Search research

Social influence dialogue changes user behavior by altering internal cognitive states. The central evaluation question is whether the user's beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions measurably change over the course of conversation, a process-oriented criterion that neither surface-level text metrics (BLEU/ROUGE) nor single-score LLM judgments can capture. We propose the \textbf{Cog}nitive \textbf{W}orld \textbf{M}odel \textbf{(CogWM)}, an LLM-based user model that reframes multi-turn dialogue evaluation from what did the user say'' to how did the user's internal cognitive state evolves.'' CogWM jointly predicts BDI/E cognitive states and user utterances and serves as both a user simulator and an evaluation platform, using a three-tier evaluation framework that covers turn-level fidelity, trajectory-level state dynamics, and task-level composite scoring. Trained via our \textbf{S}ummarize-\textbf{a}nd-\textbf{A}llocate \textbf{(SaA)} annotation pipeline on 150,454 user-turn samples across four social influence scenarios, CogWM achieves 77.6% emotion accuracy (2.1$\times$ over GPT-5.5). In 3600 multi-agent discrimination trials, it distinguishes six commercial agents by their cognitive influence, with Llama-4-Scout ranking first (CTS +0.233). CogWM moves social influence dialogue evaluation from terminal judgment to process tracking. We have released our code\footnote{\scriptsize Code: https://github.com/lucianma05-create/CogWM} and models\footnote{Model: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/LucianMa/CogWM-14B}.

Uncertainty estimates in machine learning are typically evaluated using generic metrics such as the negative log-likelihood and expected calibration error, yet good performance on such metrics does not necessarily imply high utility in downstream decisions. We introduce decision-alignment, a criterion that reveals which evaluation metrics meaningfully align with downstream utilities. Applying this framework, we show that many widely used uncertainty metrics are either misaligned with common decision problems or encode pathological prior beliefs about the downstream task. We then propose prior-weighted utility metrics, a special class of proper scoring rules that provides decision-aligned uncertainty evaluation. Across benchmark experiments and real-world case studies, our metrics consistently align with realized decision utility, while conventional metrics do not. Our results surface flaws in the current UQ evaluation protocol and offer a principled extension of existing metrics toward decision-relevant UQ evaluation.

With the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in chatbots and everyday applications, companies increasingly need guardrails that are effective while remaining low-cost and low-latency. Safety evaluation of LLM outputs has generally relied on LLM-based judges, which can be effective but are often slow and expensive to deploy at scale. In this paper, we evaluate whether fine-tuned modern encoder classifiers from the ModernBERT family, including ModernBERT and Ettin, can reliably identify harmful LLM outputs in user-model conversations without substantial performance loss relative to LLM-based judges. We benchmark these encoder classifiers against rule-based prefix matching, fine-tuned LLM classifiers, and LLM judges using a range of judge-prompting strategies across open-source adversarial datasets. The LLM judges include evaluation methodologies from StrongReject, ShieldGemma, JailbreakBench, AILuminate, SorryBench, and a Claude-as-a-judge setup, as well as fine-tuned safety classifiers such as LlamaGuard 3 and LlamaGuard 4. The encoder classifiers are fine-tuned on judge-labeled data using a majority-voting label strategy and are then evaluated on a gold-standard holdout dataset to assess their performance relative to LLM judges. We report absolute performance using F1 score, false negative rate, and precision-recall metrics. We also break down results by attack technique, including single-turn prompting, decomposition, escalation, and context manipulation, to identify where encoder classifiers align with or diverge from LLM-based judges. Our findings provide guidance on when encoder classifiers can serve as cost- and latency-efficient alternatives to LLM-based safety evaluation.

As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.

Reliable evaluation of phrase break annotations is crucial, as subtle variations in prosodic boundaries directly affect the clarity and naturalness of speech. However, existing approaches exhibit major limitations: single-reference evaluation assumes a unique gold phrasing for an utterance despite multiple valid phrasings, while human judgment, though flexible, is labor-intensive and unscalable. To address these, we propose LLM-based Multi-Reference Evaluation (LMRE) for phrase break annotations that models the one-to-many nature of prosodic phrasing and generates multiple valid phrasings from minimal demonstrations. On a Korean testbed of 1,356 annotations covering five strategies, LMRE shows stronger alignment with human judgment than single-reference evaluation in both acceptance behavior and score correlation. Our findings demonstrate that LMRE effectively achieves both scalability and multi-reference support, highlighting the potential of LLMs for evaluation in the speech domain.

