Search research

A benchmark should deliver more than a scalar score: what makes an evaluation trustworthy is the reasoning that justifies the score. This is especially critical for world models, where judging a rollout requires understanding whether physics, causality, and world state evolve correctly. Humans spot such violations naturally, yet no existing benchmark automates this capability: metrics are computed brute-force, leaving no reasoning chain that can be examined or verified. We introduce HarnessEval-W, an agentified evaluation pipeline that brings the harness paradigm from the LLM ecosystem to world model benchmarking. Rather than applying a fixed rubric, HarnessEval-W interprets the context of each evaluation case, decomposes the evaluation question into measurable subproblems, and spawns specialized sub-agents, each equipped with tailored context and diagnostic tools to reason over its own subproblem. The parent agent then validates the gathered evidence and summarizes it into the final verdict. This hierarchical workflow turns every evaluation into a transparent evidence tree whose complete reasoning chain justifies the result. We apply HarnessEval-W to 18 representative world models over 330 evaluation cases. Its judgments closely align with human preferences while providing verifiable, fine-grained diagnoses of every generated rollout. We open-source the full pipeline as a live benchmark and invite the broad community to contribute to grow new skills and evaluation cases as world models evolve.

As Large Vision-Language Models increasingly aim to integrate visual generation and understanding within a single parameter space, evaluating such structural unification in a cohesive manner remains a critical challenge. Current evaluation protocols predominantly treat generative and discriminative capabilities as separate tasks, leaving a gap in system-level evaluation for unified multimodal models (UMMs). In this work, we propose Self-Generative-Understanding (SGU), a novel, annotation-free evaluation framework that probes the integrated capabilities of unified models through a semantic closed-loop challenge. Without requiring new annotations, SGU leverages the dual understanding-and-generation abilities of UMMs by asking them to first perceive an image and produce a textual description, subsequently reconstruct a visual context based on that description, and finally perform reasoning over the self-generated output. This pipeline provides a zero-cost testbed that yields an integrated performance score specifically tailored for evaluating UMMs as unified systems. Extensive experiments show that even high-performing UMMs often struggle to reason over their own generated contexts, revealing limitations that are not captured by separate evaluations of understanding or generation alone. Our work provides a complementary holistic evaluation framework and offers a foundation for benchmarking the development of next-generation unified multimodal models.

AI video generation has advanced rapidly and entered widespread commercial use. As a result, quality differences among videos produced by state-of-the-art AI video generation models~(AIVGMs) have become increasingly difficult to discern using conventional evaluation criteria, such as visual fidelity and semantic instruction following. Meanwhile, human evaluation now requires more expertise and sustained attention, substantially increasing annotation costs. This calls for automated evaluation that can reliably distinguish fine-grained differences among advanced AIVGMs with minimal human intervention. To address this challenge, we present RAVEN-Eval, a rubric-guided automated evaluation framework for AIVGMs, built primarily on the LMM-as-a-judge paradigm. Through an automatic task curation and quality-filtering pipeline, RAVEN-Eval curates 150 text-to-video~(T2V) tasks and 100 image-to-video~(I2V) tasks, and systematically collects more than 4,500 AIGVs. At its core, RAVEN-Eval adopts rubric-guided automated LMM preference judgement, in which LMM judges conduct pairwise comparisons according to task-specific rubrics. It further introduces an anchor-based model insertion approach to reduce the evaluation cost of incorporating new models. Finally, we evaluate 20 high-performance AIVGMs, as well as the judging capabilities of 13 LMM judges, and establish the RAVEN-Eval Leaderboards. Overall, RAVEN-Eval paves a scalable path for automatic and trustworthy evaluation of rapidly evolving AIVGMs.

Large language model (LLM) configuration evaluation is challenging due to limited evaluation budgets, varying costs, and multiple competing objectives. In this paper, we formulate LLM configuration evaluation as a cost-aware multi-objective bandit problem, where each configuration evaluation incurs a configuration-dependent cost and yields a noisy vector-valued outcome. Under this framework, we study two fundamental problems: online configuration selection and Pareto configuration identification. For online configuration selection, we propose a hypervolume-based UCB algorithm that optimizes an optimistic hypervolume-per-cost index. We establish a budgeted regret bound of order $O\bigl(\sum_{i\ne i^\star}\frac{\log B}{Δ_i}\bigr)$, where $B$ is the evaluation budget, $i^\star$ is the optimal configuration in terms of hypervolume efficiency, and $Δ_i$ is the corresponding efficiency gap of configuration $i$. This bound retains the logarithmic budget dependence of classical single-objective budgeted bandits. For fixed-budget Pareto identification, we develop a cost-aware empirical gap elimination algorithm and prove that its error probability is of order $O\bigl(\exp(-\frac{B}{H_{μ,c}})\bigr)$, where $H_{μ,c}$ is a cost-aware Pareto identification complexity depending on configuration costs and Pareto classification gaps. This error probability decays exponentially with the evaluation budget and recovers the standard Pareto set identification guarantee when all configuration costs are identical. Experiments on LLM configuration evaluation tasks demonstrate that the proposed framework enables efficient online decision-making and accurate cost-aware Pareto identification under limited budgets.

