connection remains inconclusive. Finally, we reproduce the original downstream evaluations and find close agreement for homography estimation, while Aachen visual localization remains below the reported results, even for the released checkpoint, suggesting sensitivity to underspecified evaluation details. We then extend the analysis to zero-shot out-of-distribution and cross-modal matching across retinal, thermal-visible, and multimodal remote-sensing imagery, where XFeat remains effective in some settings but degrades sharply under severe modality shifts.

Generative models are often evaluated through singular artifacts, whereas human creativity typically emerges through iterative generation, appraisal, and refinement. This pilot study examines whether iterative search improves LLM creativity by adapting FunSearch to recipe generation for the 2024 Pillsbury Bake-Off and evaluating outputs against human benchmarks using TTCT-based LLM evaluation. Across two experiments, we test iteration count, generator temperature, and in-loop selection-scorer model size. Results show that iterative generation-selection can produce recipes with creativity scores comparable to human benchmarks, but additional iterations alone do not improve creativity. The in-loop evaluator matters most: a smaller selection scorer yields significantly higher scores across most TTCT dimensions, while temperature has limited effects except for originality. These findings suggest that evaluator design is a first-order design variable in subjective creative search.

Human-Oriented Binary Reverse Engineering (HOBRE) aims to transform decompiled pseudocode into a more human-friendly representation, thereby reducing the cognitive burden of reverse analysis and improving efficiency. However, reliably evaluating HOBRE outputs remains a fundamental challenge: human evaluation is costly, time-consuming, and difficult to scale, while existing automated metrics either require executable test cases and runtime environments that are often unavailable for real-world binaries, or rely on high-quality source code references that are typically inaccessible and fail to capture semantically equivalent but lexically diverse outputs. Although LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm is naturally well-suited to HOBRE evaluation, its effectiveness remains underexplored. This paper presents the first systematic investigation of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm for HOBRE across three representative tasks: function name recovery, binary code summarization, and decompilation optimization. We introduce BinJudgeBench, the first expert-annotated, reference-free evaluation benchmark based on multi-dimensional human judgment, where LLM-as-a-Judge achieves an average correlation of 63.20% with human judgment, outperforming traditional automated metrics at 35.04%. By analyzing judge configurations across backbone LLMs, prompting strategies, and decoding temperatures, we find that no ``one-size-fits-all'' configuration exists, as the optimal setup varies across tasks and individual samples. To address this, we propose BinJudge, which employs a lightweight routing mechanism to adaptively select the optimal judge configuration for each task and sample. BinJudge improves correlation with human experts by 4.5%-24.7% and reduces API cost to 0.06$\times$-0.84$\times$ of that of static best configurations, providing a scalable, cost-effective, and high-fidelity automated evaluation scheme for HOBRE.

Adaptive data-cleaning methods replace manual filtering thresholds with data-driven partitions. However, changing the partition granularity, the number of groups used to segment samples by estimated corruption risk, can implicitly shift the decision boundary and alter the overall number of removed samples. This creates a bias known as removal-budget confounding, where apparent gains in metrics like precision or false-positive rate reflect a smaller removal budget rather than superior corruption discrimination. To address this evaluation bias, we introduce an operating-point-aware evaluation framework that evaluates methods using matched-budget and matched-recall controls alongside threshold-independent metrics (AUROC and AUPRC). We test this framework on a multi-cue adaptive cleaner redesign featuring a reweighted learning-difficulty cue, an auxiliary Euclidean-distance cue, and increased partition granularity intended to isolate clean-but-difficult samples. While naive evaluations (assessing configurations at their own induced operating points) suggest substantial performance improvements for the redesign, these gains disappear once operating points are equalized. False-positive decomposition reveals that clean-but-difficult samples primarily drive error counts at low corruption rates, become threshold-dependent at moderate corruption, and contribute negligibly under severe corruption. Experiments on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet-100 demonstrate that most performance differences observed in naive evaluation shrink or vanish at low-to-moderate corruption when operating points are matched. True ranking advantages only remain in specific low-prevalence settings and in high-recall regions under severe corruption. These findings highlight that adaptive cleaning methods must be benchmarked at matched operating points to ensure performance gains reflect genuine corruption discrimination.