Trust in the application of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) relies on well-governed measurable evidence of performance and safety. In practice, however, evaluation data is often fragmented across systems, inconsistently structured and difficult to compare. We introduce the Generative Responsible AI Data Evaluation Schema (GRAIDES) as a lightweight open-source data model for centralising AI observability across popular vendors. Practical blueprints for code, architecture and statistical evaluation are shared as guidance about how to approach generative system assurance at the organisational level. Illustrative case study results are reported from Westminster City Council's AI catalogue with a focus on measuring human-model alignment including detecting systematic disagreement between evaluators. By framing evaluations as a data modelling problem, GRAIDES provides a practical pathway toward more consistent and reproducible benchmarking, tuning and assurance activities for generative AI systems.

Existing safety benchmarks target general adversarial scenarios but miss finance-specific risks. Financial LLMs face regulatory compliance violations, fraud facilitation, and systemic trust erosion that require targeted evaluation. We introduce FinRED, an expert-guided red-teaming framework for financial LLM safety evaluation developed with financial experts. FinRED uses a novel two-level taxonomy mapping global standards (e.g., FATF and EU DORA) to threats ranging from regulatory evasion to complex fraud, integrated with a scalable pipeline that converts real financial documents into context-rich red-teaming Behavioral Prompts (seeds) through an expert-defined schema. Rigorous expert validation confirms seed plausibility and realism for meaningful LLM safety evaluation. We also provide an expert-validated, finance-specific rubric that goes beyond disclaimer checks, aligns more closely with human experts than static one-size-fits-all rubrics, and reduces critical false negatives from 28 to 12. Aligned with internationally adopted risk-management and information-security standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 27001), FinRED is deployed in South Korea's Financial Security Institute (FSI) regulatory sandbox for generative AI security evaluation in real financial services. To mitigate dual-use risks, the dataset, generation pipeline, prompt template, and evaluation framework are gated for qualified researchers at https://github.com/selectstar-ai/FinRED-paper and https://huggingface.co/datasets/datumo/FinRED.

Clinician-centered evaluation is critical for validating medical AI systems, especially in ultrasound imaging where quantitative metrics do not always capture clinical usability. Existing medical image platforms primarily focus on dataset labeling. They lack integrated support for blinded model comparison and reproducible evaluation workflows. We present a clinician-centered pipeline for remote annotation and evaluation in ultrasound AI studies. The proposed pipeline uses a centralized server and lightweight browser interfaces to enable clinicians to perform annotation, blinded ranking, and review without local dataset downloads. The pipeline also supports multi-rater participation, centralized result aggregation, and automated statistical analysis. We validate the pipeline in a fetal ultrasound segmentation study with six raters spanning expert, generalist, and non-expert experience levels. The system automatically generated Spearman correlation, Kendall's $τ$, and top-1 selection statistics. Results indicated moderate to strong agreement across experts and other groups. The blinded evaluation results showed a tendency for later active learning models to be preferred. These outcomes suggest that the pipeline can support clinician-centered annotation and reproducible human-\ac{AI} evaluation studies in ultrasound imaging. The proposed pipeline is available on \href{https://github.com/13204942/SonoRate}{GitHub}.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care. Here, we propose AIPatient Arena, an EHRs-grounded evaluation framework for assessing the clinical utility of LLMs across eight dimensions of clinical competence. The framework integrates EHR data into patient-specific knowledge graphs, enabling multi-turn physician-patient interactions. We applied AIPatient Arena on a primary cohort of 437 patients and two out-of-distribution validation cohorts of 119 and 67 patients. We observe that LLMs performed well in medical interview questioning skills (QS; mean scores, 4.43-4.99/5), ethical and professional conduct (ET; 4.38-4.93/5), and clarity and transparency of clinical explanations (EX; 3.80-4.72/5). Performance was moderate in information integration (II; 3.19-4.21/5) and medication safety and justification (MS; 3.13-3.78/5), but persistent weaknesses were observed in handling of ambiguous patient responses (HR; 2.57-3.32/5), information coverage (IC; 2.08-3.02/5), and diagnostic accuracy and reasoning (Dx; 2.63-3.55/5). Process-based evaluation revealed recurrent interaction failures, including repetitive questioning, omission of past medical history, and inadequate handling of uncertainty. Richer conversational context improved diagnostic reasoning but yielded limited gains in treatment planning. These findings indicate that final-answer accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating clinical readiness and highlight the importance of assessing how models gather, interpret, and communicate information throughout a consultation. AIPatient Arena provides an EHR-grounded framework for workflow-oriented pre-deployment evaluation of medical LLMs.