Recent advances in neural text-to-speech (TTS) systems have substantially improved speech naturalness and intelligibility across many languages. However, comprehensive evaluation methodologies that jointly assess perceptual quality, speaker similarity, and acoustic fidelity across diverse speech domains remain limited, particularly for low-resource and underrepresented languages. This paper presents a reproducible, multi-metric benchmarking framework for systematic evaluation of modern TTS systems through domain-specific analysis. The proposed framework integrates complementary subjective and objective evaluation protocols and is demonstrated through a comprehensive case study on a representative low-resource language spanning four speech domains: Formal, Conversational, Literary/Storytelling, and Emotional. Four state-of-the-art TTS systems -- Indic-Parler-TTS, MMS-TTS, Microsoft Edge TTS, and Google Gemini TTS -- are evaluated using MUSHRA listening tests, ABX discrimination tests, speaker similarity scoring with Resemblyzer, and acoustic analyses based on mel-cepstral distortion (MCD) and F0 RMSE over 960 audio pairs. Results reveal substantial variation in TTS performance across speech domains, with emotional speech consistently presenting the greatest synthesis challenge (mean MCD 12.03 dB; mean F0 RMSE 889 cents), while conversational speech achieves the highest overall acoustic fidelity. Beyond the empirical findings, this work provides a reproducible evaluation framework, publicly releasing evaluation scripts, result tables, and executable Colab notebooks to support standardized benchmarking and future research on TTS evaluation for low-resource languages.

Evaluation methodologies for language models increasingly combine multiple signals, from automated metrics and LLM-as-judge ratings to human assessments and benchmark suite results. When these signals are aggregated via averaging, evaluation confidence can then substantially exceed the reliability of the weakest signal: a phenomenon we call trust inflation in evaluation. We argue that evaluation scores should be treated as epistemic claims with three properties: formality (human evaluation provides stronger evidence than an automated metric), scope (a benchmark result applies to the tested distribution, not universally), and validity windows (benchmark results expire as contamination accumulates and distributions shift). Several converging research traditions (chain-of-thought analysis, possibilistic logic, and algebraic theory) establish weakest-link aggregation as the conservative endpoint of a parameterized operator family controlled by a single pessimism parameter. Drawing on those traditions, and on concrete lessons from building an evaluation harness for agentic AI, we propose that evaluation results carry explicit metadata (formality tier, scope declaration, and expiration date) to make their epistemic status transparent. We illustrate the cost of mean aggregation on the public HELM leaderboard: across 54 frontier models on ten scenarios, the top-five models ranked by mean score and by weakest-link are completely disjoint.