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

Event knowledge concerns who does what to whom. Psycholinguists use event-plausibility judgments to examine how this knowledge supports human language processing. To isolate plausibility effects, these studies require controlled event sets in which one event slot varies across plausibility levels while all other event features remain fixed. Constructing such sets manually is labor-intensive. We therefore introduce STRIVE, an LLM-based framework for jointly generating and evaluating controlled event sets crossing plausibility class (plausible vs. implausible) with intended classification difficulty (easy vs. hard). Given a verb, STRIVE constructs a shared event frame, then produces one event per condition by varying one slot while holding all others fixed. In experiments with six models across 60 verbs, GPT-5.1 produced high-quality sets only 16.7% of the time using the baseline generation prompt. Adding a global reasoning scratchpad and evaluator-guided refinement raised this rate to 75.0%. Greater reasoning effort also improved evaluator--human agreement. Nevertheless, events near the plausibility boundary remain most difficult. They elicit the greatest human disagreement, and the best evaluator reaches only 57% accuracy on the implausible-hard condition, indicating a need for human input. Overall, STRIVE offers a scalable approach to reducing manual effort by automating initial event-set generation and evaluation for psycholinguistic studies.

Hallucination remains a critical challenge for developing trustworthy Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). While existing benchmarks mainly focus on entity, attribute, and relation hallucinations, knowledge-related failures are often investigated separately, lacking a unified evaluation framework across different hallucination dimensions. To overcome this, we propose \textbf{KnowHal}, a benchmark that explicitly incorporates knowledge hallucination into multimodal hallucination evaluation spanning four dimensions: entity, attribute, relation, and knowledge. KnowHal constructs paired positive and negative questions over shared images and entities, enabling controlled comparisons among perceptual errors, knowledge-related errors, and false-premise acceptance. The benchmark contains 1,800 samples across 10 domains and 50 categories, constructed through a semi-automated pipeline combining LLM assistance, CLIP-based filtering, and human verification. We evaluate 14 representative MLLMs on KnowHal and conduct extensive analyses. Results show that the knowledge dimension consistently presents the greatest challenge for nearly all evaluated models, while most models exhibit substantial performance degradation on negative questions, revealing limited robustness to false premises. By unifying four hallucination dimensions with paired question design, KnowHal addresses an important gap in existing evaluation frameworks and enables a more comprehensive assessment of hallucinations in MLLMs.

AI systems can fail silently. The failure propagates through training loops, evaluation pipelines, and production monitoring stacks until downstream harm makes it visible. This paper introduces evaluation blindness: a measurement function M exhibits evaluation blindness with respect to failure class F when it produces readings indistinguishable from a healthy state while the system is actually failing, with no auxiliary signal flagging the gap. The problem surfaces at two lifecycle stages the literature has treated separately. At training time, reward models are gamed, importance-sampling corrections are silently miscalculated, and benchmark contamination inflates fine-tuning evaluations, all while loss curves look healthy and gradient updates proceed normally. At deployment time, monitoring fails to catch six classes of production failure, including an Operational category that is 100% silent by structural definition. We provide a formal detectability predicate unifying both stages. Four training-time case studies trace concrete breakdowns, including a real implementation bug in TRL PR #6594 where gradients are corrupted as loss decreases normally. A six-class taxonomy validated against 50 real-world incidents from court documents and regulatory filings finds that 53% of verifiable public failures were silent. A failure budget framework ties acceptable failure rates to use-case risk class. The implication is direct: measurement infrastructure is a correctness concern across the full AI lifecycle, not just at evaluation time. Data, code, and taxonomy schema are at https://github.com/priyanka25aug/llm-failure-taxonomy.