Radiology report evaluation is essential for advancing automated report generation. Natural language generation metrics have limited clinical relevance. Clinical efficacy (CE) metrics evaluate important medical findings, but focus mainly on presence and cover only a limited set of entities. Due to heavy reliance on manual annotations, it is difficult for CE metrics to extend clinical entities or attributes. In clinical practice, radiology reports serve as a medium for information transfer. Clinicians use them to perform downstream diagnostic tasks without directly inspecting images. Based on this insight, we propose ReportQA, a clinical-related and flexible radiology report evaluation framework, supporting detailed quantitative analysis of radiology report generation systems. We first collect datasets covering multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions. We then construct knowledge trees of clinical entities and attributes with radiologist guidance, and use large language models (LLMs) to extract structured information from raw reports. Next, we generate QA pairs from predefined templates and apply quality control through self-filtering and report-based filtering. During evaluation, the report is treated as context, and an LLM acts as a judge model to answer the QA pairs. Based on the resulting QA accuracy, we introduce QAScore metric. Compared with existing metrics, QAScore shows better alignment with radiologist judgments. Experiments on multiple state-of-the-art vision-language models reveal that current report-based inference paradigms struggle to learn fine-grained clinical representations and exhibit strong negative prior biases. In contrast, question-driven inference provides a more effective alternative. For reproducibility and extensibility, we release the knowledge trees, structured reports, and QA pairs, along with the pipeline code for QA construction and evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLM) have shown impressive capabilities in Register Transfer Level (RTL) code generation, particularly for Verilog. However, evaluating their performance with other Hardware Description Languages (HDL), especially VHDL, remains limited although its distinct language characteristics, such as stricter semantic rules, introduce evaluation considerations that differ from Verilog. This lack of coverage restricts fully understanding of how well current models generalize across hardware design languages with differing structures and semantics. To address this gap, we introduce VHDLSuite, a benchmark-centered infrastructure for scalable VHDL generation evaluation, integrating automated benchmark synthesis, executable validation, and multi-model diagnostic analysis. First, we propose a data pipeline that automatically converts Verilog designs and their accompanying testbenches into executable VHDL benchmark instances, followed by VUnit/GHDL-based validation to ensure each released task is compilable, runnable, and consistently checkable in the VHDL environment. Second, we introduce VHDLBench, a benchmark with over 200 VHDL problems with complete and validated testbenches across a wide range of complexity levels. Third, we extensively evaluate cutting-edge LLMs and uncover key challenges specific on LLM-aided VHDL generation. Our findings provide important insights and support future work in multi-language hardware design automation.Our data pipeline, benchmark, and evaluation framework will be open-sourced.

Background. Large language models and AI agents are increasingly used to support biomedical research, but native model outputs may omit key analytical steps, misuse methods, or overstate conclusions. We evaluated whether autonomous access to a medical research skill package was associated with higher-quality AI-generated transcriptomic research-analysis outputs compared with native AI without skills. Methods. We conducted an exploratory multi-model human evaluation using a non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy biomarker task. Six model backbones were tested. The evaluation included 21 anonymized outputs: 9 native-AI outputs and 12 skill-augmented outputs generated through an AI agent implementation represented by OpenClaw. Four non-expert biomedical reviewers and two blinded experts evaluated each output, with two ratings from each reviewer type. The primary outcome was expert-rated overall quality. Results. Skill-augmented outputs showed directionally higher expert overall quality than native-AI outputs (mean 5.50 vs 5.11; difference=0.39; bootstrap 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.90; Welch p=0.156). Non-expert reviewer quality showed the same direction (mean 4.72 vs 4.47; difference=0.26; bootstrap 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.80; Welch p=0.373). Expert agreement was limited (single-rating ICC=-0.15), and model-specific effects were descriptive and heterogeneous. Conclusions. Autonomous skill access showed a directional quality signal in this exploratory sample, but the signal was smaller than expert-rating noise and should not be interpreted as confirmatory evidence. The findings primarily motivate larger evaluations of skill-augmented AI agents with stronger reliability controls, platform replication, and biological-validity assessment.