As Text-to-Image (T2I) systems rapidly advance, evaluating the cultural authenticity of synthesized content has become increasingly important for fair and trustworthy generative AI. Existing T2I evaluation metrics and multimodal judges often rely on visual-semantic representations that underrepresent implicit cultural norms, leading to biased preference judgments and the omission of fine-grained cultural cues. In addition, visual question answering (VQA)-based evaluators typically depend on autoregressive text generation, which limits their scalability for real-time reward modeling. To address these limitations, we introduce an Implicit Cultural Alignment Reward Model built upon a lightweight 4.2-billion-parameter Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM). Our framework integrates an Implicit Cultural Probe with a Skip-connection Cross-Attention (SkipCA) mechanism, enabling late-stage semantic features to directly attend to early-stage visual representations and better preserve culturally salient details. Evaluations on 3,323 challenging and carefully curated image pairs from the CulturalFrames benchmark show that our approach achieves 83.49% pairwise accuracy, with Pearson and Kendall correlation coefficients of 0.5268 and 0.3749, respectively, outperforming representative vision-language metrics and MLLM-based evaluators. Moreover, by bypassing autoregressive text generation, our model processes each evaluation in 0.21 seconds under our local inference setup, achieving a $10\times$ speedup over standard VQA-based evaluators. These results suggest that the proposed reward model can provide an efficient and culturally aware scalar signal for preference optimization pipelines such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and Direct Preference Optimization. Additional resources are available on our project page at https://bensonch1214.github.io/Implicit_Cultural_Alignment/.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into K-12 and higher education has outpaced the development of reliable methods for evaluating their pedagogical quality. As the research community starts to explore the space of automating evaluation of AI tutors, we introduce FATE (FLC AI Tutor Evaluator), a specialized 8B-parameter language model designed to evaluate AI tutors. Aligned with the four core evaluation tracks from the BEA 2025 Shared Task, our model assesses pedagogical ability across Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Guidance, and Actionability. Because pedagogical evaluation is a specialized task with limited labeled data, we leverage knowledge distillation from a frontier LLM to generate additional supervision, yielding absolute performance gains up to 22.63 percentage points. Finally, we demonstrate FATE's utility as an automated evaluator by benchmarking instructional responses generated by popular commercial models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. On average, we have found that Gemini 2.5 Flash perfomed best (82.88%), then ChatGPT 5.5 Instant (80.75%), followed by DeepSeek V4 Flash (80.13%) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (74.00%).

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.

As web agents increasingly demonstrate capabilities in automated task execution, the development of robust evaluation frameworks for assessing their navigation and task completion performance has emerged as a critical research priority. However, existing benchmarks exhibit fundamental limitations. First, they suffer from insufficient scale and limited domain diversity, constraining comprehensive evaluation of cross-domain generalization. Second, prevailing LLM-as-Judge evaluation methodologies inadequately capture fine-grained interaction semantics, particularly regarding precise query formulation and filtering operations. Third, current benchmarks predominantly emphasize navigation success metrics while neglecting critical requirements for real-world deployment scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce WebRetriever, a large-scale benchmark encompassing 800 websites and 1,550 tasks across diverse domains, including consumer, professional, and enterprise sectors, with comprehensive coverage of user intent patterns. We propose NavEval (Navigation Evaluation), a novel LLM-as-Judge framework that leverages rich interaction context beyond visual screenshots, achieving state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment across multiple evaluation datasets. Furthermore, we establish three complementary evaluation protocols that collectively provide holistic assessment of web agent capabilities: navigation proficiency, knowledge-assisted interaction, and end-to-end task completion with information extraction. Extensive experimental analysis reveals substantial performance disparities across evaluation protocols, demonstrating that navigation success alone is an insufficient predictor of real-world application effectiveness. WebRetriever delivers fine-grained diagnostic insights into agent capabilities and establishes a rigorous foundation for advancing web agent research and development.

Teams deploying large language models in business contexts need evaluation systems, yet most treat evaluation as static model selection: run benchmarks, rank models, deploy the winner. This framing misses evaluation's primary value for production systems--diagnosing why a system underperforms and guiding what to fix. We present EvalLoop, a methodology for evaluation-driven iterative improvement. EvalLoop organizes evaluation around three mechanisms: (1) dimensional metric grouping that decomposes quality into business-relevant dimensions enabling orthogonal failure diagnosis; (2) failure mode classification that categorizes why outputs fail within weak dimensions, bridging diagnosis to action; and (3) a structured iteration workflow where each evaluation run varies one system variable and compares dimensional profiles before and after. We validate EvalLoop through a case study on sales intelligence briefing generation (10 models, 3 providers, 18 metrics, 5 dimensions, 3 iterations). Dimensional diagnosis identified that 69% of hallucination failures were prompt-induced interpretation errors--invisible in aggregate scoring. A targeted prompt fix improved the best model from 82.6% to 94.6% overall, with improvement concentrated in diagnosed dimensions (Content Accuracy +16.8pp, Synthesis Power +26.4pp). An undirected configuration change in a prior iteration produced zero impact, illustrating the cost of iterating without diagnosis. We additionally demonstrate that dimensional profiling enables deployment-specific model selection, and that a one-time blind human gate on a finalist panel (4 models, 16 cases) confirms dimensional rankings while resolving multi-criteria deployment trade-offs--a 94% reduction in review burden compared to evaluating the full design. EvalLoop is packaged as reusable artifacts (playbook, agent specification, template repository) for adoption by other teams.

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilities (e.g., reasoning, code generation) are fast and cheap to run. In this paper, we investigate whether performance on expensive agentic benchmarks can be accurately predicted by the performance on a small, carefully selected subset of atomic evaluation instances. We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations whose aggregate scores most reliably predict model performances on agentic benchmarks. Given a pool of candidate instances spanning atomic capabilities, PACE fits a regression that maps a model's scores on a compact subset of source instances to its score on the target agentic benchmark. The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection. We apply PACE to the 4 target agentic benchmarks in this paper, which yields PACE-Bench, the concrete proxy benchmark that we evaluate in the paper. Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost. We further analyze the selected proxy instances, revealing which skills each agentic benchmark uniquely demands. PACE enables practitioners to obtain reliable estimates of agentic performance during model development, selection, and routing, without the overhead of full agent evaluation.

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores. Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions, and an LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback together with calibrated overall scores. This decomposition makes evaluation easier to inspect, easier to diagnose, and directly usable for prompt improvement. Across SummEval, Topical-Chat, and QAGS, BINEVAL matches or outperforms strong baselines including UniEval and G-Eval, with especially strong results on factual consistency benchmarks such as QAGS. Beyond competitive correlation with human judgments, BINEVAL better matches human score distributions and avoids the ceiling effects common in prior LLM judges, leading to better discrimination between borderline and clearly flawed outputs. We further show that the same question-level feedback supports iterative prompt optimization, improving evaluator prompts on summarization and generation prompts on IFBench under both self-update and cross-model update settings. Overall, BINEVAL provides a task-agnostic, training-free, and interpretable evaluation framework that combines strong empirical performance with practical diagnostic and optimization value.

Multimedia event extraction aims to jointly identify events and their arguments across multiple modalities, such as text and images, to support more comprehensive event understanding. While recent work reports steady and substantial progress, the reliability and comparability of these results critically depend on consistent and rigorous evaluation. In this work, we present the first systematic analysis of evaluation pitfalls in multimedia event extraction and identify three major sources of issues: inconsistent data processing, inconsistent task assumptions, and overly relaxed evaluation settings. We demonstrate, through a series of controlled experiments under a strict evaluation framework, that minor evaluation choices can cause large performance variations and lead to overestimation of a model's ability to ground real-world events across modalities. Our findings highlight the need for comparable evaluation standards and encourage a shift toward more rigorous evaluation in multimedia event extraction.

Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) execute high-level user goals by perceiving and acting directly within graphical user interfaces. However, reinforcement learning for CUAs remains difficult because open-ended desktop environments rarely provide scalable, machine-readable reward signals: task success is often visually grounded and hard to specify with handcrafted reward functions or dense manual labels. We propose an RL fine-tuning framework that uses autonomous vision-language evaluation as a scalable supervision signal for GUI agents. Given a final screenshot and the original instruction, a Vision-Language Model judges task completion and provides terminal feedback without task-specific heuristics or manual labels during policy optimization. Because autonomous evaluators are imperfect, we model their feedback as a noisy binary reward channel and derive a noise-corrected reward estimator for Proximal Policy Optimization. Experiments across macOSWorld, Windows Agent Arena, and OSWorld show that corrected evaluator rewards outperform both zero-shot baselines and raw evaluator rewards, improving success rates by an average of 12.6 percentage points over zero-shot performance and 5.1 points over raw evaluator fine-tuning. These results suggest that autonomous evaluation can serve as a practical reward signal for RL in GUI environments when evaluator noise is explicitly modeled and corrected.

Executable evaluation -- checking the consequences of an agent's actions with a program rather than grading its prose -- has become a prominent way to assess tool-using AI agents in software settings. Electric power engineering has not yet had an analogous benchmark: language-model use is still dominated by retrieval and text question answering, while agents acting on power-system artifacts remain mostly academic prototypes. We introduce the Power Systems Agent Benchmark, an executable benchmark for power-engineering agents. An agent receives a structured task and returns a structured solution; a deterministic evaluator recomputes the engineering quantities, checks operational constraints, and returns a feasibility flag, a normalized score, and explicit violations. The benchmark contains 41 task families across eight areas of power engineering, from power flow and protection to stability, microgrids, reliability, power quality, and forecasting. Each task is grounded in a citable source, standard, or documented engineering formulation. To resist contamination, held-out cases are synthesized on demand by per-family generators from private seeds: the construction is inspectable, but the instances remain private. In a reference evaluation with three command-line agents, the strongest score near the compact tier's ceiling, a smaller open model trails, and public and held-out performance are broadly consistent; a separate public-split grid with OpenCode and Aider probes harness effects. The reference evaluation doubles as quality control: unanimous failures flag candidate task or evaluator defects, and it exposed a latent evaluator bug missed by self-consistency checks. The evaluators are compact deterministic surrogates, but the task contract allows their internals to be upgraded to simulator-backed checks without changing how tasks are posed or solved.