Recent advances in LLM-driven code evolution have enabled automated discovery by iteratively generating and improving programs. However, applying these methods to adversarial multi-agent games introduces a fundamental challenge: the evaluation landscape shifts as strategies improve, causing fixed evaluators to become unreliable and evolution to stagnate. We propose three mechanisms to address this challenge: evaluator co-evolution, which incorporates discovered champions into the opponent pool; hierarchical deep evaluation, which replaces noisy few-game scores with statistically reliable assessments; and weakness pressure, which dynamically up-weights the most difficult opponents to break through plateaus. We implement these mechanisms within FAMOU, a framework built upon the same foundation-model code-evolution paradigm as OpenEvolve and ShinkaEvolve. On the MCTF 2026 3v3 maritime capture-the-flag task, FAMOU consistently outperforms both baselines under two backbone LLMs, achieving the highest combined score (0.526) and the best generalization to unseen opponents (61.7% win rate), while ablations confirm that each mechanism contributes to performance. Notably, the LLM mutation process generates tactical structures entirely absent from the seed strategies -- including lookahead search and adaptive interception -- demonstrating that code-level evolution can produce nontrivial algorithmic innovations in adversarial settings. The FAMOU-evolved strategy further achieved 1st place in the hardware round-robin and 3rd in simulation at the AAMAS 2026 MCTF Competition, validating its real-world transferability. The optimized implementation and corresponding evaluation codes developed through our evolutionary process are available at: https://github.com/1xiangliu1/FAMOU-CoEvo

Automatic evaluation is critical for high-stakes text generation, where errors often involve omitted findings, hallucinated content, polarity reversals, location changes, uncertainty mismatches, and temporal-comparison errors rather than low surface similarity alone. Radiology report generation provides a challenging test case because generated reports must preserve structured clinical evidence across sources. We present RadOT-Eval, an interpretable structured-evidence optimal transport framework for offline auditing of radiology report generation. RadOT-Eval decomposes reference and candidate reports into attribute-structured clinical evidence units, aligns corresponding evidence using entropy-regularized optimal transport, and uses clinically meaningful side-channel discrepancies in a monotone risk model to predict error burden. All transport, feature, and readout choices are selected using the ReXVal dataset, and the frozen system is evaluated on the independent RadEvalX dataset. RadOT-Eval achieves Spearman correlations of 0.715, 0.548, and 0.399 with total, clinically significant, and clinically insignificant annotated error burden, respectively, yielding higher point estimates than standard evaluation metrics and the open-source large language model (LLM)-based evaluator GREEN-radllama2-7B. In a frozen auxiliary corruption-sensitivity stress test on ReXErr-v1, RadOT-Eval achieves 0.768 AUROC and a 0.990 corrupted-greater-than-clean paired win rate. These results show that structured evidence transport provides an auditable, rank-oriented evaluation tool for high-stakes generated clinical text under ReXVal-only model selection and frozen RadEvalX testing.

Multilingual and multicultural benchmarks now cover dozens of languages and model families, but the resulting score landscapes remain metric-rich and insight-poor, necessitating fine-grained multilingual post-evaluation diagnosis. However, single LLMs and open-ended agents are easily swamped by the long, noisy diagnostic input, and no reusable taxonomy exists for it. To address this, we propose MADE, a Multilingual Agentic Diagnosing Engine that decomposes post-evaluation analysis into planning, aggregate analysis, instance-level case inspection, multilingual and cultural reflection, and grounded report synthesis. MADE is paired with an expert-led 54-query and 15-language diagnostic set, evaluated on top of a large-scale multilingual evaluation substrate (33 model families, 11 benchmarks, 26 languages, 34 cultures, 8.66M evaluation records). Experiments show that MADE outperforms the strongest shared baseline by 47% in diagnosis report quality and is preferred by human multilingual experts in 87.9% of pairwise comparisons. Applied with multilingual experts, MADE further surfaces four actionable findings on deployment, iteration, and cross-cultural pitfalls, turning benchmark score tables into model-selection and remediation guidance.