The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access. However, large-scale clinical deployment remains constrained by an open-ended evaluation bottleneck: physician annotation is reliable but costly and unscalable, while LLM-as-a-judge evaluators are scalable but subjective, inconsistent, and sometimes clinically misaligned. We introduce RubricsTree, a scalable evaluation framework with an expert-aligned hierarchical taxonomy of over 100 atomic, clinically-verifiable Boolean rubrics, evolving from the insights of 4,000 real user queries through an iterative human-in-the-loop curation protocol with an expertise panel led by an experienced physician. A context-aware adaptive router activates only the relevant auto-weighted rubric subset per query, providing the throughput needed for scalable evaluation with expert-aligned quality. Through a systematic meta-evaluation, we show that RubricsTree (i) substantially exceeds a strong large-scale evaluation baseline in expert alignment on challenging open-ended queries; (ii) reliably penalizes contextually degraded responses; and (iii) when used as structured instructions, text feedback, or training rewards for performance optimization, yields up to ~66% relative gains on HealthBench for Gemini, GPT, and Qwen model families. RubricsTree thus provides a scalable, auditable, and evolving evaluation infrastructure required for the continuous optimization of product-level personal healthcare AI.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) demonstrate strong performance on general multimodal reasoning benchmarks, yet their ability to perform engineering reasoning remains largely unexplored. Unlike general visual question answering, engineering problem solving requires interpreting technical diagrams, selecting governing physical principles, and maintaining physically consistent multi-step reasoning. These capabilities are increasingly important for AI systems used in engineering education, scientific assistance, and technical decision-making, where reasoning failures may produce physically invalid yet superficially plausible solutions. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate final answers and provide limited assessment of intermediate reasoning processes. We introduce EngVQA, a multimodal benchmark for evaluating engineering reasoning across 5 engineering subjects containing 696 problems. We introduce an 8-stage automatic evaluation framework for assessing VLM-generated solutions. The framework independently evaluates each stage of the solution, enabling fine-grained analysis of reasoning failures. We benchmark multiple state-of-the-art open and closed source VLMs on our evaluation framework and demonstrate substantial limitations in current engineering reasoning capabilities. Human evaluation shows strong agreement with our automated framework, achieving a Pearson correlation of 0.975 and a mean absolute error of 0.67 on a 10-point grading scale. Our results highlight the importance of process-oriented evaluation for reliable assessment of multimodal engineering reasoning systems.

Current alignment paradigms for generative artificial intelligence rely predominantly on monolithic benchmarking frameworks that reduce the plurality of human judgment to aggregated statistical baselines, thereby obscuring cultural, demographic, and contextual variability in evaluation. We introduce a state-space constrained emulation framework for AI evaluation that replaces singular assessment functions with a structured manifold of synthetic cognitive profiles representing diverse human perspectives. We show that modern generative architectures can instantiate and maintain these evaluative personas with high consistency, enabling a form of pluralistic, perspective-dependent benchmarking that more closely reflects real-world consensus variability. However, we further analyze the stability of these simulated evaluators under sequential inference and stochastic prompt perturbations, revealing systematic degradation in persona coherence that manifests as state-space drift and semantic inconsistency. These findings suggest that static alignment constraints are insufficient for sustaining robust evaluative behavior over time. Instead, we argue for the necessity of embedding dynamic, viability-driven regulatory mechanisms within generative systems to preserve coherent cognitive emulation. By framing persona-based evaluation as a structured dynamical system over latent representation manifolds, this study provides a foundation for more adaptive, human-aligned, and context-sensitive approaches to AI evaluation.