Current evaluation practices in relational learning rely heavily on flat leaderboards that average performance across heterogeneous datasets, implicitly assuming a uniform underlying structure. We show that this assumption introduces systematic bias: it obscures geometry-dependent performance variations and can lead to misleading conclusions about model generalization. In this work, we identify intrinsic geometry as a key latent factor governing model effectiveness. We demonstrate that conventional aggregated metrics mask critical performance trade-offs that only become visible when datasets are stratified by their geometric properties. To address this issue, we introduce a curvature-stratified evaluation framework that partitions datasets into positive, negative, and near-zero curvature regimes. Our benchmark evaluates 18 representative models including Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), Graph Foundation Models (GFMs), and tabular learning methods across 14 datasets. We find that model rankings are highly stable within each curvature regime but shift significantly across regimes, indicating that performance is fundamentally geometry-dependent rather than universally transferable. Notably, we identify regimes where GFMs offer diminishing returns compared to geometry-aligned GNNs. Based on these findings, we propose a geometry-aware evaluation protocol that yields more reliable and interpretable comparisons than standard aggregated benchmarks. We release all code, curvature-stratified dataset splits, and evaluation tools to support reproducible and rigorous assessment of future relational learning methods. Code and datasets are provided in our project homepage: https://sirbabbage.github.io/CurvBench_HOME/.

Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care. Yet clinicians face increasing challenges due to limited time with patients and a rapidly growing volume of published articles. Although retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in clinical summarization, human evaluations of their effectiveness in synthesizing broader scientific literature and direct comparisons to expert-written syntheses remain scarce. We constructed a RAG-based agentic AI framework using three state-of-the-art LLMs: Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1. A headache specialist created 13 questions, three for prompt optimization and ten for evaluation. Ten headache specialists across the United States and Canada each wrote a summary for one question, yielding four summaries per question (expert, Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama). The experts, blinded to authorship, critically evaluated the summaries, excluding the topic for which they wrote a summary, based on correctness, completeness, conciseness, and clinical utility, scoring each from 1 to 10 using standardized rubrics. They also ranked the summaries by preference and indicated whether they believed each summary was written by an expert or an LLM. Our study, comparing LLM- and expert-written literature summaries evaluated by headache specialists, showed that expert-written summaries were preferred, although experts sometimes found it challenging to distinguish between human- and AI-generated summaries. We also identified key expert-valued features beyond standard evaluation metrics that can guide future refinement of both human and AI literature summarization pipelines.

Autonomous driving perception is typically evaluated on clean benchmark data, yet real-world deployment requires robustness to rare, structured, and potentially adversarial sensor anomalies. This gap is especially critical for LiDAR, where external actors can physically manipulate the sensing process to induce black-box perception failures without accessing the model. Existing LiDAR benchmarks provide little visibility into this failure mode. Prior adversarial LiDAR studies have largely centered on attack hardware, geometric and algorithmic defenses, and early-generation detectors, leaving the robustness of modern perception systems unexplored. To address this evaluation gap, we introduce ATLAS (Adversarial Temporal LiDAR Attack Suite), the first large-scale, physically grounded evaluation benchmark for LiDAR perception models under black-box sensor attacks, simulating the two primary attack modes -- point injection and point removal -- across real driving sequences. Evaluating a broad cross-section of current state-of-the-art LiDAR perception models, ATLAS reveals a surprising robustness asymmetry: models with stronger performance on standard benchmarks tend to better withstand removal attacks, yet are actually more vulnerable to injection attacks than weaker models. We trace this vulnerability to standard object database sampling augmentations, revealing how current training practices can induce architecture-agnostic robustness failures, and study initial directions for mitigating both attack modes. We release the ATLAS generation code to support extensible, reproducible evaluations as attack capabilities evolve, helping make black-box sensor robustness an explicit consideration in future LiDAR perception development.

Speech translation systems increasingly span speech-to-text translation (S2TT), speech-to-speech translation (S2ST), offline translation, and streaming generation, producing outputs that differ in modality, speech realization, and timing behavior. Existing evaluation practices assess important aspects such as translation quality, speech quality, and temporal quality, but these aspects are often evaluated under separate protocols, making it difficult to compare heterogeneous systems comprehensively. To address this gap, we present OpenSTBench, a unified multidimensional evaluation framework that organizes heterogeneous speech translation outputs into a shared evaluation format. OpenSTBench supports both S2TT and S2ST systems in offline and streaming settings, and jointly evaluates translation quality, speech quality, speaker preservation, emotion and paralinguistic fidelity, temporal consistency, and latency. Through experiments on representative speech translation systems, we show that systems with strong translation quality can still differ substantially in speech quality, as well as in temporal quality. OpenSTBench provides a reproducible protocol for analyzing these cross-dimensional differences and supporting application-oriented comparison of speech translation systems. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/sjtuayj/OpenSTBench.

Classroom videos contain observable teaching practices, but their pedagogical and visual signals are rarely organized in forms suitable for model evaluation. We present \textit{TeachObs}, a human-validated benchmark for multimodal teaching observation in classroom videos. \textit{TeachObs} includes 30 public lesson videos from eight countries divided into 5,158 fixed 15-second scenes. Seven researchers annotated each scene with 39 binary observation codes, covering 20 visual codes, such as gesture, board work, pointing, and visual materials, and 19 nonvisual codes, such as instruction, monitoring, questioning, feedback, and reflection. Gold segment labels are constructed using reliability- and prevalence-aware rules based on Krippendorff's alpha. In addition to segment-level labels, three expert raters produced lesson-level ratings and qualitative evaluations of instructional design, instructional delivery, learner response, learning materials, and lesson closure across the 30 lessons, with rater coverage detailed in the body. Using these two human reference layers, we evaluate five vision-capable frontier LLMs across three tracks - text-only segment coding, text + frame segment coding, and lesson-level coverage scored under an LLM-as-judge protocol - and find that no single model consistently outperforms others across all three tracks, that adding a mid-frame inflates both true and false attributions per scene, and that model evaluations over-rate procedurally clear lessons relative to expert raters. \textit{TeachObs} therefore supports both fine-grained annotation benchmarking and whole-lesson evaluation, showing where AI systems can assist classroom video analysis and where expert judgment remains necessary across varied subjects, classroom formats, and annotation difficulty levels.

Adversarial patches are physical patterns attached to real objects to mislead AI vision systems. Their real-world risk is not determined by a single successful prediction, but by whether they remain effective after deployment under changing viewpoints, distances, and scene conditions. We refer to this property as scene robustness, the effectiveness of a deployed patch across conditions in a real environment. Yet existing evaluations do not measure scene robustness well: real image benchmarks are realistic but fixed, while simulators are controllable but not grounded in a specific real scene. We present AdvScene, a scene-grounded framework for measuring the scene robustness of adversarial patches in reconstructed real environments. AdvScene reframes evaluation as operational measurement: given a fixed deployed patch, it characterizes the patch's operational envelope - where and when the attack succeeds - as a function of viewpoint, distance, and scene context. A key challenge is that the attack is typically defined only in a single anchor view, while evaluation requires a representation that remains faithful under viewpoint changes. We formalize this as a constrained lifting problem and introduce Adversarial Patch-to-Scene Embedding (APSE), which resolves cross-view ambiguity while preserving attack-critical appearance and enforcing locality, target-surface attachment, and cross-view consistency. We validate AdvScene using real-world physical data and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of existing adversarial patches. Our results show that AdvScene reveals substantial scene-dependent variation in attack effectiveness that is not captured by existing image-centric or simulator-based evaluations.

Long-form video generation is rapidly moving from short, single-scene synthesis toward minute-long, multi-shot creation with narrative structure, cinematic control, audio, and cross-modal synchronization. However, evaluating such videos remains challenging, since existing benchmarks largely focus on local visual quality, short-horizon temporal consistency, or generic prompt alignment, and provide limited diagnosis of workflow failures and user-dependent preferences. We introduce DirectorBench, a personalized multi-agent diagnostic benchmark for long-form video generation. DirectorBench evaluates generated videos with respect to 80 structured metadata entries, 7 user profiles, and 40 checkpoint criteria across 5 dimensions: script, visual, audio, cross-modal, and stability. Instead of reducing quality to a single aggregate score, DirectorBench localizes checkpoint-level bottlenecks and supports profile-aware evaluation. We evaluate 4 long-form video generation workflows, 6 base LLMs, and 7 user profiles. Across workflows, DirectorBench reveals a between-unit bottleneck: transition quality averages only 0.256 and reaches 0.356 for the best workflow, while prompt-level user demand fulfillment averages 0.71. We further conduct human evaluation with 14 annotators to validate the alignment between DirectorBench and human judgment. The results show that DirectorBench captures human-perceptible quality differences and reveals workflow- and profile-dependent failure modes that are hidden by aggregate scoring. These findings highlight the importance of diagnostic and profile-aware benchmarking for long-form video generation.

This paper introduces a new systematic framework for detecting anomalies in maritime Automatic Identification System (AIS) datasets. These anomalies include abnormal vessel behaviours related to speed, position jumps, time gaps, and turn angles. Although unsupervised learning algorithms such as Isolation Forest are widely used for detecting anomalous vessel movements, they often lack systematic and meaningful evaluation measures. To address this limitation, we propose a novel quality metric called Maritime Anomaly Detection Quality Index (MADQI). The prosed MADQI is a composite index designed to evaluate the anomaly detection performance of machine learning models without requiring labelled data. The proposed framework uses Haversine distance calculations to analyse AIS datasets and identify anomalies based on their spatial and behavioural characteristics. The proposed MADQI evaluation framework integrates four interconnected metrics: Anomaly Rate Consistency (ARC), Physical Plausibility Score (PPS), Score Distribution Separation (SDS), and Extreme Case Evidence (ECE). These metrics are combined through automatic normalisation using multi-chunk evaluation and adaptive scaling techniques. Experimental results on the AIS dataset show that the proposed framework achieved a MADQI score of 80.37%, demonstrating its effectiveness for unsupervised anomaly detection. In particular, the algorithm performed strongly in identifying abnormal vessel behaviour. Among the individual MADQI components, ECE and ARC achieved scores of 0.907 and 1.000, respectively, indicating excellent capability in detecting extreme anomalies and maintaining anomaly rate consistency. Overall, these results are encouraging and demonstrate that the proposed framework provides a reliable and meaningful approach for evaluating unsupervised anomaly detection in maritime AIS data.

While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved rapid progress in vision-language understanding, they remain prone to multimodal hallucinations, producing responses that are inconsistent with the visual input. Existing benchmarks predominantly focus on detecting hallucination outcomes rather than evaluating the underlying causes of these failures. Moreover, many benchmarks rely on simplistic scenarios and limited evaluation formats that no longer challenge state-of-the-art models. To address these limitations, we introduce ReactBench, a cause-driven hallucination benchmark featuring multiple tasks and an exam-style evaluation format. By generating adversarial images and hallucination-inducing queries, ReactBench introduces four targeted tasks: Relational Erasure, Counterfactual Attribute, Alteration Tracing, and Dense Counting. These tasks systematically expose co-occurrence bias, language priors, cross-image comparative perception deficiencies, and fine-grained perceptual bottlenecks. Beyond standard accuracy-based evaluation, we leverage Chain-of-Thought reasoning to identify fine-grained sub-causes of hallucination within each task. Extensive evaluations reveal that current MLLMs remain notably vulnerable to cause-specific hallucination triggers, demonstrating the value of ReactBench as a systematic and interpretable testbed for diagnosing and improving multimodal model robustness. The project page is available at https://reactbench.github.io/.

Exploratory GUI testing is a particularly demanding setting for MLLM agents: without predefined test scripts, an agent must autonomously navigate an application and discover defects through its own interaction. However, current evaluation falls short on two fronts. First, existing benchmarks focus almost exclusively on interaction defects, leaving display defects outside the evaluation frame. Second, evaluation protocols are bound to predefined defect annotations, collapsing the testing process into a single end-state judgment that conflates qualitatively distinct failure modes. To address these challenges, we present GUITestScape, an interactive benchmark covering 61 real-world Android applications and 508 preset defects spanning interaction and display types, and introduce GUIJudge, an open-set evaluator that decomposes an agent's testing trajectory into independently diagnosable capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that GUIJudge achieves reliable process-aware evaluation beyond predefined annotations, substantially outperforming all baselines. Benchmarking on GUITestScape further reveals that detection remains the critical bottleneck for existing models across both defect types, and that integrating GUIJudge's verifiers into existing agents significantly boosts their detection performance without retraining.

Security evaluations inherently depend on stable identifiers. Any finding, audit, or regulatory decision must remain attached to the specific artifact it pertains to. Continuously updated artificial intelligence systems violate this core assumption, with public model designations remaining static while underlying weights, prompts, retrieval mechanisms, misuse classifiers, inference settings, and serving infrastructures undergo unannounced modifications. Consequently, current evaluations frequently apply to superficial labels rather than identifiable and distinct systems. To resolve this, we propose referential security as a new paradigm for AI evaluation. The fundamental security question extends beyond whether a model is safe to whether subsequent parties can conclusively determine which system a specific safety claim addressed. This approach reframes model identity as an empirically verifiable property and separates referential stability from the substantive security claims it conditions. This framework brings tractability to three critical workflows that current practices handle poorly. Specifically, it enables reproducible evaluation, longitudinal audit validity, and cross-provider equivalence. By grounding these evaluations in verifiable artifacts, our approach ensures that safety audits and regulatory findings maintain their empirical utility across the operational lifecycle of dynamic systems.

Online map estimation is a crucial component of autonomous driving systems that reduces the reliance on costly high-definition maps. State-of-the-art (SOTA) methods commonly predict map elements as ordered sequences of points that form polylines and polygons. The evaluation of these methods relies predominantly on mean average precision (mAP) based on thresholded Chamfer distance (CD). This framework lacks sensitivity to point ordering and provides limited granularity in assessing geometric quality, making it difficult to distinguish which methods truly excel over others. In this work, we address these limitations on two fronts. For the single-instance similarity measure, we introduce sequence optimal sub-pattern assignment (SOSPA), an order-aware metric that enables fine-grained evaluation of individual geometries while satisfying all metric axioms. For the multi-instance evaluation framework, we propose polyline localisation and detection (PLD), a soft metric that jointly captures detection quality and geometric accuracy, replacing the hard thresholding of mAP with a principled soft assignment. Through evaluations on nuScenes, we demonstrate that PLD effectively ranks SOTA online mapping methods (MapTRv2, StreamMapNet, MapTracker) while providing a decomposed error analysis. This analysis identifies detection capability as the dominant bottleneck in current methods, revealing a performance trend that mAP fails to capture. Code for evaluation using our metrics will be released.

Harness optimization enables automated agent creation by having an optimizer agent iteratively update the harness of target agents. Despite its success, current studies evaluate optimizers solely by observing target agents' performance gains. This indirect end-improvement evaluation neglects optimizers' actions at intermediate steps, which are often erroneous and hinder agent performance. Therefore, it is unclear whether harness optimization is driven by optimizers' informed update actions or simply trial-and-error. This necessitates direct evaluation of harness optimizers. However, evaluating harness optimizers directly is non-trivial and costly due to the lack of oracle harnesses. To address this, we present a simple, low-cost design to directly evaluate them, namely priority ranking. By asking harness optimizers to rank components (e.g., tools) in a given harness by their potential to improve/hinder agent performance when updated, our design quantifies optimizer ability at the step level without expensive rollouts or manual examination. More importantly, optimizers' ranking performance correlates with their ability to improve agents in actual multi-step harness optimization, establishing priority ranking as a reliable predictor of optimization ability. Priority ranking is enabled by Shor, a collection of 182 human-verified optimization scenarios spanning across domains, designs, and time stages. Codes and data can be found at https://github.com/k59118/Harness_Optimizer_Evaluation.

We introduce JMed48k, a multi-profession Japanese healthcare licensing benchmark for evaluating vision-language models. Built from official PDF materials released by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, JMed48k contains 48,862 exam questions and 20,142 images from 11 national licensing examinations between 2005 and 2025, with visual content annotated under an 8-type taxonomy. From this corpus, we derive JMed48k-Eval, a recent five-year evaluation subset with 12,484 scored questions, including 9,905 text-only questions and 2,579 questions with images. We evaluate 21 proprietary, open-source, and medical-specific models, reporting text-only and with-image performance separately. Because these subsets contain different questions, we further introduce a paired image-removal audit that evaluates questions with images before and after removing visual content to explore four answer-transition states. The audit shows that proprietary and open source models gain substantially from images, whereas medical-specific systems show limited observable use of visual evidence, with many correct answers persisting after image removal. Even among proprietary models, the net image-removal effect varies sevenfold across professions, from +5.7 points on Physician questions to +39.8 points on Public Health Nurse questions. We release JMed48k to support reproducible, profession-stratified evaluation of vision-language models in medical licensing settings.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong promise for general-purpose robotic manipulation, but their real-world evaluation remains limited by a lack of accessible, reproducible, and consistent benchmarks. Simulation benchmarks fail to capture real-world complexity, while existing real-world benchmarks often require expensive hardware, centralized evaluation, or are limited in task diversity. We introduce VLA-REPLICA, a low-cost, easily reproducible real-world benchmark for evaluating VLA models. Built from off-the-shelf components, our system can be quickly assembled and replicated across laboratories, providing a consistent environment for policy evaluation anywhere in the world. VLA-REPLICA includes a diverse suite of manipulation tasks and a small-scale demonstration dataset for target-domain adaptation, with real-world evaluation protocols for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings. Experiments with imitation learning and state-of-the-art VLA models reveal model strengths and limitations, while consistent results across independently constructed setups demonstrate the reproducibility of our benchmark.