Progress in Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) is hindered by the lack of standardized and reusable evaluation practices across tasks, datasets, and application domains. Reported results are often difficult to reproduce and compare, as key protocol choices, such as data splits, preprocessing, label alignment, temporal windowing, and metrics, are often implicit or implemented ad hoc. We introduce \picid, a modular evaluation infrastructure that formalizes the PHM evaluation pipeline as an explicit, executable, and reproducible protocol. Through well-defined abstractions, \picid enforces deterministic, leakage-safe dataset construction while remaining flexible across diverse PHM settings. The framework supports fault detection, diagnostics, and prognostics through a unified interface and can be extended to new datasets and model classes without violating protocol invariants. By standardizing data contracts and evaluation boundaries, \picid also enables fair cross-task comparisons across diagnostics (classification) and prognostics (regression), allowing identical model families to be evaluated consistently across heterogeneous settings. We demonstrate \picid through an empirical evaluation of thirteen models on twelve datasets spanning batteries, bearings, turbofan engines, hydraulics, filtration systems, and buildings. This work establishes a reusable foundation for standardized, fair and reproducible evaluation in PHM.

Large language model (LLM) development is currently driven by large-scale empirical iteration over data mixtures, reward models, routing strategies, and evaluation pipelines. Here, we argue that many central questions in LLM development and evaluation are inherently causal: What is the effect of adding a data domain during pretraining? How do annotator preferences change when LLMs generate text in a different style? Should a prompt be routed to a larger or smaller model given inference cost constraints? In general, causal methods are well-suited to such settings where interventions change outcomes but, surprisingly, are underrepresented in LLM development. Our contribution is threefold: (1) We explain how causal methods can help develop modern LLM development and evaluation: LLM development relies heavily on logged data, which are often subject to confounding and distribution shifts; evaluation uses learned but potentially biased judges; and deployment environments are non-stationary. These conditions make purely predictive approaches fragile and create opportunities for principled identification and estimation methods from causal inference. (2) We further map opportunities for causal methods in the entire LLM development pipeline, including pretraining, alignment, routing, agentic workflows, and evaluation. (3) We discuss new research opportunities around leveraging causal methods for LLM development and evaluation. Overall, we argue that causal methods are potentially underutilized for the LLM development and evaluation pipeline, despite the fact that such methods can ensure a reliable and scientifically grounded design.

In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence has undergone a paradigm shift from task-specific small-scale models to general-purpose large language models (LLMs). With the rapid iteration of LLMs, objective, quantitative, and comprehensive evaluation of their capabilities has become a critical link in advancing technological development. Currently, the mainstream static benchmark dataset-based evaluation methods face challenges such as the diversity of task types, inconsistent evaluation criteria, and fragmentation of data and processing workflows, making it difficult to efficiently conduct cross-domain and large-scale model evaluation. To address the aforementioned issues, this paper proposes and open-sources OpenCompass, a one-stop, scalable, and high-concurrency-supported general-purpose LLM evaluation platform. Adhering to the design philosophy of modularization and component decoupling, the platform boasts three core advantages: high compatibility, flexibility, and high concurrency. The core architecture of OpenCompass comprises five key components: the Configuration System, Task Partitioning Module, Execution and Scheduling Module, Task Execution Unit, and Result Visualization Module. Its workflow provides rule-based, LLM-as-a-Judge, and cascaded evaluators to adapt to the requirements of different task scenarios. Supporting mainstream benchmark datasets across multiple domains, including knowledge, reasoning, computation, science, language, code, etc., the platform offers a unified and efficient LLM evaluation tool for both academia and industry, facilitating the accurate identification of strengths and weaknesses of LLMs as well as their subsequent optimization.

Policy evaluation is a fundamental component of the development and deployment pipeline for robotic policies. In modern manipulation systems, this problem is particularly challenging: rewards are often sparse, task progression of evaluation rollouts are often non-monotonic as the policies exhibit recovery behaviors, and evaluation rollouts are necessarily of finite length. This finite length introduces truncation bias, breaking the infinite-horizon assumptions underlying standard methods relying on Bellman equations/principle of optimality. In this work, we propose a framework for offline policy evaluation from sparse rewards based on a liveness-based Bellman operator. Our formulation interprets policy evaluation as a task-completion problem and yields a conservative fixed-point value function that is robust to finite-horizon truncation. We analyze the theoretical properties of the proposed operator, including contraction guarantees, and show how it encodes task progression while mitigating truncation bias. We evaluate our method on two simulated manipulation tasks using both a Vision-Language-Action model and a diffusion policy, and a cloth folding task using human demonstrations. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach more accurately reflects task progress and substantially reduces truncation bias, outperforming classical baselines such as TD(0) and Monte Carlo policy evaluation.

Tool-integrated reasoning has emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing large language models with external computation, retrieval, and execution capabilities. However, the field still lacks a high-quality and unified evaluation benchmark, and existing TIR evaluations remain limited in dataset quality, task diversity, diagnostic comprehensiveness, and evaluation efficiency. In this work, we introduce TIDE-Bench, a holistic and efficient benchmark for evaluating TIR methods, featuring three key advantages. First, it provides diverse task settings, combining widely used mathematical reasoning and knowledge-intensive QA tasks with two newly designed tasks, namely the tool-grounded experimental design task and the dynamic interactive task, to probe models' abilities in complex tool invocation and multi-tool coordination. Second, TIDE-Bench adopts a comprehensive yet task-aware evaluation protocol, jointly measuring final answer quality, process reliability, tool-use efficiency, and inference cost across heterogeneous task settings. Third, TIDE-Bench constructs high-quality and discriminative evaluation sets by filtering low-discrimination instances from existing datasets, substantially reducing evaluation cost while focusing on more challenging samples. Extensive experiments on multiple foundation models and TIR methods reveal persistent bottlenecks in tool grounding, offering insights for future TIR research.

Evaluating literary quality requires assessing interpretive dimensions such as cultural representation, emotional depth, and philosophical sophistication that resist straightforward computational measurement. We introduce SAGE, a hierarchical evaluation framework that decomposes literary quality into ontology-grounded interpretive dimensions assessed through structured large language model evaluation with multi-round iterative reflection and independent validation. We validate the framework on 100 short stories (50 canonical works, 30 pulp fiction, 20 LLM-generated narratives) across three analytical layers (cultural, emotional-psychological, existential-philosophical) using dual-mode assessment. Across 600 evaluations, the framework achieves 98.8% score convergence and greater than 94% inter-rater agreement, with near-perfect mode invariance between content-based and metadata-based evaluation. Statistical analysis reveals a consistent genre hierarchy (Canonical > Pulp > LLM, all p<0.001) with layer-specific discrimination: cultural critique and philosophical depth exhibit very large effect sizes (Cohen's d>2.4), while emotional representation shows smaller gaps (d=1.68), suggesting that affective patterns are more learnable from training data than critical stance or philosophical depth. Cross-layer correlations (r=0.649-0.683) confirm the three dimensions capture empirically distinguishable quality facets. These findings demonstrate that theory-driven LLM evaluation can achieve measurement-grade reliability and support systematic identification of where current generative models fall short of human literary production, with direct implications for scalable automated evaluation of open-ended text generation.

This work studies the robust evaluation of iterative stochastic purification defenses under white-box adversarial attacks. Our key technical insight is that gradient checkpointing makes exact end-to-end gradient computation through long purification trajectories practical by trading additional recomputation for substantially lower memory usage. This enables full-gradient adaptive attacks against diffusion- and Langevin-based purification defenses, where prior evaluations often resort to approximate backpropagation due to memory constraints. These approximations can weaken the attack signal and risk overestimating robustness. In parallel, stochasticity in iterative purification is frequently under-controlled, even though different purification trajectories can substantially change reported robustness metrics. Building on this insight, we introduce a memory-efficient full-gradient evaluation framework for stochastic purification defenses. The framework combines checkpointed backpropagation with evaluation protocols that control stochastic variability, thereby reducing memory bottlenecks while preserving exact gradients. We evaluate diffusion-based purification and Langevin sampling with Energy-Based Models (EBMs), demonstrating that full-gradient attacks uncover vulnerabilities missed by approximate-gradient evaluations. Our framework yields stronger state-of-the-art $\ell_{\infty}$ and $\ell_{2}$ white-box attacks and further supports probing out-of-distribution robustness. Overall, our results show that exact-gradient evaluation is essential for reliable benchmarking of iterative stochastic defenses.

Evaluation of long-form, citation-backed reports has lately received significant attention due to the wide-scale adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Core to many evaluation frameworks is the use of atomic facts, or nuggets, to assess a report's coverage of query-relevant information attested in the underlying collection. While nuggets have traditionally been represented as short statements, recent work has used question-answer (QA) representations, enabling fine-grained evaluations that decouple the information need (i.e. the question) from the potentially diverse content that satisfies it (i.e. its answers). A persistent challenge for nugget-based evaluation is the need to manually curate sets of nuggets for each topic in a test collection -- a laborious process that scales poorly to novel information needs. This challenge is acute in cross-lingual settings, where information is found in multilingual source documents. Accordingly, we introduce DoGMaTiQ, a pipeline for generating high-quality QA-based nugget sets in three stages: (1) document-grounded nugget generation, (2) paraphrase clustering, and (3) nugget subselection based on principled quality criteria. We integrate DoGMaTiQ nuggets with AutoArgue -- a recent nugget-based evaluation framework -- to enable fully automatic evaluation of generated reports. We conduct extensive experiments on two cross-lingual TREC shared tasks, NeuCLIR and RAGTIME, showing strong rank correlations with both human-in-the-loop and fully manual judgments. Finally, detailed analysis of our pipeline reveals that a strong LLM nugget generator is key, and that the system rankings induced by DoGMaTiQ are robust to outlier systems. We facilitate future research in report evaluation by publicly releasing our code and artifacts at https://github.com/manestay/dogmatiq.

Text-to-SQL (T2SQL) evaluation in production environments poses fundamental challenges that existing benchmarks do not address. Current evaluation methodologies whether rule-based SQL matching or schema-dependent semantic parsers assume access to ground-truth queries and structured database schema, constraints that are rarely satisfied in real-world deployments. This disconnect leaves production T2SQL agents largely unevaluated beyond developer-time testing, creating silent quality degradation with no feedback mechanism for continuous improvement. We present STEF (Schema-agnostic Text-to-SQL Evaluation Framework), a production-native evaluation system that operates exclusively on natural language inputs the user question, an enriched reformulation, and the generated SQL without requiring database schema or reference queries. STEF extracts semantic specifications from both natural language and SQL representations, performs normalized feature alignment, and produces an interpretable 0 to 100 accuracy score via a composite metric that encompasses filter alignment, semantic verdict, and confidence of the evaluator. Key contributions include: enriched question quality validation as a first-class evaluation signal, configurable application-specific rule injection via prompt templating, and production-robust normalization handling GROUP BY tolerance, ORDER BY defaults, and LIMIT heuristics. Empirical results demonstrate that STEF enables continuous production monitoring and agent improvement feedback loops without schema dependency, making structured query evaluation viable at scale for the first time.

AI-for-Science (AI4Science) is increasingly transforming scientific discovery by embedding machine learning models into prediction, simulation, and hypothesis generation workflows across domains. However, the effectiveness of these models is fundamentally constrained by the AI-readiness of scientific data, for which no scalable and systematic evaluation mechanism currently exists. In this work, we propose SciHorizon-DataEVA, a novel agentic system to scalable AI-readiness evaluation of heterogeneous scientific data. At the evaluation-criteria level, we introduce the Sci-TQA2 principles, which organize AI-readiness into four complementary dimensions: Governance Trustworthiness, Data Quality, AI Compatibility, and Scientific Adaptability. Each dimension is decomposed into measurable atomic elements that enable fine-grained and executable assessment. To operationalize these principles at scale, we develop Sci-TQA2-Eval, a hierarchical multi-agent evaluation approach orchestrated through a directed, cyclic workflow. Our Sci-TQA2-Eval dynamically constructs dataset-aware evaluation specifications by combining lightweight dataset profiling, applicability-aware metric activation, and knowledge-augmented planning grounded in domain constraints and dataset-paper signals. These specifications are executed through an adaptive, tool-centric evaluation mechanism with built-in verification and self-correction, enabling scalable and reliable assessment across heterogeneous scientific data. Extensive experiments on scientific datasets spanning multiple domains demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of SciHorizon-DataEVA for principled AI-readiness evaluation.

Reliable evaluation of large language model (LLM)-generated summaries remains an open challenge, particularly across heterogeneous domains and document lengths. We conduct a comprehensive meta-evaluation of 14 automatic summarization metrics and LLM-based evaluators across seven datasets spanning five domains, covering documents from short news articles to long scientific, governmental, and legal texts (2K-27K words) with over 1,500 human-annotated summaries. Our results show that traditional lexical overlap metrics (e.g., ROUGE, BLEU) exhibit weak or negative correlation with human judgments, while task-specific neural metrics and LLM-based evaluators achieve substantially higher alignment, especially for linguistic quality assessment. Leveraging these findings, we propose LLM-ReSum, a self-reflective summarization framework that integrates LLM-based evaluation and generation in a closed feedback loop without model finetuning. Across three domains, LLM-ReSum improves low-quality summaries by up to 33% in factual accuracy and 39% in coverage, with human evaluators preferring refined summaries in 89% of cases. We additionally introduce PatentSumEval, a new human-annotated benchmark for legal document summarization comprising 180 expert-evaluated summaries. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub.